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]
On a personal note, I find it interesting that over six years after I posted the Wintemute warning, he’s still bringing it up as evidence of the troubles he’s seen. Knowing that has resulted in my living in this guy’s head rent-free for all these years is pretty unbelievable.
Between that and getting several emails from Nature‘s Correspondence Editor beginning “Dear Dr. Codrea,” the sting of having my letter go unpublished has been somewhat dulled.
Well, this one is amusing. I’ve been misquoted before, plagiarized word for word without attribution, and misunderstood. But this is rich. I love a good throw-down over the interwebz, but this one is rather one-sided.
Here’s what I think. Had I been blogging about guns at the time of David’s post I would have issued the same warning. I didn’t previously know anything about Wintemute. He (Wintemute) apparently wants to be important, or at least sees himself in heroic terms, suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous oppression from David’s warnings.
But I know about Wintemute now. As for Wintemute, I hope the fleas of a thousand camels infests his armpits. As for David, keep making people megalomaniacal and delusional. Watch your six, Wintemute. We’re coming to take you away.
On July 1, a new law giving Mississippi residents the right to openly carry firearms without the need of a gun permit will go into effect.
Next week, during a two-hour block of instruction and education on the Open Carry Law, area law enforcement officers will get guidance on how the new law will impact their jobs and how to deal with citizens walking around with firearms at their side.
[ … ]
Confusion over Mississippi’s concealed weapons carry laws prompted legislators to address the issue. The law was unclear about whether or not a person carrying a concealed weapon was in violation of the law if the weapon was accidentally exposed to view. House Bill 2 clarifies the issue, stating a gun can be partially exposed if it is in a proper holster, and can be carried openly without a permit.
Some have argued that Mississippi was already an open carry gun state and that the law is causing confusion.
“The legislators created this animal and now they don’t know what to do with it,” Clarke County Sheriff Todd Kemp said. “The law has been on the books since 1890 but the people have pretty much ignored it for so many years. Now, the law has been out there in the news for a long time and I’m sure when July 1 rolls around we will see somebody walking around with a .45 strapped to their side.”
Kemp said he would like to attend the training session next week. “I’ve got some questions I’d like to ask myself,” Kemp says. “This law creates some potential problems for us as law enforcement officers and I’d like to get the AG’s office opinion on some of the things we might run into.”
[ … ]
“One of our main concerns with a citizen carrying a firearm, no matter under which law it is, that they are trained not only in the operation and functions of the firearm but when that person can deploy that firearm,” Calhoun said. “This is a huge responsibility for someone and they had better be clear on these and many other aspects of carrying a firearm otherwise it could lead to much more serious matters.”
Oh. I see. It’s a huge responsibility, kind of like the incident when:
“Every cop turned around and started unloading like super trigger happy as if their training was coming into full effect and they were being able to utilize it,” said Cleerdin. “Everybody was just blasting this car to pieces. It was absolutely terrifying.”
They were stunned with what was happening, as officers reportedly shot dozens of rounds – in the direction on-coming traffic.
“Cops are shooting from the front of the car, back into the rest of the on-coming traffic to the check point, into the rest of the innocent civilians down the road,” said Cleerdin.
Cleerdin says he believes the officers acted with no regard for public safety.
“It was way beyond reckless,” said Cleerdin. “I couldn’t believe it. These are professional people, professional officers, and they’re training, they’re highly trained and they’re not supposed to do stuff like that.”
Huge responsibility like when the cops did that? So let’s make a few things clear to the LEO. Mississippi is not a stop and identify state. So no, you don’t have to ask an attorney since I just informed you. You may not stop someone who isn’t violating the law, not even if you just want to know what he’s doing carrying a weapon. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has made that perfectly clear. Got it?
On to the next topic. No, this isn’t the end of the world, not even for LEOs – you know, the ones who can take on huge responsibility like carrying a weapon. Men (and perhaps women) will open carry if they wish, and when ignorant citizens make calls about it, it will be your responsibility to educate them about the law, and demand to know what law is being violated before you dispatch a uniform and look stupid when he gets his ass dragged to court for stopping and identifying in a non-stop and identify state.
