archives

gun culture

This tag is associated with 158 posts

Gun Talk Media VS The NRA

I received two emails yesterday from two (one would think) like-minded entities.  One, the NRA (full disclosure, I am long time Life Member), the second, Gun Talk Media, an Internet blog and media source.

I have posted on this blog regarding the NRAs push to contact Congress regarding the last administration’s efforts to restrict gun rights to those who may have mental limitations (by their view mental illness).  And I have supported their efforts to reverse this measure.

Now comes these emails.  The NRAs requesting immediate action on a pending Senate vote to stop this travesty.

And this from Gun Talk Media:

FAKE NEWS ALERT
Social Security Administration Gets Into Gun Ban Business

As he left office, President Obama screwed American seniors who own or want to own guns by issuing an executive order directing the Social Security Administration to treat seniors in the same miserable way the Veterans Administration does our vets. That is, the SSA now reports to the FBI anyone who prefers to have someone else handle their finances, and the FBI puts that person on the list that is a LIFETIME BAN on owning firearms.

Naturally, the general media portrayed this as keeping guns out of the hands of those with serious mental defects, and when the House of Representatives voted 235 to 180 to repeal this gun confiscation move, the howls from the fourth estate nearly drowned out the facts. Nearly.

As a Gun Talk Truth Squad member, you have the opportunity to push back on these bogus reports, and to answer friends who offer that this ban “seems reasonable.” Here are the facts.

The media said that the SSA would be providing the information to the FBI so these people could

be included in a “background check database.” Well … doesn’t that sound reasonable? The fact is that this move actually puts these people on a list that bans firearms ownership for life.

Who would oppose putting those with “serious mental defects” into a “background check database?” The NRA, of course. But wait. Another vocal opponent is the ACLU. Yes, the American Civil Liberties Union.  Groups supporting and providing aid to those who actually do suffer from mental handicaps also opposed the “I’m outta here” move by the departing “vertical pronoun” President to ban tens of thousand of Americans from owning guns, and all without due process.

Here’s an example of the media coverage of the House vote to repeal this rule. This is from Politico.

Democrats ripped the move as an effort by Republicans to undermine background checks for gun purchasers. After the House vote, Sen. Dianne Feinstein pleaded with supporters to rally against the move in the Senate. “Senate may vote today to weaken background checks on gun purchases. Call your Senator to oppose this change — ensure your voice is heard!” she wrote.

Tell your friends that there has been a law in effect for decades that prohibits the truly mentally incompetent from owning guns, and this law provides for due process. Under current law, if one has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, he or she can’t own a gun. “Adjudicated.” As in, a judge and a court room. Where you can defend yourself. Not a bureaucrat who checks a box and places your name on the banned-for-life list. ~ Tom

So, has the NRA been waving a false flag (creating FAKE NEWS) to feather it’s own nest?  Or is it simply rubber stamping additional efforts to let the government know we are no longer allowing our civil rights to be curtailed without due process?

What do YOU think?

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…

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!)

So, I Went SHOOTING On Monday…

la-dee da, la dee da…

Actually, this is a VERY BIG DEAL!

Since I became ill (with the lymphoma* – the unnecessary extra the is necessary now that I’m getting older!  😛  ) and went on disability, I’ve been shooting very little.  Perhaps six or seven times in the past 7 years…

And, when I was working I was going two to three times a month!

This is a very big deal, and a good thing!

(THANK YOU TO MY BENEFACTORS WHO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION AND FUNDING, AND THOSE WHO PROVIDED AMMUNITION.  YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.)

AND, I’m told there is a tentative shooting date in DECEMBER!

OO-RAH!

‘hats and horns all around!’hats-and-horns

*I’ve been in remission since August 2009, thank-you-very-much!  Six months of chemo did the trick.  (knock-on-wood!)

 

 

How To Spot A Concealed Handgun

The Art of Manliness (a blog to which I sometimes refer) not only addresses etiquette, style and proper behavior, but also delves into ‘manly’ things such as camping, hunting, shooting, unarmed combat and other esoterica.  (Of course, many of these subjects may be of interest to women, as well!) 🙂

A recent guest post was entitled as above.  I’m posting it below, in it’s entirety, not just to entertain and inform, but to show those who do carry behaviors and appearances which may bring to them unwarranted attention.

Enjoy!

