Springfield News-Leader:

Answer Man! I was sitting in Mr. Smith’s Fast Lube on Sunshine Street, waiting while I was getting my oil changed. A man entered with a holstered handgun on his hip. He was getting his oil changed, too, and sat next to me. He seemed nervous and I was concerned about the gun. Is this legal in Springfield? — Joey Pulleyking, of Springfield

The short answer, Joey, is that in Missouri the man had the legal right to openly carry a firearm into the business.

The answer is nuanced. Since there’s such great interest in guns in the Ozarks, I’m going to explore your question further, Joey. For example, I interviewed two Springfield men who openly carry. I’ll get to them later.

Over at Mr. Smith’s, I learned the owner is not a Mr. Smith. The owner goes by the name of Earl, although he is not an Earl, either.

His name is Scott Mather. When I walk into his business, he recognizes me: “Hey, Answer Man, need an oil change? Mr. Smith’s Fast Lube loves your car as much as you do.”

I tell him my car appreciates the love, but no thanks on the oil change.

Instead, I ask how he feels about customers bringing firearms into his business. In Missouri, you don’t need a permit or firearms training to openly carry (but you do if you conceal the weapon).

First, he says, rarely does he see anyone openly carry in one of his shops.

“If people want to do that, they can do that,” he says.

That’s why he does not post a “No Guns” or “No Firearms” sign at his businesses.

According to state law, business owners who don’t want guns on their property must post a sign at least 11 inches by 14 inches in a conspicuous place. The letters on the sign must be at least one inch in height. (Business owners cannot prohibit people from leaving their guns in their car in the parking lot.)

A business owner who prohibits firearms — and then spots a customer with one — must then ask the person to leave and return without the weapon. If the person refuses to exit, the owner can call police, and the person with the gun can be charged with trespassing, a misdemeanor.

[ … ]

Jim Arnott, Greene County sheriff, first wants to make something clear.

“I don’t want it to come out that I am against open carry,” he says.

He’s not. But … “I am a big advocate of concealed carry.

“If they open carry to defend themselves or to intervene in a situation — the first person that the bad guy is going to take care of is the guy with his gun on his hip.”

Arnott says most people he knows conceal carry to maintain the element of surprise.

“The coach of a football team is not going to give up his plays to the other team,” he says.

If you open carry, Arnott says, there’s also a chance people will see your firearm and quickly call police.

So with this in mind, I have a number of things puzzling me.  Let me get right to it.

First, I hear that all the time, i.e., this meme that the first person an active shooter will seek out is the person who is open carrying.  I monitor news reports all the time, as you can imagine of a gun blogger.  I have never seen a news report of an active shooter, robber, criminal, or other ne’er-do-well entering a building and seeking out people with open carry weapons.  You spoke with such authority on the matter, I assume you have some evidence of your claim.  Can you share that evidence with us?

Second, if you believe that, I assume that you have a department policy that your officers conceal carry and wear plains clothes, except for the badge on their belts so people can identify them?  I mean, so active shooters won’t seek them out and so they can hide their game plays?

Third, you say you aren’t against open carry, but in fact you seemed to spend a good deal of effort to dissuade folks in your area from openly carrying.  Why did you do that if you’re not opposed to open carry?

Fourth, is it a good thing if I ensure that I’m the last person an active shooter seeks out?  I have given it some thought in the light of John 15:13, and I have concluded that it would be fairly unseemly, cowardly and dishonorable of me to sit back and say, “Crap, I hope he takes out that woman or kid over there instead of me!  I wanted to watch that show on TV tonight!”  I’m not sure I could live with myself if I decided to slink away and retreat in the face of danger to women and children around me.  In fact, I’m not sure I mind the fact that I’m the first one he confronts, since I’m likely the only one in the vicinity who has planned for this and thought about it a great deal.  I try to keep my head on a swivel, as I’ve discussed many times before.

Do you agree, or would you advocate being the last one to die?

Via Uncle, this from Dearborn:

Khalil Abu-Rayyan, 21, was being watched by the feds since May 2015.

He was even having online conversations with an undercover FBI agent.

“I tried to shoot up a church one day,” Abu-Rayyan posted. “It’s one of the biggest ones in Detroit. I had it planned out. I bought a bunch of bullets. I practiced reloading and unloading.”

[ … ]

The complaint filed in federal court doesn’t specify which Detroit church he was allegedly planning to attack, only that it was close and could seat 6,000 members.