Finally, this won’t have any adverse affect on safety and security. People who open carry won’t run around shooting others up. After all. Let’s review what’s happening. This is the same thing as concealed carry, which is already legal, except that the weapon isn’t concealed. Is that clear enough for you? As a resident of North Carolina, which is a traditional open carry state, I assure you that your worst fears will not obtain.
There. I feel like I have helped to the point that no further tutorial is needed from any expensive, pointy headed lawyers. I’ve done my good deed for the day.
The Army has cancelled their competition to see which firearm will replace the Colt M4 series of rifles. The Army has said that it was cancelled because all of the rifles failed the reliability standard of 3,592 mean rounds without malfunctioning.
After correction of the ammunition and other problems associated with the M-16 as it was initially deployed in Vietnam, this series of rifles has been effective and reliable. To be sure, there are still detractors, the most recent problems concerning overheating of the barrel and failures associated with discharging a high number of rounds in a short time frame.
During the Battle of Wanat several M4’s had failures to feed (or failures to eject). But the real problem with this battle wasn’t that several rifles experienced failures. It was that the unit was placed in such a far-flung outpost without force protection or adequate troops to establish security and effect their mission. No rifle can ameliorate bad strategy, and our war fought by the social planners and COIN experts was bad strategy.
Afghanistan has been called the war of the infantry half kilometer, as it involved longer distances than the urban warfare and CQB in Iraq. Bob Owens mentions the cancellation of the carbine competition, and then launches into advocacy for a larger caliber, specifically the 6.5 Grendel. This is old hat for Bob, as he has been advocating for a while now that the Army replace the 5.56 mm round, but continue to use the AR-15 platform.
But it should be remembered that with proper training, the AR-15 platform and 5.56 mm round are effective at long distances. My son Daniel, a former Marine, routinely scored at the top of his Battalion, and they all had to qualify at 500 yards (using iron sights). Travis Haley reminds us all how effective this gun and round can be.
Haley was shooting 5.56 mm ammunition from a Bushmaster (specifications can be found here, here and here – Haley was using a 20″ barrel, which is the major difference between the rifle he was using and the M4). The comments to the video indicate that the targets may have been closer than 800 meters (perhaps 600 meters), but this is far enough away to need high powered glass.
Even though the 5.56 yaws in flight (even with boat tail ammunition), it is a highly effective long distance round, while also being ideal for CQB (albeit designated marksmen and snipers may choose to carry different weapons and different calibers). But Colt lost the contract to supply the M4, and sometimes manufacturers become complacent after so many years of sole sourcing. In fact, my biggest problem with the competition isn’t that it’s over. Rather, it’s that the best never participated.
And the winner of the U.S. Army competition to replace the M4 carbine is … the Army’s new and improved M4 carbine.
At least that’s the outcome gun makers attending Shot Show 2012 predict for the completion of the service’s improved carbine competition.
The Army is nearing the end of the first phase of the competition, now referred to as the IC. The service will soon announce which companies can advance to the second phase, when Army testers will start shooting hundreds of thousands of rounds through the prototype weapons.
Phase one has had nothing to do with evaluating test prototypes, but instead has focused on weeding out companies that may not have the production capacity to make thousands of weapons per month. This has become a bitter point of contention that has driven away some companies with credible names in the gun business.
“I’m not going to dump half a million to a million dollars for them never to review my rifle,” said Steve Mayer of Rock River Arms, standing amid his racks of M4-style carbines at Shot Show, the massive small-arms show here that draws gun makers from all over the world.
I have no dog in Bob’s fight over caliber, but my opinion is that the current platform and caliber are fine. What’s needed is better training (even if not everyone can be Travis Haley), drills on shooting uphill (for those Marines and Soldiers who will deploy to terrain similar to what we saw in N2K), and lack of politics so that our men can get the best and most reliable rifles in their hands. I have one. It’s not so much to ask that Soldiers and Marines have them too.
If the Army chooses some other system than direct impingement, then so be it. But it should be remembered that for everything you gain, you loose something. I’ve held rifles that cycle ammunition from piston drive, and the front end is heavy. It would affect CQB, and my son doesn’t even like the weight added from the quad rail on the front end of mine if it is used for CQB (my rifle is DI, not piston).
In the end, nothing can do everything, and the genius of Eugene Stoner is still with us today.
