Marc Thiessen:

Congressional Republicans are backing away from legislation banning “bump stocks” – devices used by Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock that effectively turn semi-automatic rifles into machine guns – and are turning to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to ban them by executive action instead.

“We think the regulatory fix is the smartest, quickest fix, and then, frankly, we’d like to know how it happened in the first place,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., said in a news conference last week.

Ryan is wrong. Empowering ATF to ban firearms devices without explicit authorization from Congress is a far greater threat to the Second Amendment than any legislation Congress could pass.

In 2010, under President Barack Obama, ATF ruled that “bump-fire” stocks were legal under current federal law, declaring in a letter to manufacturer Slide Fire: “We find that the ‘bump-stock’ is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.” This was a proper, limited reading of our gun laws.

So far so good.  He’s right, of course.  Asking the ATF to ban bump stocks is asking the ATF to take the fall for infringement of the second amendment, an action that neither the Congress nor the NRA wants to be responsible for.  That’s why both have asked the ATF to do their dirty work for them.

Now Republicans want ATF to simply overturn its 2010 determination that bump stocks are legal – effectively banning them by executive fiat. Do conservatives really want to set the precedent that ATF can ban firearms or firearm devices without explicit authorization from Congress? Imagine what Hillary Clinton would have done with that power as president.

If ATF takes such action, it could set a precedent for other executive action on guns without explicit congressional authorization. A future Democratic president could use this precedent to have ATF reclassify all semi-automatic weapons as machine guns. They would argue, correctly, that you don’t actually need a bump-fire stock to produce a bump-fire effect. It can be accomplished with rubber bands or a belt loop, or even without any external device by a skilled marksman.

So, gun-control advocates could argue, all semi-automatic weapons are really in fact automatic guns – and thus banned under the 1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. They could use an ATF ruling banning bump stocks as precedent for a back-door reimposition of the so-called assault weapons ban.

For the party that railed against Obama’s unlawful executive actions on immigration and other issues to now urge President Donald Trump to take unlawful executive actions on guns that even Obama refused to take is stunning.

The better option is to pass limited, carefully crafted legislation to ban these devices. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and 38 Senate Democrats have introduced the Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act that would “ban the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle’s rate of fire.” According to Feinstein, the bill “makes clear that its intent is to target only those accessories that increase a semi-automatic rifle’s rate of fire.”

Oh, well if she said it, it must be true.  The progressives really don’t want to target anything else beyond bump stocks.  And of course, Marc Thiessen was the former Bush speech writer.  Neither Marc nor Bush are conservative, any more than the “conservatives” he criticizes in his commentary.

And it’s no accident that you see a former Bush speech writer aligning himself with a proposed bill by Dianne Feinstein and other Senate democrats.  But we should thank Marc for the commentary.  At one and the same time, he demonstrated both the cowardliness and the traitorous spirit of “conservatives” in America.  Afraid to do what they want, and wanting to infringe on the only covenant that binds the nation together.  What a loathsome bunch.

This is a bracing video, via JB’s Sanctuary.

Outdoor Life:

Gunsite Academy teaches that once you’ve reloaded your handgun, you should point your thumb toward your chest and grasp the slide between your thumb and all four fingers. Then you should forcefully pull the slide to the rear and release. This will disengage the slide stop, and as the slide goes forward, it will chamber a cartridge from the new and fully loaded magazine you’ve just inserted. Instructors who advocate using the slide stop as a slide release argue that it’s faster. It probably is. Others, like those at Gunsite, who teach releasing the slide by pulling it to the rear, suggest that pushing down on the slide stop with your thumb is a fine motor skill, and that fine motor skills can deteriorate when you’re under stress. They can and do.

I’m sure it depends upon what you’ve learned and practiced your whole life.  That said, when I first began shooting pistols I used the slide stop / slide release to chamber the new round.  I found that I didn’t like the movement of the pistol when I did that, and that in order to move my thumb around to get good contact with the slide stop, I had to change my grip ever so slightly, loosing “purchase” on the gun.

I almost never use the slide stop now.  I grab the slide and cycle it.  And for whatever reason, I hate the phrase “rack the slide.”  I prefer the phrase “cycle the slide,” although it’s not a complete cycle when it’s merely released from the stop.  So maybe I should use the term “release the slide” if it’s not a full cycle.

What do readers do?

As always, John is a nice guy and knowledgeable to boot.  I do have two comments about the video though.