The complaint quotes Abu-Rayyan saying:

“It’s easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus it would make the news. Everybody would’ve heard. Honestly I regret not doing it. If I can’t do jihad in the Middle East, I would do my jihad over here.”

I’m not surprised that this almost occurred in Dearborn, but it could have occurred anywhere.  Folks, I’ve covered it until I’m exhausted covering it.  Search my religion category for the details of pastors who hate their flocks and would rather see them perish than allow they to carry in worship.  Forget that the jihadist doesn’t understand what a church is (the church is the people, the building they meet in is just that – a building, not a church).

This jihadist understands this much.  When you attend a worship service, in most liturgies, even ones which are atypical, you are a sitting duck, you and your whole family.

You are sitting down, with people in front of you, people behind you, and people to the side of you.  Means of egress, evasion and escape are limited to non-existent.  The attention of most people is focused on the front, on one man or a choir, or in the singing of Psalms, Hymns and spiritual songs, rather than on potential security threats.  This isn’t an argument for not going to worship.  This is an argument for going armed, with your head on a swivel.

And no, a few security people armed with BaoFeng UV-5R comms gear and acting ever so earnest cannot stop a shooter.  You need to carry in worship.  Please, please hear me when I say this.  You need to carry in worship.  If other people don’t, that heightens your responsibility.  If other people are preoccupied, you need to be extra diligent.  Please carry guns in worship.  And if this is disallowed, make your pastor understand, or do it anyway, or change churches.  It’s that important.

The Des Moines Register:

Apparently, some members of the Iowa Legislature have far too much time on their hands.

Despite all of the pressing issues facing lawmakers, including school funding and water quality, some of them are pursuing legislation that would make it legal for Iowans to carry loaded firearms while driving or riding on all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles.

Currently, Iowa law prohibits firearms on ATVs and snowmobiles unless the weapons are unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case.

The law exists not only to protect people from bullets accidentally fired as these vehicles bounce over rough terrain, but to discourage hunting from moving vehicles. Under a separate Iowa law, one can use a snowmobile or ATV to go hunting in Iowa, but it is illegal for hunters to use the vehicles to chase game, or to assist in taking the animals.

Amazingly, some Republican lawmakers think — or claim to think — that this restriction infringes on people’s constitutional right to defend themselves. Last week, a House subcommittee chaired by Rep. Brian Best, a Republican lawmaker from Glidden, approved a bill that would eliminate the law.

“I see this as a personal-protection measure, and (want) to make sure that Iowans can freely exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Best said.

It isn’t good enough to prohibit hunting from a moving vehicle.  They want to prohibit the carrying of weapons with which one would hunt from a moving vehicle.  Brought straight to you from the minds of The Minority Report.

The second reason – ah, this one is sweet.  To “protect people from bullets accidentally fired as these vehicles bounce over rough terrain.”  So tell us, engineers and gunsmiths in the Iowa State legislature, how would this happen?  Give a blow by blow account of the sequence of events, including actions taken by the mechanical parts of various guns, that might explain how going over bumps would discharge a round?  We all await your response with eager anticipation.

David Codrea:

Whether the ruling will be upheld or overturned on appeal is anybody’s guess. Still, this goes far in validating those of us who were arguing years ago not to listen to useless mainstream Republican squishes — who were adamant that the intermediate benchmark was the highest goal we could hope to attain.

What this win-for-now does not do – and what gun owners had best get up to speed on and not ignore – is redirect the emphasis on the “in common use at the time” excuse for infringements. That was a phrase used by Justice Scalia in the Heller case, and has been a major concept the antis have been pinning their hopes, and their legal strategies on. And in many cases, “our side” is playing right into their hands by focusing exclusively on sporting purposes, and on self-defense against crimes by private actors.

The self defense focus is correct when applied across the board – self defense against individuals and against nation-states.  I’ve said I think the Supreme Court will sustain an “assault weapons” ban.  The seeds are in the awful Heller decision.  Only the Fudds focus on hunting, and as I’ve said before, a sporting purpose is anything that gives me pleasure, including sitting and holding it.  Finally. it occurs to me that the whole issue of intermediate scrutiny versus strict scrutiny and such divisions to stack the deck is the mark of a judicial system that doesn’t seek justice.

Muslims and sex slavery.  Cheer up, women.  According to the Muslim scholars (I know, that is a contradiction in terms), they can only take you as a concubine if they take you in battle.  Just taking you as another wife without calling you a wife is forbidden.  This will help you rest easier tonight that the religion of peace has your best interests at heart.

