There have been many comments left on our P320 hammer test video that dispute the validity of the test I performed with a hammer. I hate to tell you guys, but that was never supposed to be a scientific test. The reality of the matter is that I am flat out not set up for lab quality testing for failures with firearms, nor do I want to be.
I have seen all of your comments but have been on the road and unable to spend the time fielding them as I would like to have.
So why did I perform the test in the first place and why did I show you guys? Since the first news of the P320 drop safety failure hit the internet, I started having an extended conversation with a friend of mine who is well known for his aftermarket support of the P320. He and I spent some time spitballing what might be going on with the gun. As a result of those conversations, I shot the slow motion footage on my iPhone that made its way into the video.
Did I look at the footage frame by frame before shooting the video? Nope. I shot something quickly a few hours before I was due to be at the airport and on my way to Rockcastle Shooting Center in Kentucky. I probably got a bunch of things wrong, in fact I know I got some of it wrong.
For example, the trigger only traveled 1/8″ rearward when the back of the pistol was struck and allowed the striker safety to be disengaged. We still aren’t sure what is going on with the sear allowing the striker to be released, but at this point, it doesn’t really matter. All we can do now is wait for Sig to get the upgraded pistols out to shooters and see if they fail in the same manner as we have seen the P320 do so before.
You can watch the video above if you would like to see what video is being referenced.
A number of governmental entities have adopted the P320. Then have walked-back their endorsement. The most prominent being, of course, the DOD.
Seems there are some ‘safety’ issues. Like they fail drop and hammer tests.
(As do a number of other already prominent firearms!)
We never used to see such waffling in sales/promotion of firearms.
While I’ve no dog in this hunt, I suspect LAWYERS are involved!
I try to limit the flotsam and jetsam (i.e. Spam) in my primary email inboxes. Not because I fear viruses (I do!) but because they are a waste of time.
But, spam filters being imperfect, sometimes ‘things’ get through!
(From a free DVD!)
Would You Like To Own A 100% Legal Glock 9mm That The Government Doesn’t Know Exists?…
Using Nothing But A Hacksaw, File, Drill And This Breakthrough FREE DVD You Can Literally Create A Fully Functional Undetectable Glock 9mm In Your Garage In Under An Hour, Just Like This…
P.S. This is currently 100% legal in all 50 states and I’d love to give it to you for free right now…
(Now, if memory serves, BATFE rules state you can ‘make’ your own firearm for personal use. Whether or not this kind of ‘making’ is allowed under the rules I’m reluctant to test! And the rules may have been changed w/o them notifying me!)
Not to mention, I’m mechanically challenged. I can completely disassemble (and reassemble) a standard AR15, a S&W ‘old-school’ revolver and most Browning-designed semiautomatics. I ‘accurized’ a 1911 by taking a raw barrel bushing and using only my hands, sanded the barrel contact surface until the barrel just made it through. Took about 4 hours.
BUT, building a ghost gun from parts?!
Yeah, I don’t know…
Plus, what if you are carrying it and questioned by the local police. Will they know it is technically legal?
And there’s that whole BATFE thing!
Not for me!
To the spam cave!
(If you are interested in such things, I’m certain the Internet will provide the link. I won’t.)
Gun Owners of Arizona via FB
A Chief of Police gets to experience what lawful firearm owners experience everyday. The difference? He is law enforcement and gets an apology. Welcome to our world Chief.
THE WOODLANDS, Texas – A local police chief is reeling after he was refused treatment at a Woodlands doctor’s office Tuesday because he was wearing his gun in his holster.
Conroe Police Department Chief Philip Dupuis said he was also wearing his badge and clearly identified himself to the office manager at Texas ENT who told him to leave.
“She said, ‘Sir, I need you to take your gun out to your car.’ I said, ‘Excuse me?’ She said, ‘Sir, I need you to take your gun out to your car. It’s our policy,’” Dupuis said. “I said, ‘Well, I’m not taking my gun out to my car, give me my driver’s license and insurance back, and I’ll find me a new ENT.’”
Notices posted outside the door of Texas ENT clearly state it prohibits both concealed- and open-carry firearms inside the building.
Texas law enforcement officers are legally allowed to carry weapons inside of private businesses with these notices. However, these notices are rarely, if ever, enforced by the businesses that post them when it comes to law enforcement officers.
Chief Dupuis says he has never been kicked out of a business for wearing his firearm in his 35 years in law enforcement and was embarrassed in front of the other patients in the waiting room.
He acknowledges it is a private business’s right to refuse service or treatment to whomever they please, as it is his right to take his business somewhere else.
A spokesman for Texas ENT told KHOU 11 News an office employee made a big mistake yesterday and said he has personally apologized to Chief Dupuis.
Dupuis said he expected to hear from his physician, Dr. Rosalie Burke, M.D., rather than a manager of the practice. He said she has not attempted to contact him.