First of all, I’ve run pistols with fiber optic sights for a long time, and I’ve never once seen them crack, fall out or break.  I give them much more credit than he seems to.  Plus, I really do like the way the optics jump out at you when you present.  And I couldn’t really care less what police in America use.

Second, I’ve also presented in the dark with use of a weapon-mounted light before, and the argument that “if you have enough light to properly identify the target, you can see you pistol sights,” doesn’t hold water with me.  The pistol sights are behind the light.  You can always point-and-shoot, but that’s an inferior option to aiming.

I have no experience with red dot pistol sights.  If some company wanted to send me one (Trijicon?), I would be more than happy to give it a review.

Sebastian:

Joan Peterson’s shout out in frustration should be exhibit A for why nothing changes after public mass shootings:

The cynical and evil leadership of the NRA suggested that they may be able to support a ban on bump fire stocks. NOT. Not even that very small measure will pass muster with this group of disingenuous group of guys who represent the industry that sells these things.

There’s not even an acknowledgement that perhaps your side has drafted something that’s very broadly worded, and sweeps up far more items than merely bump stocks. Some will no doubt argue the broad language is done out of malice rather than out of ignorance. But whichever way it goes, the language of these bills is unacceptable. Show me some acceptable language, and we can make a deal. But with this? No deal. They honestly can’t help themselves:

So Speaker Ryan and Republicans in control of our country- what say you? Shame on them all. We need much more than a ban on bump fire stocks.

What we need is a comprehensive bill to make America safe again, including a ban on bump fire stocks, a reduction in the number of bullets in an ammunition magazine, a ban on certain types of assault rifles and the accompanying features that can be added to make them more deadly, universal Brady background checks, research into the causes and effects of gun violence, adequate funding for the ATF, stronger straw purchasing and gun trafficking laws, mandatory training before owning or carrying a gun, mandatory secure storage of guns, child access prevention laws, gun violence protection orders, limiting who can carry a loaded weapon around in public, and yes, perhaps even a system of gun registration.

Remember what I predicted in the beginning? A deal will be offered. The deal with be rejected, because whatever X is offered isn’t what the other side really wants. It will force them to show their hand, it will fire our people up and they will get nothing in the end.

After Sandy Hook, gun folks put out an initial offer on universal background checks, that would have provided a technological means for private parties to conduct them. That offer was rejected, and they overreached, got defeated, tried to put together that last-minute awful compromise in the form of Manchin-Toomey, and by that time the issue was so toxic, the only thing that could be agreed on was nothing.

So I predicted the same thing would happen this time. The gun control people were offered bump stocks, because we don’t really care that much about them and we have a stalled agenda we really do care about. But they aren’t interested in bump stocks. They want the whole kit and caboodle, and they can’t get it, they’ll take their ball and go home.

Well, we’ll see what happens.  The GOP is weak and spineless, along with having no moral constitution, scruples or coherent world view.  But in my estimation it’s always wrong to compromise on a right.

I don’t recall there being any discussion about whether the gun owning community at large likes or dislikes a particular product being the basis for our rights, or whether we think it can be used accurately to shoot anything.  Likes, dislikes, accuracy and functionality – these are all the things of free market capitalism, not law.

I doubt Sebastian would be so willing to compromise on something he cherished that others didn’t particularly like, just because they didn’t feel the same way he did.

WKTV:

Ilion Mayor Terry Leonard tells us he received word Wednesday from the plant manager that Remington will enact involuntary furloughs due to market conditions and high inventory levels. Leonard says days will be taken out of the production schedule.

It’s hard to see how Remington pulls out of this slump.  Many manufacturers are hurting at the moment, but Remington is dealing with (a) declining quality [so I am told, I have no Remington firearms], (b) the Walker Fire Control System, and (c) union labor.

The best thing I could recommend is to close up shop in New York, move the entirety of their operations South, and focus on quality.

Oh, and as for that ridiculous Sandy Hook lawsuit that just won’t go away, fight it, but rather than expend legal fees, stay out of the state and never sell another product in Connecticut, which is what they want anyway.  Hell, I wish every firearms manufacturer would refuse to sell in Connecticut, starting with the police.

By the way, we’ve yet to see even a single death certificate for any alleged Sandy Hook shooting victims.  Remember that.

The Daily Journal:

Radio talk show host and TV commentator Hugh Hewitt is among a growing number of conservatives calling for monitoring the stockpiling of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices similar to how Sudafed is controlled.