Remember.  Migrants come because of love.

Using firearms against migrants.  Oh, it’s going to have to get a lot better unanimity that one out of four.

Mark Levin eviscerates Chris Christie.  Listen to the first clip to hear his most recent position on guns.

The Washington Post:

The Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association, which has publicly supported Ward, said Thursday that it did not stand by people who it described as arming themselves, breaking into publicly owned buildings and intimidating and harassing local residents and officials.

“These men and women are asking for change, and we support their right to challenge our government to make change,” the association said in a statement. “However, we do not agree with or support any citizen or elected official who would advocate for change in a manner that includes illegal action, threats of violence, or violence against any citizen of the United States.”

You can read it all for yourself, but I don’t need to know any more than this in order to form an opinion and make a judgment.  This is a terrible position statement, and it would have been better for them never to have spoken of the matter than to say something like that.

Take that statement as it is, because it doesn’t need context in order to understand it.  ” … we do not agree with or support any citizen or elected official who would advocate for change in a manner that includes illegal action, threats of violence, or violence against any citizen of the United States.”

Ever, under any circumstances, for any reason.  Or so we may conclude, since they provided no qualifiers, stipulations, conditions or caveats.  Unfortunately, we live in a democracy rather than a constitutional republic, where 51% of the people can vote to impoverish the other 49% for their own benefit.

So what if it was worse than mere wealth redistribution (which is theft)?  Suppose America voted to sacrifice every fourth male child born on the final day of each month in a bloody sacrifice to the gods of football?  And what if it was commonly accepted practice to appease the sports heroes in our broken society?  Would it be okay with these Sheriffs to opposes such actions with violence, or should it be only with protests?  What would the Sheriffs do?  Would they actively engaged in baby confiscation, or protection of the baby confiscators because that was the law?

But we would never do something like that in America, you say.  Or would we?  Do we?

Hot Air:

While it’s not a done deal yet, there’s a good chance that we may finally be receiving a final decision from the Supreme Court on the question of so called “assault weapons” bans. Back in December, gun rights activists were largely disappointed when SCOTUS decided they would not hear an appeal to Illinois’ assault weapons ban, allowing a lower court ruling in favor of the law to stand. At the time, I speculated that they were waiting for more lower courts to weigh in on similar challenges around the country to see if there was some sort of consensus or if the states were divided and in need of clarification from above.

This week that question may have been answered. The 4th Circuit, hearing a Maryland case, went the other way, overturning a ban on AR-15 style rifles and expanded capacity magazines. (Baltimore Sun)

In a 2-1 decision applauded by gun rights advocates, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit concluded that the semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines banned by Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act “are in common use by law-abiding citizens.” As a result, they don’t fall under the exception to the right to bear arms that applies to “unusual” weapons such as machine guns and hand grenades, the court said.

This apparent contradiction between the 7th Circuit Court’s ruling in Friedman v. City of Highland Park and the 4th’s ruling in Maryland has likely provided enough contrast for the Supremes to take up the question.

If they take it up, I predict they will sustain the constitutionality of such a ban.  First of all, look at the makeup of the court.  It has five outright communists (including Kennedy), a collectivist in conservative dress (Roberts), two more fairly unreliable “conservatives” (Scalia and Alito), and only one true conservative (Clarence Thomas).

Second, they won’t even have to turn to their own proclivities to find their decision.  It’s embedded in Heller itself.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts rou­tinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon , in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For exam­ ple, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws impos­ing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 26 We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradi­tion of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indict­ able Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford , 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874). It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause …

You can read the rest for yourself.  Scalia isn’t here arguing for the constitutionality of owning M-16s.  He is attempting to answer an objection before it is cast.  He is implicitly accepting the legitimacy of banning M-16s.

I’ve said it before.  While many in the gun community celebrated Heller, I say it was perhaps in the top two sinful abominations leaving the pens of the supreme court, second only to Roe v. Wade.

The seeds of acceptance of an “assault weapons” ban are right there in Heller.  They will support the legitimacy of said bans.  And of course, we won’t listen to them because they jettisoned their own legitimacy long ago.

I run a break-in procedure on my rifles.  This involves (1) a round, (2) brush/solvent/patch full stroke down the barrel, (3) dry patch or mop, next round, and so on. This process continues for several dozen rounds, then you skip to three rounds before the same procedure, and so on until the process is completed at 50 or more rounds.  You’ll wear out at least two bore brushes this way.  I’ve done it.  A bore guide is handy, and a day at the range is necessary.  You can’t complete the process in under a day.