Vice President Joe Biden said Friday that “at least five senators” have called him looking for a way to change their votes to support expanded background checks.
Speaking to the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Las Vegas, Biden said the 45 senators who voted to block the background checks deal brokered by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) have seen “the bottom fall out” of their approval ratings.
Biden said, as he did Tuesday during a gun violence event at the White House, that he has been fielding calls from senators interested in signing on to some kind of gun control measure. On Friday he offered slightly more specific detail about the number of senators and the difficult path ahead for gun control legislation.
“I’ve had at least five senators call me and say, ‘Can’t we do something about this?’” Biden said. “The calculus has changed, and so we’re in an effort to try to work out how we can provide another opportunity for those who voted no to change their vote. We all know that’s the hardest thing in politics, to change your vote. That’s why we’ve got to get a rationale, another reason why this could be done by changing the specifics of the legislation.”
Biden hasn’t conveyed which senators he’s spoken with or how the background checks bill might be altered.
Just like myth that 90% or more of all Americans wanted the Senate to enact more gun laws, this is the latest make-believe story. The fairy tale du jour is that five Senators want to change their vote on gun control and see “the bottom fall out of their approval ratings.”
Here’s what I think. The court jester is becoming increasingly delusional. There aren’t five Senators who want to change their vote, and Biden never fielded any such phone call.
Police say a 17-year-old boy has been arrested for shooting at a group of fellow teens who approached him in an attempt to rob him.
According to the Mason Police District in Fairfax County, a group of five 17 and 18-year-old teens approached a 17-year-old boy they knew and demanded his cell phone in the 9300 block of Tovito Drive.
The five teens then confronted another 17-year-old they knew. However, that teen had a handgun he fired at the group. One 18-year-old was struck and transported to a hospital with non-life threatening injuries.
The 17-year-old who fired the weapon was arrested and charged with malicious wounding and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.
The report is short on details. One possible course of action during a scenario like this is what I’ve discussed before, i.e., evasion, egress and escape. Backing away and thus changing the circumstances is better than getting shot or shooting someone. However, this isn’t always possible, and in fact a decision to evade can be foolish and life threatening if you are outnumbered, outgunned or even simply naive and overestimate your abilities. In most cases I would treat an aggressive approach like this as life threatening and I would defend myself accordingly.
Interestingly, the police seem to concede the point by saying that the gang attempted to rob him. As far as anyone knows, including the police, the gang never intended to stop at demanding loot. It must be assumed that they intended to harm or kill him, or that it could have evolved into such a situation. And given that knowledge, this report is beautiful in its simplicity. The gang threatened the life of this young man, he defended his life, and now he is under arrest for it. I suppose that the police would rather he have perished at the hands of the gang.
I found you via Sipsey Street links and have been reading intermittently. I had some free time this weekend, so after going to the range both days (yay), I was catching up on some articles I missed and when I saw some of the articles about abuse by police it reminded me of a recent encounter with our county sheriff’s deputies.
I went to the courthouse to renew an expired passport. When I got to the metal detector, I started to empty my pockets. I told the deputy manning the walk-through that I had a pistol and reached to unholster it, something I have done several times at this courthouse without incident (they have lockers to check any weapons). The pistol was pointed toward the floor the instant it cleared the holster. As soon as he saw it, he started screaming at me to give him the pistol. He was quite abrupt, unneccesarily I thought since I was the one holding a pistol. I told him I was going to clear the chamber before I handed it to him, but he continued to scream so I just handed it to him hot. Once through the metal detector, the sheriff approached and asked if I was law enforcement. He did not recognize me, disappointing since I take care of his wife, daughter and son-in-law, as well as having taken care of his late mother. He was polite, but clearly of a superior attitude. When I came back, Seargant Schultz was on break and another deputy retrieved my pistol, but refused to return it to me until we had reached the sidewalk in front of the courthouse, about 100′. During the entire walk, he kept asking “Why do you carry a pistol? (because I can), “Don’t you have a locked compartment in your car? (I have had several cars broken into, and I can’t protect myself with a pistol that is locked in my car), “Maybe you shouldn’t bring a gun to the courthouse” (your rule to not have it inside, so you should provide a place to check it).