Texas ENT released the following statement in response to the incident:
“We regret the situation yesterday involving Chief Dupuis and a member of our staff. We have personally apologized to Chief Dupuis for any inconvenience or embarrassment he experienced. Our team is working diligently to insure that a situation like this does not occur again. Our company values law enforcement officers and first responders for their selfless service and will serve them and our communities with the utmost respect.”
Chief Dupuis said he was not looking for attention but got a swarm of responses after posting details of the incident to Facebook.
© 2017 KHOU-TV
This made me chuckle. Not only because of the absurdity of it, but it reminded me of a long lost memory.
When I worked @ TMCCC (that major credit card company), we had an operations manager who thought she was all that. And then some.
She imposed ‘speed humps’ so not-to-spec in the parking lot, that some employee’s vehicles ‘high centered’, and were even damaged. She was the one who enforced the ‘no guns on the company campus’ policy, to the extent she stated no employees at a company function (even if it were after-hours and not paid!) were allowed to possess weapons. And when the credit card investigations department offered facilities to the regional financial crimes investigation organization for meetings and seminars (including law enforcement) she insisted law enforcement disarm upon entering the building!
Of course, this was scoffed at, and we were told if we wanted to be included in police protection we needed to rescind that order. Which we did.
Later, we offered a rest stop for local patrol officers to reconnoiter in the building, get a cup of coffee, use the restroom, etc. The previous ban on weapons was not mentioned…
The day after this woman left the company, the speed humps were removed.
(The only time the peons saw this woman was if someone was going to be canned. Some folks (I’m not going to say who, specifically) would hum the theme to the Wizard of Oz’ Wicked Witch of the West (under their breath) when she would appear in the area pending someone’s termination. Good times, good times…)
(from Tamara, via FB)
(AND, the comment posted below which takes the Internets!)
Sooo…exercising one right negates another???
(NEWSER) – A civilian review panel tasked with investigating complaints against New York City cops has spotted a trend: NYPD officers knocking cellphones and other video recording devices out of the hands of concerned citizens. In a three-year analysis of complaints against city officers starting in 2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board discovered 257 complaints that contained 346 allegations of officer interference with civilian recordings of police actions, LawNewz reports, citing a CCRB report. In addition to knocking devices out of civilians’ hands, those acts of interference included verbal directions to stop recording, obstructing sightlines, and threatening to arrest or detain civilians for recording police actions. All told, 46% of the complaints alleged physical interference.
It’s New York, so I cannot carry a weapon.
And the police can do as they please and interfere with lawful recording in public of questionable events.
Hardly the NYC police department as portrayed in Tom Selleck’s TV series Blue Bloods!
(Of course, Selleck is NOT the real police commissioner of NYC, either!)
Reminiscent of watching Air Force One, and seeing a President fight terrorists. Then leaving the theater feeling great, then remembering that the real President (at the time) was Bill Clinton!
I usually fall asleep between 1120 and midnight. And arise between 0600 and 0700.
(NO, this is not an invitation to call! I’ve my morning shower-dress-meditation ritual)
Rarely am I disturbed. (Insert joke here) Except, of course, the battle sometime between 0130 and 0400 between my bladder and I. Who IS Master of my bladder? (It’s apparent, not me!) 😛
ANYWAY, my roomie and I share a ‘Jack and Jill’ bathroom. And, with her sleep schedule, sometimes I hear her in the loo. Sometimes I hear her TV.
This is not usually any big deal.
BUT, last night, after my traditional loss of the battle of wills with my bladder, I returned to bed, anticipating a return to sleep in a minute-or-so. When BOOM! Followed by yet another BOOM! And another!
It was a bit after 0400.
I thought ‘great – I awakened my roomie’ and she turned on her television. And was watching The Battle of Britain, or The Guns of Navarone!
But I was in error.
Usually, when she does that (a rarity) she hears the error of her way and turns it down in a few minutes. The noises continued, unabated for at least twenty!
And, I knew it wasn’t yet Independence Day!
So, I bailed out of bed, listening to the ongoing explosions, crossed the no-man’s land of the bathroom, and rapped on her door.
Yes? She replied.
I opened the door slightly and asked, “Is it you making all this noise, or is it the neighbors?”
She answered, “It’s the neighbors. And I’ve already called the police on them!”
About ten minutes later, the booming stopped.
Video gaming?! The neighbor is a young woman who seems to have a revolving door of male roommates. Perhaps this was one of them?
ANYWAY, back to sleep I went (at around 0500) and rolled out a bit after 6.
I hope to get an afternoon nap later today.
(from NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS VOLUME 24, NUMBER 26, in part)
Supreme Court Declines to Take Carry Case, but Gorsuch Casts a Solidly Pro-Gun Vote
Gun owners received disappointing news on Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that effectively let stand California’s “may-issue” permitting regime. The upshot of this decision is that law-abiding Californians in many areas of the state will be effectively denied the right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.
