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]
Tomorrow is trash day, and I always roll the cans out. Sometimes I have to roll the trash out of this web site too. Keith Perkins, of Bangor, Maine, at 74.75.216.62, kperkins257@gmail.com, made an ass of himself today at this post.
I did what I always do with those I suspect of being trolls. I gave him enough rope to prove it. He started by insulting my readers. He moved from there to demand that I stop covering politics and religion, asked me if I was “willfully ignorant,” and then made ridiculous claims, viz. “Christians burn Christian churches all the time …” He finished by refusing to substantiate his claims, but demanding that I substantiate some claims that I supposedly made but cannot locate.
The original intent and import of the post is salient and important. With the coming Islamic invasion, those of you who are “cross worshipers” (you know that’s how they refer to you, right?) will have to consider how you protect your families, homes and churches. Their Mosques are considered by them to be armories and forts, preparing them for battle and logistically sustaining them. That’s why they had no problem emplacing weapons of all kinds in them during OIF.
As for Keith, he is a liar. He didn’t really come to TCJ for firearms news and tutorials like he said, he came as a troll. He also lied about not coming back because our views clash. He did come back. His email and IP address is banned now. It’s always a smelly job to carry the trash out, but someone has to do it.
In tonight’s debate, Hillary said this: “What the District of Columbia was trying to do was protect toddlers from guns.”
Here is the URL to the Heller decision. Here is the URL to the oral arguments. Extra credit to any reader who can find reference to the words “toddler,” “baby,” or “child” anywhere in the decision or oral arguments. Hint: CTRL-F works for PDF. Take it away folks.
This is an interesting drill. I imagine that the point is that you have suffered an injury during close quarters battle and need to reload. I don’t of any range anywhere I have ever gone to where you would be allowed to do something like this. Obviously, he has his own private range.
At our Urban Rifle (Carbine) Courses, most students bring ARs, as you might imagine, but we see dozens of other types/brands, some of which I was heretofore only marginally aware, so many are the companies, worldwide, making small arms today.
But my colleagues and I, Dave Spaulding, Tom Givens, Mas Ayoob, James Yeager, Frank Sharpe, Manny Kapelsohn, Jeff Chudwin, Clint Smith, Freddie Blish, et al continue to see repeated handling errors, which during a genuine encounter for which we train, will be fatal!
Some students pick it up right away. Others fumble repeatedly. Most “get it” eventually, training themselves to avoid common AR rifle handling errors!
We instruct students to grab the 30-round magazine (which most use) with the support-side hand as they would a pop-can and smartly insert it into the magazine well. Then, strike the bottom of the newly-inserted magazine. Then, grab it and tug downward, trying to pull it back out.
When the magazine stays in place, it’s good to go.
Conversely, when it comes right back out again, it was never locked in place correctly!
I’m not trying to cast doubt on experts and their recommendations for gun handling, but perhaps this has to do with poor quality guns and poor quality magazines. But I’ve put thousands upon thousands of rounds through ARs, and I’ve never once had a magazine fail to seat, and I don’t routinely strike the magazine on the bottom.
By mounting the light directly on the barrel, he’s adding a secondary harmonic, possibly exacerbating a primary node or creating an anti-node, or creating nodes completely out of sync with other nodes, and fundamentally changing the way the barrel vibrates. Someone needs to tell him to remove the light and figure out another way.
Circa 1650 – The Kalthoff Repeating Flintlock: As Mike Blessing explains, the Kalthoff Repeating Flintlock came into production in the 1650s, seeing combat in the Siege of Copenhagen in 1659 and later during the Scanian War of 1675 to 1679 — 132 and 116 years, respectively, before the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. While manufacturing and repair costs kept the Kalthoff out of mass production, it represents the reality that “high capacity” firearms are not a contemporary concept, as some models of the Kalthoff boasted magazines of up to 30 rounds – the same number of rounds in a true standard-capacity AR-15 magazine of today.