This sheriff is new, currently serving his first term, but he apparently runs a rather loose-cannon department with disrespect for the people he allegedly serves. Never had any problems like this with the prior sheriff, who retired after about 25 years. Guess I know what campaign I will be working on the next time a sheriff election is held here.
Thanks for the writings. Being a physician in this day and age is especially distressing, as I have a better idea than most (I think) of the mayhem that lies ahead in our already collapsing “health-care” system. Your take on events (as well as that of Mike Vanderbough, David Codrea, and WRSA) is a reassuring boost to a flagging spirit.
Some 30,000 people in the U.S. die each year by gunshot, and one reason there aren’t more effective efforts to stop the carnage is that “the faith community has been asleep — fast asleep,” says a pastor who has worked for decades to reduce gun violence.
The Rev. James E. Atwood, author of “America and Its Guns: A Theological Exposé,” was in Kansas City recently to urge religious congregations to take a stand for sensible gun safety legislation that would protect both lives and Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
Such advocates are badly needed. As Harper’s Magazine noted recently, since the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., more than twice as many laws have been passed in various states weakening gun controls than laws strengthening them. That certainly holds for Missouri and Kansas. It’s an outrage, but there may be hope in this deeply religious country if Atwood is right that since Newtown “we are seeing a tipping point where the faith community is at last waking up.”
In his Kansas City appearances — sponsored by a coalition of more than a dozen groups — Atwood, a Presbyterian who is himself a gun owner and hunter, said one of the problems is that many Americans have moved from “respect” for firearms to “reverence” for them.
“It’s an idolatrous belief,” he said, “that violence can produce security. On the other hand when guns become idols we can document how their presence transforms the personalities of individuals and entire communities.”
So guns have morphed from an inanimate object, a component made of mechanical parts, into something that can transform the personality of not only an individual but an entire community.
Unfortunately, the pitiful pastor has forgotten his theology, and made something the theologians call adiaphorous (neutral, neither good nor bad) into something with personality and intentionality. He replaces the evil in the heart of mankind with evil in objects, a form of animism.
PTR Industries released a statement not long ago that read in part:
With a heavy heart but a clear mind, we have been forced to decide that our business can no longer survive in Connecticut – the former Constitution state.
Furthermore, we feel that our industry as a whole will continue to be threatened so long as it remains in a state where its elected leaders have no regard for the rights of those who produce and manufacture its wealth. We are making a call to all involved in our industry to leave this state, close your doors and show our politicians the true consequences of their hasty and uninformed actions. We encourage those in our industry to abandon this state as its leaders have abandoned the proud heritage that forged our freedom.
This is a strong statement, and pertains not only to what PTR Industries intends to do with their own business, but their admonition to other manufacturers in Connecticut (are you listening, Colt and Mossberg?). But now we know where they are headed.
A Connecticut gun manufacturer is moving to South Carolina after Connecticut lawmakers passed stricter gun-control laws in the aftermath of the fatal Sandy Hook School shootings.
PTR Industries will make the formal announcement next week at a ribbon-cutting to be attended by South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley, according to The Sun News of Myrtle Beach.
The company is going to Horry County, which includes Myrtle Beach, and has already approved a resolution setting out the terms of the company’s move.
County Council Chairman Mark Lazarus says he’s excited about the development.
Josh Fiorini, PTR’s chief executive officer, says the plant will employ 140 people, many of whom will relocate from Connecticut. The move will take place over three years.
The company said it had been contacted by 41 states and selected South Carolina from six finalists.
This is a nice area, and both PTR Industries and South Carolina will be better for this move. As I’ve said before, there is no better or surer teacher than consequences. This trend continues the instruction to totalitarians.
So I’m in charge of taking care of the menagerie tonight and the television is on to keep me company. I’m listening to a Republican — let me restate that…Republican — analyst state how excited he is about a 2016 Presidential match-up between Hillary Clinton and Chris Christie. Because, see, Chris Christie is the bestest conservative Republican candidate in the whole wide world!
I have to say that Chris Christie would be the final straw…I have been as pragmatic as anyone on wading through this political cesspool…sucked it up for McCain…sucked it up for Romney…but I will be damned if I’ll cast a vote for an antigun floating…well, whatever it is that floats in cesspools…like Chris Christie.