Hewitt calls for photo IDs and records of purchases on firearm ammunition following the Oct. 1 shootings in Las Vegas that left 58 dead and 489 people wounded.

“If people buy a lot of ammunition in a short period of time, this should trigger a red flag with law enforcement,” said Hewitt on the NBC “Meet the Press” show on Oct. 8.

Monitoring ammunition stockpiling would be a way to let stockpilers know that law enforcement is keeping an eye on them. However, no guns or ammunition would be confiscated.

Officers who entered the room of the 32nd hotel floor used by the shooter were shocked to see the amount of weapons and ammunition the shooter had stockpiled. His victims were those who gathered nearby at the Harvest Country Music Festival.

Sudafed is regulated because pseudoephedrine, the active ingredient in some forms of medication, can be used to create the street drug methamphetamine, or crystal meth.

The federal act sets daily and monthly limits on how much of the active drug a person can buy.

When it comes to firearms and ammunition, there is no federal limit to how much a person like the Las Vegas shooter can buy, nor is there a national database of purchases.

A 1994 federal law, which expired a decade later in 2004, defined a large-capacity ammunition feeding device as a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

“Gun control won’t work but ammo monitoring could,” says John Carnes, conservative author and firearms expert.

Twice you read it in the commentary above.  “Conservative” host Hugh Hewitt.  “Conservative author and firearms expert” John Carnes.  Actually, he somewhat misrepresents the gist of John’s article, who says this.

People should oppose gun control restrictions and registration requirements, but we shouldn’t let these turn our eyes from the existential threat of ammunition control. If ammunition printing ever becomes as cheap and effective as printing firearms parts currently is, then we can all rest assured that the right to keep and bear arms will never again be as infringed as it is today. Until that day comes, ammunition controls may be the most effective form of gun control.

He didn’t misrepresent Hewitt, apparently.  I never really thought Hugh Hewitt was a conservative.  But it does go to show that even the supposed conservatives are giving you up (case in point, the NRA, whose willingness to compromise empowered the controllers, who saw nothing but weakness).  They don’t care about your rights, whether firearms or the ammunition to use in them.

I know, I know.  The Supreme Court may block such rules and regulations, but they may not.  They didn’t block the assault weapons ban, and Heller was a weak enough decision that it may even be used to bolster the ammunition control case.

I think a lot of people sense that the one weakness our community has is ammunition.  This isn’t any different than it’s always been.  Consider this report, the only significant piece of information in an otherwise stupid article.

“Everybody I know is stockpiling ammo,” said Allen, who came from Sacramento, as he carried a plastic bag bulging with bullets and gun parts. He declined to give his last name.

Sure, fight this in the political arena, fight this in the courts, and fight it in the town square and court of public opinion.  But never assume you’re going to win.  If at first we lose, the winning will come later.

Prior: Gun Control Through Ammunition Control

The Hill:

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill ClintonBill ClintonAll five living former presidents to attend hurricane relief concertThe Hill’s 12:30 ReportThe Hill’s 12:30 ReportMORE’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonChris Murphy’s profile rises with gun tragediesDNC, RNC step up cyber protectionsGun proposal picks up GOP supportMORE served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.

The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.

This is all well known to my readers.  No, not in this sordid level of detail, but we have indeed discussed Uranium One and how the Clintons were implicated in quid pro quo for donations to The Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative.  There is even more at stake than Uranium.  There is a lot of gold at stake too, and while the media was focused on the occupation at Malheur, I told you that this was about something else.

That was almost two years ago.  I listened to one TV commentator tonight (I rarely watch TV, normally not once per month or two) who whined and bitched about how bad this is, and how “unbelievable” this whole thing was.  Here is the truth.  This commentator, and every Senator, and every member of the House, and everyone inside the beltway, and the former DoJ and FBI heads, including Eric Holder and Robert Mueller, and without a doubt Obama too, knew all of this.

This wasn’t hidden except to anyone except soccer moms and football fans who wear idiotic jerseys representing their favorite thug.  Every thinking man knew all about this.  The fact that this all came out in The Hill today means that they can’t ignore it any longer, and so there is safe harbor into which the chattering class and politicians can sail.

My words for you, chattering class and politicians, is that you are all a bunch of bitchy, cowardly, whiny, scared little chicken shits who would sell their own mothers, wife and children into slavery if it meant being accepted by the elitists.  You disgust me, one and all.  Furthermore, you DoJ and FBI employees who knew all about this, I feel the same way about you.  You disgust me, one and all.

