archives

guns

This category contains 367 posts

ATF White Paper Leaked

(in part from TFB)

There are some bold issues being addressed. One of which is point 5, the use of a stabilizing brace.

5.  Firearm Arm or Stabilizing Brace:
Manufacturers have produced an arm brace or stabilizing brace which is designed to strap a handgun to a forearm to allow a disabled shooter to fire the firearm. ATF determined that the brace was not a stock, and therefore its attachment to a handgun
did not constitute the making of a short-barreled rifle or “any other firearm” under the
National Firearms Act (NFA). (NFA classification subjects the product to a tax and registration requirement.) In the determination letter, however, ATF indicated that if the brace was held to the shoulder and used as a stock, such use would constitute a “redesign” that would result in classification of the brace/handgun combination as
an NFA firearm (i.e., the “use” would be a “redesign” and making of a short – barreled rifle). ATF has not made an other NFA determination where a shooter’s use alone was deemed be a “redesign” of the product/firearm resulting in an NFA classification. This ruling has caused confusion and concern among firearm manufacturers, dealers, and consumers about the extent to which unintended use of a product may be a basis for NFA classification. To mitigate this confusion and concern, ATF could amend the determination letter to remove the language indicating that simple use of a product for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturer – without additional proof or redesign – may result in re-classification as an NFA weapon.
While many at ATF are concerned about manufacturing processes continuing to push
the boundaries between a Gun Control Act (GCA) and an NFA firearm, ATF has a
relatively consistent history of what crosses the line between GCA and NFA firearms
with which to draw from, and still maintains the ability to exercise good judgement with
future requests based upon the firearm’s individual characteristics
.

This could change their determination that came out back in 2015 that using a brace could constitute a redesign. As Adam Kraut had explained, misusing a product is not the same as redesigning or manufacturing.

If that got you excited wait until you see what else they got cooking.

Next up is the point about Slencers.

Silencers: Current Federal law requires ATF to regulate silencers under the NFA. This
requires a Federal tax payment of $200 for transfers, ATF approval, and entry of the
silencer into a national NFA database. In the past several years, opinions about silencers
have changed across the United States. Their use to reduce noise at shooting ranges
and applications within the sporting and hunting industry are now well recognized.
At present, 42 states generally allow silencers to be used for sporting purposes. The
wide acceptance of silencers and corresponding changes in state laws have created
substantial demand across the country. This surge in demand has caused ATF
to have a significant backlog on silencer applications. ATF’s processing time is
now approximately 8 months. ATF has devoted substantial resources in attempts to reduce processing times, spending over $1 million annually in overtime and temporary duty expenses, and dedicating over 33 additional full-time and contract positions since 2011 to support NFA processing. Despite these efforts, NFA processing times are widely viewed by applicants and the industry as far too long, resulting in numerous complaints to Congress. Since silencers account for the vast majority of NFA applications, the most direct way to reduce processing times is to reduce the number of silencer applications. In light of the expanding demand and acceptance of silencers, however, that volume is unlikely to diminish unless they are removed from the NFA. While DOJ and ATF have historically not supported removal of items from the NFA, the change in public acceptance of silencers arguably indicates that the reason for their inclusion in the NFA is archaic and historical reluctance to removing them from the NFA should be reevaluated. ATF’s experience with the criminal use of silencers also supports reassessing their inclusion in the NFA. On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the GCA.
If such a change were to be considered, a revision in the definition of a silencer
would be important. The current definition of a silencer extends to “any combination of
[silencer] parts, ” as well as “any part intended only for use in” a silencer. Compared to
the definition of a firearm, which specifies the frame or receiver is the key regulated
part, any individual silencer part is generally regulated just as if it were a completed
silencer. Revising the definition could eliminate many of the current issues encountered
by silencer manufacturers and their parts suppliers. Specifically, clarifying when a part
or combination of parts meets a minimum threshold requiring serialization would be
useful.

These two points are huge. There are other great points addressed in the White Paper and I encourage you to read it all.

The conclusion of the White Paper addresses it nicely:

There are many regulatory changes or modifications that can be made by or through ATF that would have an immediate, positive impact on commerce and industry without significantly hindering ATFs mission or adversely affecting public safety.
There are also areas where adjustments to policy or processes could improve ATF operations. Alleviating some of these concerns would continue to support
ATF’s relationships across the firearms and sporting industry, and allow ATF to further focus precious personnel and resources on the mission to combat gun violence.
The future looks bright and I hope the ATF accepts these issues and solutions.
I wonder if this ‘reversal’ of some contentious regulations has anything to do with the rumor that the President, in his consolidation and streamlining of government bureaucracy, wants to eliminate the BATFE and create a division of the FBI to handle such matters?  (Fast & Furious come to mind?)  Are they trying to appear more ‘user friendly’ to their constituency to keep their agency and their jobs?
Naw, not possible…

In Search Of…

Old stuff!  (NO – not the 70’s TV series!)  😛

I’ve recently been blessed with the acquisition (or re-acquisition) of two firearms, as recounted in these pages – a first-year, original old frame style Ruger Security Six, and a Sig Sauer P245.