How to Spot a Concealed Handgun

By A Manly Guest Contributor on Oct 21, 2016 02:10 pm

The following is an excerpt from 100 Deadly Skills: Survival Edition — The SEAL Operative’s Guide to Surviving in the Wild and Being Prepared for Any Disaster. A follow-up to Clint’s first bestseller — 100 Deadly Skills: The SEAL Operative’s Guide to Eluding Pursuers, Evading Capture, and Surviving Any Dangerous Situation — this new survival edition offers primers on any survival situation imaginable, from wilderness scenarios, to terrorism and kidnappings, to natural disasters.

100-deadly-survival_final

CONOP: Concept of Operations; COA: Course of Action; BLUF: Bottom Line Up Front

Individuals who carry a handgun professionally are well attuned to the range of mannerisms that can indicate the presence of a concealed weapon within their vicinity. Civilians, too, can learn to familiarize themselves with these signs and signals. When combined with suspicious behavior, the suspected presence of a concealed weapon should put bystanders on high alert.

Body Language: People carrying handguns tend to subconsciously telegraph the location of the weapon via their body language. They may reflexively palpate the gun to make sure the weapon is still safely in its holster, subtly re-position the weapon prior to sitting or standing, or shift their weight away from nearby bystanders to avoid accidental contact with or theft of the weapon.

Asymmetry: Another telltale sign is asymmetry in clothing. Guns are heavy and bulky, and thus will betray signs of their presence to anyone who’s paying attention. An outside-the-waistband holster may cause a visible midline bulge, while an ankle holster may cause a bulge or tightening of the fabric at the lower leg. A gun held in a jacket pocket will weight down one side of the jacket unevenly.

Environment: Hot or inclement weather can make concealed weapons easier to spot. Rain, wind, or sweat can reveal the outline of a gun, which will generally be much easier to hide under multiple layers of cold-weather clothing.

Negligence: Weapons are also frequently exposed due to temporary negligence, flashed or inadvertently dropped as a gunman reaches for his wallet. Dropped weapons are an all-too-common scenario at public urinals, where inexperienced perpetrators may thoughtlessly unzip their pants — thereby releasing the tension that was holding up the holster.

The post How to Spot a Concealed Handgun appeared first on The Art of Manliness.

Carrying A ‘Modified’ Gun

custom-gunfrom TFB

The Legal Brief has continued to build upon its successful launch into a fantastic no-nonsense resource for the gun community. Attorney Adam Kraut, an associate at the Firearms Industry Consulting Group and Prince Law Offices, P.C. takes the years required to earn his J.D. and boils critical legal topics relevant to the gun world into practical snippets.

Unfortunately, I am late to publishing one of his latest Briefs, a review of the legal basis of modifying one’s firearm. Mr. Kraut, Esq. breaks down the due process that one will go through post defensive encounter and basically so long as one used their weapon in legal self-defense, one is free to modify their weapon as they see fit.

That said, if one is charged there is the potential that one’s modifications could be used to show the intent of the shooter, but its nearly unheard of (Adam states he’s never heard of one, which as a firearms attorney is a significant statement).

The key is, as always, the totality of the circumstances is the key. A modified firearm, assuming the modification does not cause a negligent discharge, is only a minor issue, if its an issue at all.

My take? Modify away on functional bits such as triggers and non-functional aesthetic options such as colors. However, stay away from items that could be construed to show intent such as a “Smile, Wait for Flash” on the crown of a barrel, etc.

Of course, there is the additional caveat regarding the brand, style, and type of ammunition.  Your attorney’s defense team may need a firearms legal expert (like Massad Ayoob) to explain to the folks who were unable to avoid jury duty why you were carrying ‘cop-killer bullets’, or Black Talons or some other ‘evil sounding’ named ammunition.  And why the extra rounds? (magazine(s), speedloader(s))?  Were you planning to ‘fill ’em full o’lead’?

And, at least some of this depends on geography.  Is your prosecutor in gun-hating New York or California, of gun-friendly (generally) Arizona?

Also, do you want your special, custom, smith-worked-on machine to be held in a dusty evidence room until after the trial?  Some folks shoot their custom guns for fun, but carry stock guns they won’t miss if they are stored away in a gov’t evidence room (from which evidence has been known to have been played with, tampered with, and/or disappear?)

Many things to consider when you carry.  And what you carry?

 

I’m Getting All Warm And Fuzzy!

try-not-to-feel-all-warm-and-fuzzy-inside-when-you_21from Wirecutter:

Bass Pro and Cabella’s combine

OMAHA, NEB. — Outdoor gear giants Bass Pro and Cabela’s will combine in a $4.5 billion deal announced Monday.

Bass Pro is paying Cabela’s shareholders $65.50 cash per share. The deal creates uncertainty about jobs in Cabela’s home state of Nebraska. The combined companies plan to keep some operations in Sidney and Lincoln, Nebraska, but it’s not immediately clear how many jobs might be lost.

