Over at David’s place he is talking about making an AA-12, and taunting the police about it.  Read it at Examiner.

Over at Mike’s place, he is wondering when anyone is going to notice that an awful lot of ammunition is being sold.

You wonder when somebody on the other side besides the analysts in the Three Letters are going to notice. Deep in bowels of the FBI. CIA and DHS, THEY notice and are passing warnings up the chain, or so I am told. But the politicians either don’t believe them or don’t get it.

Over at Kurt’s place he is talking about an awful lot of people unwilling to relinquish their firearms.  Matt Bracken weighs in with comment as follows.

Please watch the new 5 minute youtube mini-documentary “Democide: Socialism, Tyranny, Guns and Freedom.” Socialist dictators (and they were often very popular) murdered over 200 million innocent victims in the 20th century. And in every case, they disarmed them first in the name of “public safety.” (Sound familar?) And in every case, they began the process of democide with “commonsense” gun registration. 1. Registration 2. Confiscation 3. Extermination. Ask the Armenians, the Jews or the Russian “kulaks” if they were treated better, or worse, by their oppressors after they were disarmed and helpless. Actually, they were exterminated. As an older, male, Christian “bitter clinger,” I refuse to be an Armenian Jewish Kulak. Molon Labe!

Over at Bob’s place, he has a different take.  I’m not smart enough to know which is right.  I know which side I’m on, and that’s all I need to know.

Bob is also talking about Colt possibly leaving Connecticut.  Maybe they listened to my warning (although my commenter on this article has a strong demurral – with which I’m not smart enough to disagree).

Bob is also (correctly) pointing out that gun control is part of the overall plan, which is people control (which I also point out here).  I commented thusly.

When the people demand cradle to grave security and overwatch, the state responds with cradle to grave demand for omniscience for itself and cradle to grave compliance by the people.  It’s a deal with the devil for our soul, and America has made it a long time ago.

The demands of totalitarianism are comprehensive.  Finally, Western Rifle Shooters tells us that the recent financial crisis in Cyprus is headed here.

Listen folks.  The only way I know to tell you the state of affairs is this.  Would you stop them with force if they try to take your weapons?  If not, they will.  Let’s take it to the next level.  Would you stop them if they try to take your wealth?  If you have no guns, they will.  The wealth for which you have worked all of your life will be gone in an instant to try to pay for the trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities in America, which amounts to more wealth than the world has at its disposal (so not even confiscation of wealth will work to save a failing system).

Finally, would you use force to prevent them from taking your child?  As we know, this isn’t far fetched at all.  What if one day your wife takes a picture of you and your one year old little boy, or grandson (a truly precious picture for a life’s memory when you grow old), with your boy unclothed and sleeping on your shoulder or chest, your wife releases that photo to some presumed friends, and suddenly you find yourself staring down the barrel of a gun from a SWAT team member supporting a DSS agent who wants to arrest you and take the child to a father who can raise him with proper sensibilities – and talk about his “private parts being private?”  What is your threshold?  When will you stop them?

Reuters:

New York state lawmakers are considering amendments to the state’s sweeping new gun control law, including repealing a ban on magazines that hold more than seven bullets, Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Wednesday, describing most of the changes as technical.

The law, passed January 15, a month after the massacre at a Connecticut elementary school, also requires gun owners to register most guns with the state and requires universal background checks.

[ … ]

Cuomo and legislators have been discussing “technical corrections” to the law, the governor told a news conference.

A provision banning magazines that hold more than seven bullets beginning April 15 would likely be repealed, as magazines generally hold 10 bullets.

“There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine,” Cuomo said.

Under the proposal, gun owners would be barred from loading more than seven bullets at a time, he said, unless they are at a shooting range or participating in a competition.

First of all, regarding this issue of seven cartridges in the magazine, Kimber makes plenty such magazines for their 1911’s.  Second, please stop saying that bullets go in magazines, you ignorant moron.  Complete cartridges go in magazines.

But to the substance of the report, take careful note again what the Governor said.  At shooting competitions (we can guess they mean IDPA or 3-gun competitions or some similar event), shooters could load more than seven cartridges in their magazines.  Likewise for ranges.  But if they’re home preparing to defend their families at night, it would presumably mean that gun owners would be committing a felony by loading more than seven cartridges.