Circa 1750 – The Cookson Volitional Repeating Flintlock: A lever-action breech-loading repeater, is one of many similar designs to make an appearance on the world stage beginning in the 17th century. The revolutionary mechanism at the heart of the Cookson repeater dates from 1680 and was originally known in Europe as the Lorenzoni System, named for Italian gunsmith Michele Lorenzoni of Florence. Long arms utilizing this system were produced in other European nations and in the United States until about 1849. The Cookson rifle dates from 1750 and features a two-chamber horizontally mounted rotating drum. After firing the rifle, the cycling process could be repeated until the two magazines, with their seven-shot capacities, were empty. Although other breech loading rifles were introduced in later years, the Cookson-type long arms were unique in their ability to fire multiple shots without reloading.
1777 – The Belton Repeating Flintlock: Philadelphian Joseph Belton’s repeating flintlock design reportedly boasted a 16-to-20 shot capacity, using the superposed load mechanism. Sources indicate there was correspondence between the inventor and the Continental Congress in 1777, as the he had reportedly been commissioned by the Congress to build 100 of his repeaters for the U.S. military, with the order being dismissed solely for cost purposes. This discussion presents strong evidence that the founding fathers were perfectly able to conceive of “high capacity” repeating firearms.
1782-1804 – The Nock Volley Gun: The close quarters of Naval warfare demanded a powerful, yet compact firearm that could provide abundant firepower. The Nock Volley gun fired seven shots all at once from seven clustered bores. This powerful rifle was issued nine years before the dawn on the Second Amendment.
They left out the wonderful Girandoni air rifle.
This is a wonderful and interesting rundown of the semi-automatic firearms available prior to and immediately after the war of independence. Go read the NRA Blog article for more detail, as well as the context. But I’ve explained the second amendment properly interpreted before (at least in my own view).
The second amendment discusses the right to bear arms and be free of federal interference in the context of the states’ desire to keep that interference from happening. That is the historical milieu in which it was written. The founders only needed one excuse to prevent federal government interference with the states on firearms, and they chose the most likely and obvious choice, i.e., the militia. The second amendment is not a treatise on the foundation of liberty.
It’s an illogical jump to cast that as the only reason for the right to own and bear arms. If you had discussed regulation on the right to own and use a tool of their trade to protect their families, hunt, and ameliorate tyranny with a colonial man, he would have buried you under the remotest prison. God gave us our rights based on man being created in His image and the expected duty to work and subdue the earth to His glory. The militia was a convenient excuse for a certain clause in one part of the constitution. Limiting our rights to our understanding of that clause is a mistake.
We don’t “hide behind” the second amendment. It doesn’t grant us the right to own weapons. God does that Himself. The constitution is a covenant between men for how they will live together. Like all covenants, there are promises and curses.
Look folks, if our wise founders had wanted the citizenry armed with inferior weapons to the king, they would never have said the things they did, fomented a revolution, or hid behind trees and killed, only to melt into the woods and mountains to kill another day, fighting a war of insurgency like none which had gone before it.
The founders ensured a covenant that codified man’s rights to firearms for the purpose not only self defense (which is assumed but left unaddressed by the second amendment), but for the second amendment remedy against tyranny. There is no other sensible way to see it.
I notice that Kyle doesn’t shoot his rifle with the “aggressive plates forward” stance that seems to be popular these days. I’m not saying you have to, but that’s how I was taught and I find it comfortable with AR-15s. Of course, not so with bolt action hunting rifles or shotguns.
I’ve shot thousands and thousands and thousands of rounds through pistols, and I’ve never had this malfunction (perhaps because I only try to shoot higher quality firearms and ammunition). I’m very down on low quality ammunition, and I look on it sort of like putting cheap oil in your engine. Also, I’m very observant of my magazines, and try to keep them clean. But if you are subject to this failure, he gives you a way out.
By now you’ve heard that Judge Barbara Bellis dismissed the case against Remington. Good. But she should have done this long ago. The only people who got rich here were the lawyers. I have no desire to analyze what she said. It’s a waste of my time.
Early on she said the law “does not prevent lawyers for the families of Sandy Hook victims from arguing that the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians.” Now she says it does. Here’s my analysis. She has her sights set on higher things, and wants eventually to be considered for some higher judicial post. She can’t make an idiotic ruling that gets reversed by the Supreme Court of Connecticut or the United States and keep that hope alive. I suspect this was entirely self serving.