Both long out-of production and both ‘classics’ in their own right.

And both are fine to carry and shoot just as they are, but…

Like most gun folks, I cannot leave well enough alone!

Regarding the Ruger Security Six, she has the standard stocks.  When I was previously gun poor and carried her as a loaner (thanks again Dave the genius mechanic!) she was resplendent with a pair of Herrett Shooting Star checkered stocks.  Reportedly, these cracked beyond repair and have been discarded.

And Herrett no longer makes them for the original old frame.

Does anyone know where an old set might be acquired, or failing that, a similar style manufactured by some other manufacturer?

(Being an old-school gun guy just doesn’t get any easier?)

Now to the Sig Sauer P245.  Again no longer in production.  And the long-used night sites have faded to the brightness of the spark generated by breaking a Wint-O-Green Life Saver or white Necco Wafer in a dark closet.  Fortunately, when I can afford it, replacements ARE available.  (Although she does shoot quite well without any tritium, regardless!)

The ‘problem’ here is a decent IWB concealment holster.  Just like the Ruger, as they are no longer in production, finding accountrement for her is difficult.

AND, of course, I’m left-handed!

I like the idea of something straight-drop in Kydex, but at this point anything above a Fruit-Of-The-Loom, metal clip-on chamois pouch would suffice.

Anybody?  Bueller?  Bueller?ferris-bueller

Attention ARIZONANS!

And anyone else who legally shoots here…

remote-axd

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has released for public comment a plan that will determine what lands within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM) will be closed to target shooting. Currently, the nearly 500,000-acre SDNM is open to target shooting, with the exception of 10,599 acres temporarily closed by a court order in a lawsuit filed against an earlier BLM plan that would have kept the entire SDNM open to shooting.  The lands closed are on the north side of the SDNM along the El Paso Natural Gas Pipeline right-of-way that parallels BLM Road 8000. It also extends along both sides of BLM Road 8001, adjacent to the wilderness boundary, before terminating at BLM Road 8006.  The court order also requires the BLM to complete the management plan by September 2017.

The draft plan presents five alternatives as follows:

Alternative A – the “no action” alternative continues the 1988 Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan without change, which means that target shooting would be allowed anywhere within the SDNM.

Alternative B – the court order closure would become permanent, affecting 10,599 acres or 2.1 % of the SDNM.

Alternative C – the BLM’s preferred alternative would allow target shooting in the Desert Back Country Recreation Management Zone only and partially lift the court order closure as addressed in Alternative B.  The effect is that 54,817 acres or 11% of the SDNM would be closed to target shooting.

Alternative D – target shooting would not be allowed in designated wilderness, lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics, and the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail Recreation Management Zone, which would close 320,317 acres or 66% of the SDNM to target shooting.

Alternative E – the SDNM would be entirely closed to target shooting.

The plan with its five alternatives can be found at http://1.usa.gov/1ZPyFSA.  The public has 90 days or until March 15th to submit comments and comments may be emailed to blm_az_sdnmtargetshooting@blm.gov or faxed to 623-580-5580.

The BLM has already held three public meetings and due to the high level of interest two more hearings have been scheduled as follows:

February 11 from noon to 3 p.m. at the Cooper Sky Recreation Center located at 44342 W Martin Luther King Blvd., Maricopa.

February 21 from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Burton Barr Central Library located at 1221 N Central Ave., Phoenix.

During the first 30 minutes of each meeting, the BLM will provide opening remarks describing the ground rules and will proceed to present the alternatives. The remaining time will be conducted in an open house format, during which staff will answer additional questions and receive input to be considered.Everyone who enjoys recreational target shooting on the SDNM is strongly encouraged to review the alternatives and submit comments to the BLM.   You can be assured that those groups and individuals who are anti-gun will be flooding the BLM with comments supporting Alternative E, which would close the entire SDNM to shooting.  The focus of your comments should be on where recreational shooting has by popularity, as well as historically, taken place and where it should continue in those areas that offer a safe shooting environment.