This assumes that anyone would be willing to defend themselves from a home invasion and then rather than unloading the balance of the magazine, they admitted to law enforcement that they had more than seven loaded.  Of course, it might take more than seven to defend against the home invasion, which is the point of this ridiculous dance anyway.

Note again.  Voluntarily acquiescing to load no more than seven cartridges in your magazines when you need them, and loading them up to capacity when you don’t.

This has to be the most stupid law ever proposed by the most stupid people on earth.  But of course regarding the people, we knew that already, didn’t we?

This is what totalitarianism looks like in Chris Christie’s New Jersey – you know, the Chris Christie who could be the savior of the GOP if he weren’t such a gun-grabbing totalitarian, jerk and loud mouth himself.

Did this photograph spark a police action that tried to enter a New Jersey home without a warrant? That’s the story being told on a website dedicated to “Open Carry” in the state of Delaware. The title of the story, “The fight has officially been brought to my front door.”

The young man in the photo is the 11-yr-old son of Shawn Moore. The gun is a .22 rifle, a copy of the AR-15, but a 22 caliber. The photo was posted on Facebook by a proud father. That Facebook posting apparently triggered an anonymous call to New Jersey’s Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). On Friday night, March 15th, two representatives from the state’s social services office (along with four local police officers) came to the Moore home and demanded to see the family’s firearms …

Here’s what Moore alleges on the Delaware open carry forum:

• NJ’s Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) came to his home, accompanied by police officers. They claimed to be responding to a call about a photo of a young boy holding a firearm. (photo above)
• Without a search warrant, DYFS demanded entry into Moore’s home and access to all of his firearms. Moore was not initially there, but his wife called him.
• With his lawyer listening to the exchange on the phone with police and DFYS, Moore denied entry to his home and access to his safe where he stores his guns.
• When Moore requested the name of the DFYS representative, she refused to give it to him.
• After threatening to “take my kids,” the police and Family Services worker left — “empty handed and seeing nothing.”
• The DYFS worker repeatedly demanded access to the house and for Moore to open his safe where the firearms were stored. She said that the guns should be catalogued and checked to make certain they were “properly registered.” (NJ does not require registration, it is voluntary.)
• The four police officers acted professionally, they were there at the request of DYFS.
• The worker refused to identify herself. Mr. Moore demanded that she giver her name. She refused and ran away.
• As of Tuesday morning, Mr. Nappen believes that DYFS is still pushing for an inspection, “which is not happening.”

Did the poor nanny state trough-feeders run away scared?  Did they fail to get their intended, abused child to the right parents who could raise him without fear of the big, bad guns?  Folks, the only difference between this instance and the one depicted in this picture is that the New Jersey statists and nannies weren’t prepared for resolute action.

Denver Post:

Gov. John Hickenlooper signed bills Wednesday that place new restrictions on firearms and signaled a change for Democrats who traditionally shied away from gun control debate in Colorado – a state with a moderate streak and pioneer tradition of gun ownership and self-reliance.

Hickenlooper’s signature of the bills comes exactly eight months after dozens of people were shot in a movie theater in suburban Denver, the day after the executive director of the state’s Corrections Department was shot and killed at his home.

Police were searching for the person who killed Tom Clements, and trying to figure out if the attack was related to his job.

The bills require background checks for private and online gun sales and ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.

Hickenlooper was surrounded by lawmakers who sponsored the bills at the signing ceremony. Before signing the first bill, which requires purchasers to pay fees for background checks, he looked around with a solemn look on his face and then began signing it.

Every time he signed a bill, applause erupted from lawmakers and their guests …

So be it.  It’s now time for Magpul to leave and take its revenue and jobs with them.  When laws like this are implemented it’s always the duty of every individual to study the bill itself, sometimes including case law that ensues from the bill.  Gun forums don’t do justice to the complexity of most gun control bills, and every visitor to the State of Colorado is in danger of some sort of new violation of their laws, which most of the time would be felonies.  It just isn’t worth my time to study the law.