Not only will this effect this nation’s access to important nuclear material for weapons, it will also effect the supply of fuel for commercial nuclear reactors used for peaceful, clean, reliable energy for your children and children’s children.

There ought to be hemp rope and lamp posts for all of these traitors.  Every one of them.

David Codrea:

Focus the protection of the Second Amendment on keeping nonmilitary arms at home for self-defense, while putting an escalating standard of protection on other kinds of arms and uses …  If individuals want to own semi-automatic assault weapons, either as collectors or for practice shooting, then enforce a provision that such weapons can only be kept at legally registered shooting ranges or other registered depositories, and cannot be removed from the designated premises.

To the author of this silly piece, Jeff Sachs, I only have one thing to say.  Any time you feel froggy.  Go ahead and come after my guns any time you feel like you have a chance.  Oh, I see, you intend to send others to do the dirty work for you?  That “enforce” thing might get a lot of people in serious trouble, and I don’t mean us gun owners.

Kitup at Military.com.

The U.S. Army’s chief of staff recently made a bold promise that future soldiers will be armed with weapons capable of delivering far greater lethality than any existing small arms.

[ … ]

As Milley was speaking, Textron Systems officials were showing off their new Intermediate Case-Telescoped Carbine, chambered for 6.5mm on the AUSA exhibition floor.

Textron’s cased-telescoped ammunition relies on a plastic case rather than a brass one to hold the propellant and the projectile, like a conventional shotgun shell.

The ICTC is a closed bolt, forward feed, gas piston operated weapon, weighing 8.3 pounds. The 6.5mm case-telescoped ammunition weighs 35 percent less and offers 30 percent more lethality than 7.62mm x 51mm brass ammunition, Textron officials maintain.

“I think the most important thing is what we have been able to do with the intermediate caliber, the 6.5mm in this case,” Wayne Prender, vice president of Textron’s Control & Surface Systems Unmanned Systems told Military.com. “We are able to not only provide a weight reduction … and all the things that come with it – we are also able to provide increased lethality because of the ability to use a more appropriate round.”

Textron officials maintain they are using a low-drag “representative” 6.5mm bullet while U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, or ARDEC, is developing the actual projectile.

“We actually used three different bullet shapes and we scaled it,” said Paul Shipley, program manager for of Unmanned Systems. “We scaled 5.56mm up, we scaled 7.62mm down and took a low-drag shape and ran that between the two” to create the 125 grain 6.5mm bullet that’s slightly longer than the Army’s new 130 grain M80A1 Enhanced Performance Round.

Textron officials maintain that the new round retains more energy at 1,200 meters than the M80A1. At that distance, the 6.5mm has an impact-energy of 300 foot pounds compared to the M80A1 which comes in at about 230 foot pounds of energy, Textron officials maintain.

“The increased lethality we are referring to has to do with the energy down range,” Shipley said. “You can take whatever kind of bullet you want, compare them and it’s going to have increased energy down range.”

Okay, so let me get this straight.  The Army doesn’t know how to shoot as it is, and while focusing on racial diversity, gender issues, gays in the military, women in combat arms, and declining physical standards, are going to teach young boys and girls in the “Big Army” how to shoot 1200 meters with a battle rifle that will have a larger punch (to the shooter), be more physically demanding to shoot, and have no civilian analogue?

Consider.  Most of the real advancements to weapons design are made in the civilian market.  PMags came from the civilian market.  The 6.5mm Creedmoor came from the civilian market.  Less weighty rails and barrel shrouds came from the civilian market.  I could go on, but you get the point.  The military is the beneficiary of what happens in the civilian world, no vice versa (this is one reason I think that the limitation on civilian ownership of machine guns will eventually weaken the military, because no one is designing an open bolt system that gets vetted by the civilian market).

If you’re in the military, you use what you’re given.  If you are not, you get to spend your money however you want, and you do the research necessary to find the best product that meets your needs.   Innovation is driven in the market, not by the military.  If a company designs a poor product for the civilian market, it gets called crap ten thousand times over the forums and people don’t buy it.  The company goes out of business.

I see much pain if big army goes down this road.  They will have recoil issues, parts breakage, no one to whom they can turn for counsel who has actually shot this thing before, ammunition problems, accuracy problems, and on and on it goes.  I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.  If the military wanted this to work, they would have to vet it in the civilian market first.

But it all looks like a solution in search of a problem to me.