It was BLM’s intent through an earlier management plan to close the SDNM to target shooting.  If it had not been for the intervention of the NRA, the SDNM would already be closed to shooters.  The BLM was encouraged to revise the management plan and in an about-face, it proposed that the entire SDNM be open to shooting.  But, the proposal lacked the required documentation to support that recommendation and the BLM was promptly sued.   This is the third and likely final round over the future of target shooting in the SDNM.  It is imperative that all sportsmen and women who find it important to keep our Federal lands open to hunting and shooting take this draft plan seriously by reading it and submitting individual comments.

(from the NRA/ILA)

OPINION: The DOD Should Have Picked GLOCK

(from TFB)

Forget about modularity and the other Army requirements for the newly announced M17 sidearm for a moment.  Do you mean to tell me that the DOD just spent $580M on a pistol that has barely been on the market for three years? A gun that will be carried by US soldiers for at least a decade, more likely two or three, that has only been issued to a handful of law enforcement agencies in the United States? (Love ya Hooksett, NH Police!)

The iconic GLOCK pistols have served with distinction for 35 years, in LEO agencies, Militaries, contractors and civilian hands around the globe. The new M17 should have had Gaston’s name on the slide and everyone knows it.

Fanboy? Sure, call me names, throw rotten food at your devices, raise your torches and pitchforks. Listen to some Nickleback for crying out loud. But even if you pray to a different god, be it Sig, S&W, FN or some pot metal creation you got at a show a few years back – Deep down, you know the US Army should be carrying GLOCKs as their new handgun.

Save me your ‘hand grenade’ and grip angle jabs – that’s a smoke screen and you know it. The G17 and/or G19 has served with distinction and has proven itself worthy time and time again. And unlike previous side arm choices, GLOCK pistols aren’t nearing an ‘end of life’ situation or being surpassed by new technologies. Gaston has focused on steady, calculated weapon evolution rather than spurts of revolution interspersed with setbacks. Frustrating for individual gun owners? You bet. But he knows that any misstep in reliability would leave a black mark on the Austrian handgun’s legacy.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure the Sig P320 is a fantastic pistol – reliable, accurate and well made. However, I will argue that it does nothing that the GLOCK already does with a lot more long-term supporting data from a variety of hostile environments.

Yes. I get it. Modularity.

I carried a Sig every day for eight years. I’ve carried a GLOCK every day for eight more. And now, as I ready myself to be issued a new P320, I do so with reluctance but also with acceptance. Knowing (and hoping) that somewhere far above my head, someone knows better than I do. At least I don’t have to deal with that $&@?ing manual safety.

The M9 is dead. Long live the M17.

Note the flavor of slight sarcasm, ladies and gentlemen. Life is good.

O  K

Their previous post regarding the SIG was pretty positive.

What do YOU GUYS think?

(Let the games begin!)

It’s The SIG Sauer P320!

(from TFB in part)

MHS Contract Awarded To The SIG Sauer P320!

The Sig Sauer P320 was selected as the winner of the Modular Handgun System contract on January 19th, 2017. This was the largest weapons contract that the Department of Defense has awarded in the last 32 years for a small arms replacement program. You can read the full details over at The Firearm Blog at the below link.

Breaking Story on The Firearm Blog: http://bit.ly/2jIiPtD

This story has come out the past few days, obviously overshadowed by political events of the day.

(It’s difficult to imagine we’ve had the Beretta M9 for 32 years!)

Of course, special ops/special team folks will still get to carry that which they choose, I imagine(?)  Like the venerable 1911 and the Seals’ Sig Sauer P226.

There has been a back and forth thing with Sig Sauer regarding U.S. versus European production over the past few years.  I imagine U.S. production will be required to pick up for the increased demand.  And production security.

If I had the funds, I’d like to own one.  (I don’t).  I did have a Beretta back-in-the-day as well as a number of 1911s.

1911s are my first choice.  I’m old-school.  🙂

Long Gun vs. Handgun In Home Defense

(from TFB, in part)

Long Gun vs. Handgun in Home Defense – Maneuverability Differences Overblown

It used to be conventional wisdom to have a 12 gauge at the ready for self defense. Then, slowly, the tactical world fell back in love with the handgun under the guides of maneuverability within the home. The thinking was that the handgun, being a smaller package, was better for one to clear their home. Combined with the higher capacity and ease of reloading, the handgun, was per thinking, the easier to use weapon.

This is, of course, before one even brings up the ability to suppress the weapon, which is good for the defender to maintain their hearing.

However, Thunder Ranch posits that this significant maneuverability advantage is overstated. While sure, the shotgun is a longer weapon, when presented to a target its really not significantly longer than the handgun at full arm extension in the proper firing position. They back this up with a quick demonstration of a common Mossberg 500, an over-under and a full-size 1911.