I have visited Colorado only once to ski in Breckenridge.  It was a wonderful experience, and sadly, one that will not be a recurring trip.  Not only will I not risk any sort of violation of their new law, but I won’t reward Colorado for their actions today.  I have friends and readers in Colorado and I don’t wish them ill.  But now that Colorado has been proven to be an anti-gun state, they will feel the wrath of gun owners and gun manufacturers.  They should consider their future through the lens of firearms at a time when their chief of the department of corrections was just gunned down.  Will the criminals have such a hard time getting what they want?

My treatment of Colorado won’t be any different than my treatment of other gun-control states.  I steadfastly refuse to drive through or even fly over New York, New Jersey, Illinois, or Maryland.  If I drive through with a weapon I must know their idiotic laws.  If I fly over with a weapon I might have to make an unscheduled landing in one of their cities.

I don’t take pleasure in seeing friends suffer under totalitarianism.  But when we look for work-arounds and fill in the gaps for others, we prevent the learning experience that comes from bad decisions.  Consequences bring the gift of wisdom.  For half a century now America has raised its children to avoid consequences, and partly for that reason we are where we are.

In this case, may Colorado get exactly what they have asked for, and exactly what they so richly deserve.   Tonight I will go home and order some Magpul hats, clothing and accessories (I already have their AR-15 magazines).  I will never again visit Colorado, and depending upon what other manufacturers do (Remington has made their bed, are you listening, Colt?  Rock River Arms?  Kimber?  Springfield Armory?), I will look for ways to reward the faithful and punish the wicked.  And there are millions of gun owners just like me.

The founder of Sandy Hook Promise weighs in on firearms technology.

At present, most gun marketing is predicated on power and machismo. But what if the unique selling point of a weapon became safety features, like a trigger that only works in the hands of the gun’s owner? That, in a nutshell, is the aim of the Sandy Hook Promise Innovation Initiative.

The initiative will pull together the tech and venture capital communities to form a Technology Committee to Reduce Gun Violence that will work to identify and foster innovations in gun and school safety and mental health research. The group will solicit proposals for the best ideas in these areas and award a prize to encourage the most promising innovations. The point is that making firearms safer could help the nation to reduce the 30,000 gun deaths a year, including nearly 19,000 that are suicides. But if that isn’t incentive enough, there’s the money, and the Volvo lesson, to consider.

Starting with the three-point seat belt in the late 1950s, Volvo introduced safety features, from head restraints to side impact protection systems. Sales grew tenfold. By the time the first mandatory seat belt use was enacted in New York state in 1984, Volvo’s market share hit a record.

Budding gun entrepreneurs could become rich by emulating Volvo’s golden years. Weapons manufacturers could first and foremost tout their products’ safety features. And public policy could guide them along that path.

New Jersey, for instance, has a law that would require smart gun technology in all new handguns sold three years after the state’s attorney general determines a prototype is safe and commercially available. Other states are considering similar rules.

As the Volvo story underlines, however, government action isn’t the only way to reduce America’s gun fatalities, which have remained stubbornly high for decades. The only thing more characteristically American than gun ownership is the impulse to create wealth in free and open markets. Let the innovation begin.

Yea, let the innovation begin.  But recall what we observed about the shotgun with a solid state circuit board in the stock?  Remember how obscene it was?  It is obscene because of any number of things, including control over that circuit board, traceability of that circuit board, and just as important, the introduction of a new failure mode.

Take it from a registered professional engineer.  You see that picture above with the solid state electronics inside the gun?  It is obscene.  Not only that, it’s stupid.

There are even old school shooters who don’t believe in such a thing as the grip safety (Beaver tail) on my XDm.  I am not among that crowd, but the notion that I would rely on a gun with solid state electronics for my own protection is absurd, leaving aside the problems I have with it being amenable to governmental control.

David Codrea has weighed in before (and also links a related NPR article), and Bob Owens weighs in as well.  Read them both.

I’m simply not smart enough to know whether violent FPS video games have any affect on the player in this context.  I’ve seen them before, and they bore me.  I tend to think that they cannot have an affect on the person if the tendency to violence isn’t already there.  The problem is evil.  Evil is in the heart of man (Jeremiah 17:9 and Mark 7:21), and only God can change the heart.