This is a question I have wondered about myself, and I’m glad that the video author found several high powered barrel manufacturers to discuss it.  The first two representatives essentially reiterated what I thought and what I’ve been told, except that they focus on the machining marks in the throat and chamber, while I always thought it had to do with machining marks on the throat, chamber and barrel (inconsistencies in the throat, chamber and barrel such as microscopic burs, ridges and chatter marks left by the machining process).

The third barrel manufacturer was slightly more nonchalant about the process.  You be the judge.  I think I’ll continue to run the break-in procedure when I buy a new rifle.  Any gunsmiths or tool and die / jig engineers are welcome to weigh in on this issue.

The Cavalier Daily:

Anti-rape activist and National President of One in Four John D. Foubert told Slate, “If you have a rape situation, usually it starts with some sort of consensual behavior, and by the time it switches to non-consensual, it would be nearly impossible to run for a gun.”

Or in other words, it’s the victim’s fault.  I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a more prejudiced and bigoted comment in print.  From reddit/firearms, “You’re going to get raped, hopefully by an NRA member, just take it so we get better statistics.”

Obama visited an American Mosque.  Here is a video of his speech.  He said all sorts of things that were lies.  In fact, most or all of what he said was false.  For instance, Islam cannot coexist at peace with any other ideology.  It is an invasive parasite bent on the destruction of the host.  We’ve discussed this at length before.

But there is one lie in particular that deserves discussion so that you understand just how misleading his speech was.  It is this.

“Now, a lot of Americans have never visited a mosque, and to the folks watching this today who haven’t, think of your own church or synagogue or temple and a mosque like this will be very familiar. This is where families come to worship and express their love for God and for each other,” he said. “…So the first thing I want to say is two words that Muslim-Americans don’t hear often enough, and that is thank you. Thank you for serving your community.”

In my many articles on rules of engagement in Iraq, I dealt with the issue of lack of permission to fire on Mosques even when they knew of sniper hides in Minarets, fighters who ensconced there, and heavy weapons cached there.  Our ROE has always had a Western bent.  We see things through Western eyes, and often from a Christianized perspective.

Thus, the building where the church meets (the church is the people) is a place of “worship.”  Without knowing anything about Islam, we assume that a Mosque is a place of worship.  But to the Muslim, it is much, much more than that.  It is the literal means for the spread of Islam through all means governed by the Mosque, and the “all means” to which I refer means everything.

The Mosque is the center of community, the weapons armory, the place for distribution of wealth, the location to meet other Muslims, the place where politics is taught – in short, the be all and end all of the Islamic strategy for conquest.  Let someone who knows more than I do explain it better, John Guandolo.

Many Americans believe a mosque or Islamic Center is simply a “Muslim church.”  This could not be further from the truth.

In Islam, Mohammad is considered the al Insan al Kamil – the perfect example of a man.  Anything he did is considered the example for all Muslims to follow for all time.  Muslim men can marry girls as young as six years old because Mohammad did.  Mohammad beheaded Jews at the Battle of the Trench, so this is an “excellent example” for Muslims to follow.  And Mohammad built mosques.

Islam defines itself as a “complete way of life (social, cultural, political, military, religious)” governed by sharia (Islamic Law).  There is no separation of politics, religion, or military operations.  Mohammad was a political, religious, and military leader.  The mosque was and is a place where politics, religion, community, and military affairs are all combined.

Mohammad used mosques as a place for the community to gather and learn about Islam.  It was a place to store food, water, weapons, and ammunition.  It was a place where jihadis lived and trained.  It was also the place where battles were planned and the place from which battles were launched.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) strategic plan for North America entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum” was discovered during an FBI raid in Annandale, Virginia in 2004 at the home of a senior Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leader.  This document was entered into evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – US v Holy Land Foundation (HLF), Dallas, 2008.

Regarding mosques/Islamic Centers, An Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Understanding the role and the nature of work of “The Islamic Center” in every city with what achieves the goal of the process of settlement (Civilization Jihad):  The center we seek is the one which constitutes the “axis” of our Movement, the “perimeter” of the circle of our work, our “balance center”, the “base” for our rise and our “Dar al-Arqam” to educate us, prepare us and supply our battalions in addition to being the “niche” of our prayers. (emphasis added)

“This is in order for the Islamic center to turn – in action not in words – into a seed ‘for a small
Islamic society’…Thus, the Islamic center would turn into a place for study, family, battalion, course, seminar, visit, sport, school, social club, women gathering, kindergarten for male and female youngsters, the office of the domestic political resolution, and the center for distributing our newspapers, magazines, books and our audio and visual tapes…Meaning that the “center’s” role should be the same as the “mosque’s” role during the time of God’s prophet…when he marched to “settle” the Dawa’ in its first generation in Madina…From the mosque, he drew the Islamic life and provided to the world the most magnificent and fabulous civilization humanity knew. This mandates that, eventually, the region, the branch and the Usra turn into “operations rooms” for planning, direction, monitoring and leadership for the Islamic center in order to be a role model to be followed.”