There was one point that the instructor made in the video that I think is poignant (paraphrased): “Would you rather fire one shot from a handgun at a guy running at you with a knife or a shotshell?

I,  for one, will take the shotshell.

Unfortunately, I have wee ones floating around so the need to keep the weapon locked up while easily accessible trumps my desire for 00 buck…

Yea, I remember those ‘olden days’, when home defense was defined by having a shotgun. (This was the 70’s).   I remember a discussion in some gun store with a proprietor, while drooling over an Ithaca Model 37 Deerslayer Police Special, and making conversation, suggesting it would be a ‘fine, upland bird gun’.  (This was before I owned any).  And the sales guy responded, “Would be good for turning around in a hallway, as well!”  🙂

Well, my friends, we seem to have gone full circle.

I would take the shotshell, as well, if I were ever fortunate enough to own another DSPS, again.

 

Stop The National Carry Permit

Yes, Mr. Trump has a permit.

Yes, he supports the RKBA agenda (at least now where he sees his bread is buttered!)

BUT, a National Carry Permit?

NO.

Alan Korwin (the uninvited ombudsman, author of Page Nine and many gun law books) presents the argument:

The last thing you ever want is to have the federal government issuing national — or any — firearm carry permits.

The feds do not have this power. The feds should never have this power.

Your right to have a firearm anywhere in America should never depend on getting “papers” from any government, much less the federal powers in Washington, D.C.

If you have a gun — constitutionally protected private property — and you aren’t doing anything inherently wrong, that should never be a crime. There is no victim. No one is harmed. No actual crime is committed. The idea that you need a wallet card to be somewhere you have a legal right to be is preposterous.

Too many gun owners, including some leaders of the gun-rights movement, sincere but totally misinformed and misdirected, are salivating for our permit-carrying president elect to issue some sort of national carry plan. It cannot, must not, better not be a national permit in any way shape or form.

Over 20% of these United States have enacted ‘Constitutional Carry’, that is law-abiding citizens may carry firearms without the need for permitage.

Is there blood running in the streets in these States?  No, in fact crime is down.

Let’s cut to the chase, instead of pushing for more federal control and bureaucracy, let’s make The United States ALL Constitutional Carry!

Simplicity.  And less federal intrusion.  What a concept!

Czech Gov’t: Placing Weapons In The Hands Of Citizens Is Best Defense Against Terror

Berlin (CNSNews.com) – The Czech Republic has resisted calls by the European Union’s executive Commission to tighten gun controls in response to terror attacks, forcing the E.C. to alter its proposals, allowing for the private ownership of semi-automatic weapons.

The Czech interior ministry now wants to loosen its own laws a step further, proposing a constitutional amendment on Monday that would allow its citizens to bear legally-held firearms against the perpetrators of terrorist attacks, such as those in Nice or Berlin, the Czech news agency ctk reported.

The government says that putting weapons into the hands of citizens is the best defense against terror.

The move comes despite the European Commission’s ongoing advocacy for stricter gun control laws in Europe.

The Czech parliament blocked the E.C.’s earlier attempt to introduce tighter European gun laws, after the attack in Nice.

While the E.U. Firearms Directive and Czech laws already prohibited private ownership of fully automatic weapons, the commission’s initial campaign aimed to further narrow the E.U. regulations to rule out semi-automatic and self-loading weapons – which make up about half of firearm ownership in the Czech Republic – and limit magazine sizes to ten rounds.

The Czech parliament rejected the proposal, arguing that such tougher gun laws would not be the solution as terror attackers only use illegally-held weapons. The government derided the E.C.’s plans as “legally ambiguous and in some cases excessive.”

The E.C. was last month finally able to reach agreement by all member states, including the Czechs, after allowing exceptions for hunters and gun collectors and only banning a select few semi-automatic weapons.

“Mass shootings and terrorist attacks in Europe have highlighted the dangers posed by certain firearms circulating across the E.U.,” it said in a statement, but also expressed regret at the concessions it had to make, such as not banning all semi-automatic weapons or limiting magazines to ten rounds.

Despite the E.U.’s concerns, the latest Czech proposal argues that armed citizens would be the best defense against terror attacks.

In a statement on Monday, Interior Minister Milan Chovanec said that amending the constitution would reduce the chances of attacks by enabling “active and rapid defense.”

Citizens should be given the right to use firearms to defend their “life, health and property” and contribute to “ensuring the internal order, security and territorial integrity” of the country, he said.

As December’s truck attack in Berlin demonstrated, security forces have not been able to guarantee the full prevention of attacks. In light of the threat, the Czech ministry argued that the proposed amendment would help to prevent the loss of lives by allowing civilians to contribute to “internal order and security.”