The Yankee Gunner has a nice piece on open carrying in Connecticut at Newtown. Yes, Newtown. You heard that right.
Finally, The Charlotte Observer has a piece on Police Chief Rodney Monroe on his support for gun controls.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Rodney Monroe called for a national assault weapons ban on Tuesday, joining a growing number of police chiefs across the country who have said the assault-style weapons should be outlawed.
Monroe said he feels strongest about restrictions on guns with high-capacity magazines, like the one used in the Newtown, Conn., shootings that left 20 children dead.
“We should not be seeing those kinds of weapons on our city streets,” Monroe said. “Back in the early ’90s, when we had the assault weapons ban, we saw a significant decrease in multiple shootings, multiple gun violence, so it only makes sense that we consider that again.”
Monroe called for the assault weapons ban during a meeting of the Business Leaders of Charlotte, a group that brings high-profile Charlotteans in as speakers every month to discuss issues of the day.
“I hope today that we can take away an honest understanding of the gun-control debate in the country,” said Michael Barney, the group’s president.
Monroe also told the group he thinks everyone who buys a gun should be subjected to a background checks.
You know, it’s really a shame. Years ago the functions of Sheriff and Police were separated in order to stop politics within the functions of police – because the police ought to be policing, not politicking. Guess it didn’t work out so well.
The North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association (NCSA) is pressuring both House Speaker Thom Tillis(R, Mecklenburg, GRNC ****) and NC Governor Pat McCrory (R, GRNC-***) to oppose GRNC’s repeal of the antiquated pistol purchase permit system that has been in place since 1919. As part of omnibus gun bill HB 937, which contains restaurant and limited campus carry, the purchase permit law would be repealed IF the House votes to concur with Senate improvements to the bill and IF Gov. McCrory doesn’t veto it.
The purchase permit law slated for elimination through HB 937 was designed to grant discriminatory power to NC Sheriffs and enable them to subjectively deny handguns whoever they consider “undesirable.” To this day, several counties abuse the permit system in ways that make it difficult for law-abiding citizens to rightfully obtain handguns.
Ironically, as documented by The Charlotte Observer, the law sheriffs defend is letting untold numbers of felons bypass background checks to buy guns. Why? Because the untrackable slips of paper issued by sheriffs after background checks can’t be repealed and are good for 5 years. Eliminating the system would mean that checks using the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) would be done at the point of sale.
I don’t want to turn this conversation into one on open carry of firearms, but it’s relevant. I’ve discussed before that I openly carry a weapon from time to time, mostly when I am trying to avoid sweating my weapon and don’t want to carry IWB. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police respect that choice, and smile and wave when they see me.
Sean Sorrentino notes an instance where the 4th Circuit had to reprimand the Charlotte Police for using openly carrying a weapon as a reason to stop an individual, even someone who later turned out to have been guilty of a crime. Even worse, I know individuals who live around the Lake Norman / Huntersville area (North of Charlotte) who openly carry, and one particular individual has been stopped by both local and state police. Both times the law enforcement officer unholstered his weapon and pointed at my friend for doing nothing more than walking on the sidewalk.
Note to law enforcement in North Carolina. The answer above by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police (“not breaking any laws …”) is the right one. You cannot lawfully detain or arrest someone for openly carrying a weapon. It is legal in North Carolina, as North Carolina is a traditional open carry state. LEOs need to know and understand the law. If you continue to unholster and point your weapons at someone who is behaving legally, an innocent person will eventually be harmed or killed and you will be responsible for it. Don’t be ignorant. Be thinking men and women.
Isn’t it ironic that the only ones who want final say over who can carry a weapon are some of the very ones who will unholster their weapons and point them at law abiding citizens? I would be arrested and charged with brandishing a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon (assault can mean perceived intent), and a host of other things if I did that. But then again, I don’t get to argue in front of the court that I wanted to make sure that I “went home at the end of the day.” Only LEOs get to do that.
Local LEO approval of firearms purchases is a throwback to Jim Crow laws, plain and simple. Their approval does nothing that form 4473 doesn’t accomplish. And LEOs who point their weapons at law abiding open carriers should be prosecuted for crimes in court.