[ … ]

… the Islamic Law of Sacred Space makes clear that when Muslims build mosques they are claiming ground for Islam.  Specifically, a radius of up to three (3) miles from the mosque belongs to Islam.  This explains why the Muslim Brotherhood, with funding from Saudi Arabia and others, are building huge mosques in the middle of nowhere in America.  They are claiming ground for Islam.  Now all they have to do is occupy that ground.

You can think of Muslim homes as patrol bases and observation posts, and their Mosques as Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) in a worldwide conquest for your politics, your wealth, your children, and ultimately your soul.  Mr. Obama is lying to you.  Mr. Obama isn’t stupid – he knows that he is lying.  It’s important for you to know it too.

ABC News:

The Rev. Franklin Graham has spoken with the remaining armed occupiers of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon.

The Oregonian reports ( http://bit.ly/1PTCRw2 ) that a spokesman for Graham confirmed that he communicated by phone with the four occupiers and federal officials.

Todd Shearer told the newspaper that Graham had no comment beyond that statement.

The last four occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge had asked Graham to help them negotiate their departure. They have said they want assurances they won’t be arrested.

Well, Franklin Graham is a very good man.  I know folks who work for him, I have immense respect for him, and the remaining holdouts at Malheur did well to select him.  Go ahead.  I’d like to see the Oregon State Police lie to him and give safe passage to the remaining boys at the building, only to arrest them later.  Go ahead, you worms.  Lie to Rev. Franklin Graham.  Actually, they won’t.  They’ll tell the truth.  There is no good outcome for these boys now.  The fedgov won’t let this go, they will drive this through to a conclusion, they want the land, they don’t want any more trouble from advocates for freedom, they want the unwashed masses to shut up.  Even Rev. Graham won’t be able to stop what the fedgov intends to do.

Leaders of the Oregon county where an armed group has been occupying a national wildlife refuge are rejecting calls that they resign.

In a statement Tuesday, Harney County said it was responding to demands from the Pacific Patriots Network, which has organized rallies in support of the occupation at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

The statement said Judge Steve Grasty, Sheriff David Ward and two county commissioners would not step down.

Too bad.  I hope they lose everything, personally and professionally.  I consider them morally unfit to suck swine.

An Arizona man arrested in the occupation of the Oregon wildlife refuge remains in federal custody after a judge held off ruling on prosecutors’ request to keep him detained as he awaits trial.

Jon Eric Ritzheimer of Peoria, Arizona, was a vocal presence in the occupation in Oregon before leaving to visit his family on Jan. 25. The FBI arrested him the next day in Arizona.

Ten others also have been arrested in the standoff that began Jan. 2 when an armed group opposed to federal land policy took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Ritzheimer faces a federal felony charge in Oregon of conspiracy to impede federal officials in their official duties through the use of force, intimidation or threats.

Prosecutors said Tuesday that Ritzheimer’s repeated rejection of federal authority makes him a flight risk and unsuitable for court-ordered supervision.

Let that statement wash over you again.  “Rejection of federal authority.”  Listen to it again.  Rejection of federal authority.  Sort of like rejection of the constitutionality of the Hughes amendment?  Or rejection of the notion that the federal government has a moral or constitutional right to own land?  Or rejection of the constitutionality of the existence of the ATF?  That kind of rejection of federal authority?

You can sign up several million more folks in that category.

Oh, by the way, ponder on this.  During the trial in 2012, the Hammonds had to agree to give the BLM the first right of refusal if they ended up having to sell the ranch or leases (remember that massive $400,000 fine?).  And in a tip of the hat to unconstitutional, unethical practice and bad faith, the government forced them into an agreement NOT to appeal the 2012 decision.  A citizen has a right to appeal, and I’m not referring to discretionary appeal, such as with the Supreme Court.

“Do what we say, and shut up,” said the fedgov.  Good Lord!  How do these people sleep at night.