The proposal is scheduled to be considered in March. To pass, it must be agreed upon by at least three-fifths of all deputies and three-fifths of all senators present.

The exact details of the interior ministry’s proposal are still to be worked out, and for now simply indicates that it is subject to “terms and details prescribed by law.”

However, it appears likely to expand the range of “genuine reasons” for possession of a firearm to include those of “national security” – and thus, theoretically, allow anyone to own a gun.

Gun ownership is currently legal in the Czech Republic. As per E.U. regulations, firearms are required to be registered, and Czech law also requires a license and a genuine reason to possess a firearm, such as for hunting or personal protection.

Gun holders are also required to pass a background check which considers factors such as mental health and criminal history.

Unlike gun ownership, there are no laws explicitly covering civilian use of a firearm in self-defense, nor in regards to terror attacks specifically. Such an incident would fall under general criminal provisions regarding self-defense, which may allow the use of a gun, but only in cases of absolute necessity (including the threat of “imminent” attack).

Self-defense case law in the Czech Republic has applied only to violent assaults such as rape and robberies, and not to terrorism. It is not clear yet how the constitutional amendment would, if at all, build on or deviate from this established law.

The country was shaken by a mass shooting in 2015, when 63-year-old Zdenk Ková fired on a group of 20 people, killing 8. Ková, had a gun holder’s license despite a history of misdemeanors and concerns over his mental state.

The incident prompted calls for a re-examination of Czech gun laws, but they are still considered among the most lax in the E.U., partly due to the fact semi-automatic weapon possession is allowed.

According to data collated by Gunpolicy.org, a firearm injury prevention NGO, an estimated 7.6 percent of Czech’s 10 million residents legally hold weapons, with 810,046 registered privately owned firearms in the country.

h/t Facebook

Perhaps the Czechs have a longer memory than most Europeans?.  Nazis?  Communists?  Other forms of terror?

Of course, the French and most of the E.U. just doubled-down on restrictions for their citizenry subjects.  Wanna bet the next European attack will be in another ‘gun-free’ zone?

The Great ( ) Hope

(I was gonna put WHITE in there, but didn’t wish to mislead!)

Well, it seems this Nation is indeed separated into two three factions:  Those who support the President-elect, and those who hate him.  (And those for whom the jury remains out).

I don’t think our long national nightmare is yet over…

Remember FOUR EIGHT years ago, when the Electoral College put a Black man into the White House?  And many on the Right referred to him as The Black Jesus?  Because the Left viewed him as the solution to all things ‘wrong’ with the Country.

And, after all, he wasn’t George W. Bush (or his weak carbon copy John McCain?  Or Mitt Romney?)

Hope and Change?  Fundamentally transform?  (Pick one).

Well, now (if we’re thinking racially), we’ve replaced a Black man with a White man.  (Not that other Black candidates weren’t possible – Condi Rice?  Mia Love?  Clarence Thomas?…)

If we’re NOT thinking racially, Mr. Trump is a populist.

He doesn’t appear to have read recent Supreme Court decisions, or, the U.S. Constitution, however. (wanting to ban flag burning, for example – reprehensible speech though it may be).

And Gitmo will remain, as will massive surveillance.  As will issues with guns, illegal immigration, terrorism and civil liberties.  Pending court decisions on the next administration’s actions.

And, I think many folks are harkening back to the days of Norman Rockwell.  (The 40’s, 50’s?)  Burying their heads in the sand, because we no longer have a Leftist President.  Of whatever color.

Those of us who are concerned with civil liberties need to continue our watch into the next administration.

Lest we become blindsided colorblind.

TFB’s 11th Day Of Christmas: Pistols

(from The Firearm Blog)

TFB’s 11th Day Of Christmas: Pistols

IMG_5088

Ah, what more do you need on a long winter’s night than a crackling fire, a warm drink and a pistol that you can use to fight your way back to your rifle. That saying never seems to get old… however, without starting a full-on blizzard of angry comments, a pistol is an adequate defensive weapon in the majority of first-world scenarios. That’s not to say that I would try and dictate how others decide to protect themselves.

A proper pistol outfitted with a weapon light, suppressor, optic and spare magazines is a very capable loadout in trained hands. Besides, they are easier to conceal, carry and deploy in those “oh sh*t” moments that can interrupt everyday life.

But, being the Holiday Season and all, I picked out handguns that I’d like to wake up to under the tree on Christmas morning. Not only because they can be used to defend and protect, but because they are just plain fun to shoot.

IMG_5224

More at this link!

As if you haven’t already spent all your money!

😛

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…