For me it’s simple.  Maybe I am looking at this as a firearms purist, but as I said before, I’ll purchase such a gun when hell freezes over.

Manufacturers Dabble In Smart Guns

More On Smart Guns

The CEO speaks, Courant.com.

Our customers are unusually brand-loyal. In many cases, they personally identify with the firearm brand they choose. Although our Connecticut heritage has historically enhanced our brand, that will change overnight if we ban the modern sporting rifle.

As a result Colt, as well as other Connecticut manufacturers such as Mossberg and Stag Arms will see immediate erosion in brand strength and market share as customers migrate to manufacturers in more supportive states. This will have consequences for dozens of Connecticut companies and thousands of workers. Connecticut will have put its firearms manufacturing industry in jeopardy: one that contributes $1.7 billion annually to the state’s economy.

Like every other precision manufacturer in Connecticut, Colt is constantly approached by other states to relocate, but our roots here are deep. Colt is and always has been an integral part of a state characterized by hard work, perseverance and ingenuity.

I know, however, that someday soon, I will again be asked why we fight to keep well-paying manufacturing jobs in Connecticut. I will be asked why we should continue to manufacture in a state where the governor would make ownership of our product a felony.

I will be asked these questions and, unlike in the past, there will be few good answers.

He’s right.  Some of the customer base will be faithful, but this issue runs deep, and many will abandon them.  We’ve also discussed how many will abandon Remington, too, for staying in New York and focusing almost exclusively on a new military contract.  It won’t work out well for Remington.

But the CEO will likely have to decide whether this is bluster or serious-speak.  The State of Connecticut won’t listen to him and will probably pass their ban.  When they do that, Colt will have to decide whether it is a Remington or a Magpul.  The choice is theirs, and no amount of posturing in local newspapers will delay or change things.

These are serious times for a lot of people.

Washington Times:

Transportation Security Administration inspectors forced a wounded Marine who lost both of his legs in an IED blast and who was in a wheelchair to remove his prosthetic legs at one point, and at another point to stand painfully on his legs while his wheelchair was examined, according to a complaint a congressman has registered with the TSA.

Rep. Duncan Hunter said in his letter Monday that the Marine, who is still on active duty and showed TSA agents his military identification, was still forced to undergo that scrutiny.

“A TSA office asked the Marine to stand and walk to an alternate area, despite the fact that he physically could not stand or walk on his own. With numerous TSA officers sitting and unwilling to assist, an officer then made him remove his legs, then put them back on, only to advance to a secondary screening location where he was asked again to stand, with extraordinary difficult, while his wheelchair was examined for explosives,” Mr. Hunter said.

He also said TSA officers initially directed the Marine to the wrong line, then made him move lines but made no effort to help him. The incident occurred at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor airport last week, as a group of Marines was returning to San Diego.

Mr. Hunter included two photos of the inspection in his letter that appear to show a TSA agent patting down the Marine’s arm and examining the prosthetic leg.

The congressman asked TSA to detail its procedures to inspecting wounded U.S. troops at airports, and to consider whether agents should show “situational awareness.”

Situational awareness?  Mr. Hunter’s sentiments are well placed and appropriate, but here is the point being missed in all of this.  The TSA is now and always has been a jobs program for morons who couldn’t find work doing anything else.  On top of that, the conceptual framework upon which the organization and its procedures were built doesn’t lend itself to situational awareness.  It is a statist, totalitarian concept from the outset, crafted to give morons a paycheck and something to do.

I’m sorry for the Marine, but who’s stupid enough to have expected anything else from all of this bureaucratic apoplexia?

Random thoughts and guns has an interesting post up on Bracken’s cube (h/t WRSA).  I think the way to see it is lines of tension that may act to oppose, may act symbiotically or may couple (with forces in opposite directions but with a common outcome).  You can decide for yourself.

At any rate, it is in the best interest of the hive that the rulers do all they can to eradicate the lines of tension.  This means a number of things, but an interesting line of effort appeared today.

Last Friday’s headlines focused on President Obama’s address at Argonne National Laboratory, where he proposed to spend $2 billion on an energy-security trust fund for renewable fuel research. Obama boldly pledged “to shift our cars entirely . . . off oil.”