Bass Pro CEO Johnny Morris says he hopes to continue growing the Cabela’s brand alongside his own Springfield, Missouri, based chain.

Capital One will take over running Cabela’s credit card unit as part of the deal. Activist investment firm Elliott Management began pushing for significant changes at Cabela’s last fall. Cabela’s employs about 2,000 people in the western Nebraska town of Sidney, which has about 7,000 residents.
SOURCE

Yeah, I don’t know about this merger’s effect on jobs, but there is a Cabela’s 40+ miles NW of me, and a Bass Pro maybe 7 miles NE of me.  If they both remain open, I vote to go to the NE location.  🙂

NOW, If I just had money…

(PS – word on the ‘Net is they are differently themed stores, and undoubtedly something will be lost in this merger.  As I’m pretty much a window-shopper only, it has little effect on me.  And I remember my first (and only) visit to Cabela’s.  And the handgun display proclaiming a model by LES BAUER! (it should have been Les Baer)  Not everyone is perfect.)

 

Rifles In Time Square

from TFB (in part)

First of all, my thoughts and prayers go out to the survivors and family members of the police officers murdered yesterday.  The female officer who was killed had just returned from maternity leave.  She had a four-month old child.  –  Guffaw

DSC_0306

Whenever I travel somewhere, I have a tendency to notice armed police/security. Especially when they are carrying rifles. Just one week after the Chelsea bombing in NYC, my wife and I took our 4 month old to visit NYC. It was a bit of a risk since I could not legally carry in NYC, but then CCW won’t do much against an IED like what was used last week.. Anyway I noticed an increase in police activity. A lot more police officers on patrol. When I took this picture, I saw people coming up to these officers and thanking them for their service.

However these other officers stood out like sore thumbs in Time Square. They are all wearing Ops-Core helmets and what look like plate carriers. I do like that they have modernized and are using hearing protection which also doubles as communication head sets to their radios.  The rifles are sporting what looks like Aimpoint Pros with rear MBUS. The front sight is a folding gasblock front sight and the railed handguards have Inforce WMLs.

I remember posting about civilian police being deployed on a regular basis in teams with selective-fire weaponry some time ago.  Beginning in NYC.

And I was told this is already occurring in other metropolitan areas.

I remember active discussions in my Police Science classes (in the mid-70’s) regarding civil liberties versus police presence.  And the general consensus was we, as a society, preferred NOT to have cops on every corner!  Having them in teams with rifles was not even on the radar, then!

YES, we need policing.  How we go about it is the question.

And how we preserve, protect and defend The Constitution (including The Bill of Rights, of course) is another question.

The fact that we even have to ask these questions in the wake of the BLM violence and the cop killings in California (on a domestic violence call) further makes the point.

How armed do we want the police to be versus the legally-armed citizenry?

 

The 22%

ccwI remember (way back in the 1970s – when I got into gun stuff as an adult) fantasizing that I lived in a State that had concealed weapon permits!  How cool would THAT have been?  Being able to be armed – discreetly!

One of the reasons I wanted to become a cop was that very reason.  It seemed sad that few States had permittage, and most of them were may issue.  Usually meaning unless you were one of the special few (or perhaps funds changed hands) you either did nor carry concealed, or did not carry concealed legally!

Now, here we are in the new century, and the tide has turned.  A significant number of States how have concealed weapon laws and some even passed Constitutional Carry – no permit needed!

Specifically, with the addition of Missouri, 11 States (22% of the 50!) no permit required!

41 States, and Guam(!)  now have some provision for shall issue permits! (Wikipedia)

Of course, we still have States like California (and New York), with their difficult to get may issue permits, and checkerboard of convoluted and restrictive gun laws.

And with the ever-present nonsense by the Statists equating gun ownership with terrorism.  (Hillary?)

BUT, things have definitely improved since the 1940’s, and in spite of warnings to the contrary regarding every CCW (carry concealed weapon) and Constitutional Carry law being passed, there has been no blood in the streets!
(It seems every time such legislation is suggested, the ANTI-RIGHTS folks trot out the same, tired meme.)

It’s been said that the American Revolution was started and maintained by just 3% of the population.  In spite of the ubiquitous onslaught of the anti rights control folks, we seem to be winning!

Hooray for the responsible, law-abiding citizens, going about their private business invoking their right to possible self-defense!

Now, if we could just reverse the rampant surveillance and searching without warrant!  I know, one Amendment at a time…

Sigh.

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…