How exactly is he planning to do that? Research will have an effect over time, but “entirely off oil” is either a greatly exaggerated or a very incomplete account of the administration’s energy plans. The New York Times story on Obama’s speech dryly notes that although the president “has vowed to make addressing climate change a priority in his second term . . . he has provided only scant details on how he intends to act.”

Look closely, however, and it’s possible to spot some troubling plans. The Times, and just about every other major news outlet, neglected to note that on the day of Obama’s Argonne speech, the Department of Energy released a series of coordinated reports called “Transportation Energy Futures” (developed in cooperation with Argonne). This DOE project explores a variety of strategies designed to curb America’s greenhouse gas emissions up to 80 percent by about 2050.

Arguably the most controversial of those reports covers the “effects of the built environment on transportation.” To put it plainly, the “built environment” report lays out strategies the federal government can use to force development away from suburbs and into cities, supposedly for the sake of reducing carbon dioxide emissions given off by all those suburban commuters. The Obama administration wants to force so-called smart growth policies on the country: get out of your car, stay out of the suburbs, move into small, tightly-packed urban apartment complexes, and walk or take public transportation instead of driving.

After all, those country boys with guns will be much easier to control if they collect them into the hive than if they leave them in the mountains and woods to cause trouble for the collective.

Do you understand?

Good grief.  Heritage again.

On February 26, the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Center for Human Rights issued a white paper on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which concludes that “the proposed ATT is consistent with the Second Amendment.” This conclusion neglects important facts about the treaty and the processes surrounding it, which we have explored in this four-part series.

We have shown that while we agree with several of the ABA’s contentions, it ignores the fact that the ATT—like many treaties—is not designed for a nation with a federal structure like the U.S. The ABA also ignores the fact that the ATT goes beyond import restrictions on firearms by requiring signatories to prevent the domestic diversion of imports. The treaty may also invite the executive branch to take executive actions to restrict and control the import of firearms into the U.S., imports which comprise about 35 percent of the new firearms market.

Finally, the treaty raises broader concerns about the application of transnational law to the U.S. These concerns are heightened by the fact that both foreign nations and some prominent legal scholars have identified treaties like the ATT as a mechanism to pressure the U.S. to change its domestic policies, and even to change the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

The question, then, is what the U.S. should do about this. The U.S. is sensitive to allegations that it is failing to fulfill treaty commitments, and it rightly takes its treaty obligations seriously. Because the ATT is a process that is designed to evolve and grow, it is impossible to know where it will lead.

A new ATT conference begins today in New York, and we will be blogging from the conference.

Supporters of the ATT frequently defend it as entirely unrelated to the Second Amendment. Some opponents of the ATT criticize it as a nefarious plot against the Second Amendment. The truth is more complicated …

Listen carefully.  No, the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty isn’t really that complicated.  It is a nefarious plot against the second amendment.

We’ve covered this in detail before.  All that rubbish and claptrap about the treaty excluding civilians because it excludes civilian arms is a ruse.  What it does is what Feinstein and Obama want to do within the framework of U.S. law, and distinguish between so-called “military weapons” and “civilian weapons.”  Again – it doesn’t distinguish between you and a member of the professional military, it distinguishes between military arms and civilian arms.

It would make illegal all sorts of firearms currently in circulation, as well as subject you to a set of rules, licensing and governmental checks that would make what Obama has proposed look like free utopia.

Some things really are as they seem.  Can Heritage at least try to get it right next time?  Otherwise, it’s just wasted space and bandwidth.

David Codrea:

“Marcus Hook mayor under investigation over gun incident,” a Saturday Philly.com report revealed.

“The mayor of tiny Marcus Hook, who just last year was a guest at the President’s State of the Union address, is under investigation for allegedly shooting a gun in his house and giving alcohol to a 20-year-old whom he threatened to hold hostage,” the report continues.

On top of that, the report says Mayor James D. Schiliro “ordered a borough police officer to pick up the 20-year-old, who was at a friend’s home, in a police vehicle and bring him to Schiliro’s home.”

But David, don’t you understand?  Gun control is like all other laws.  It is all intended for the little people, not the special people.  You are little and the special people, well, they are special.  Understand?

Read the rest at Examiner.