But there was a silver lining to this development as Justice Neil M. Gorsuch – President Trump’s pick to replace the late, great Antonin Scalia – came out strongly in favor of the Second Amendment by joining a dissent from the court’s decision penned by Second Amendment stalwart Justice Clarence Thomas. Gorsuch’s participation in the dissent confirmed that he, unlike so many of his colleagues in the federal judiciary, is indeed prepared to take the Second Amendment seriously.
The underlying case was Peruta v. San Diego. The plaintiffs had complained of being arbitrarily denied concealed carry permits, the only way for law-abiding persons in California to exercise the right to carry loaded, operable firearms in public for self-defense. Each plaintiff met all the qualifications for a permit but one: they could not show an extraordinary need for self-protection that distinguished them from the general population, as required by licensing officials in their counties of residence.
The case therefore presented the court with an opportunity to clearly state whether or not the Second Amendment extends its protections beyond the home. Indeed, the three-judge panel that originally heard the case in the Ninth Circuit recognized that its defining issue was “whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
The panel answered that question affirmatively, stating: “the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.” The panel also noted that it was California’s own decision to make concealed carry permits the only lawful path to do so. It therefore held the plaintiffs could prevail with “a narrow challenge to the San Diego County regulations on concealed carry, rather than a broad challenge to the state-wide ban on open carry ….”
After the panel’s opinion was published, the full Ninth Circuit voted for a larger en banc panel to rehear the case. The en banc decision, however, avoided the real issue presented by the case and held that “the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” It therefore summarily disposed of the plaintiffs’ claims without confronting the question of whether the Second Amendment applies beyond the home at all.
The Supreme Court majority, as is typical, did not issue an opinion explaining why it refused to review the en banc decision. Its refusal to do so does not, however, represent an endorsement of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning or holding. As commentators have mentioned, federal appellate and state courts of last resort have come out different ways on the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection for carrying outside the home, and these disparate outcomes are not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision this week. The court may simply have decided, for example, that it did not want the differences between the panel and en banc approaches to the case to cloud the issue presented for its own resolution.
Whatever the majority’s thinking, the opinions of Justices Thomas and Gorsuch came through with vivid clarity in a sharply worded dissent from the decision to pass over the case. “At issue in this case,” Thomas wrote, “is whether [the Second Amendment] protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.” They called the en banc court’s resolution of this issue “indefensible” and “untenable” and asserted it was “not justified by the terms of the complaint, which called into question the State’s regulatory scheme as a whole.” They also opined that that “[h]ad the en banc Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result.”
Thomas and Gorsuch additionally chided their judicial colleagues for treating the Second Amendment as a “disfavored right.” Thomas explained:
The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.
The dissent also contrasted the plight of the average citizen who must largely provide for his or her own security with that of government elites “who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force.” The Framers, Thomas wrote, “reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.”
Here’s what that bastion of liberal thought, Harvard University, has to say about it:
(from the Daily Wire)
Harvard Study: Minimum Wage Hikes Killing Businesses
Erik Mcgregor/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images
A new Harvard Business School study found that minimum wage hikes lead to closures of small businesses. “We find suggestive evidence that an increase in the minimum wage leads to an overall increase in the rate of exit,” the researchers conclude.
The study, titled Survival of the Fittest: The Impact of the Minimum Wage on Firm Exit, looks at “the impact of the minimum wage on restaurant closures using data from the San Francisco Bay Area” from 2008-2016.
Researchers Dara Lee Luca and Michael Luca chose the Bay Area due to their frequent minimum wage hikes in recent years. “In the San Francisco Bay Area alone, there have been twenty-one local minimum wage changes over the past decade,” they write.
The Lucas found that lower-quality restaurants (indicated by Yelp scores) were disproportionately affected by wage hikes, increasing their likelihood of closure relative to higher-quality, established restaurants.
“The evidence suggests that higher minimum wages increase overall exit rates for restaurants. However, lower quality restaurants, which are already closer to the margin of exit, are disproportionately impacted by increases to the minimum wage,” says the study. “Our point estimates suggest that a one dollar increase in the minimum wage leads to a 14 percent increase in the likelihood of exit for a 3.5-star restaurant (which is the median rating), but has no discernible impact for a 5-star restaurant (on a 1 to 5 star scale).”
While “firm exit” was the focus of the study, the researchers also noted that there are often other consequences from wage hikes, such as worker layoffs, increased pricing and hour-cuts for existing workers:
While some studies find no detrimental effects on employment (Card and Krueger 1994, 1998; Dube, Lester & Reich, 2010), others show that higher minimum wage reduces employment, especially among low-skilled workers (see Neumark & Wascher, 2007 for a review). However, even studies that identify negative impacts find fairly modest effects overall, suggesting that firms adjust to higher labor costs in other ways. For example, several studies have documented price increases as a response to the minimum wage hikes (Aaronson, 2001; Aaronson, French, & MacDonald, 2008; Allegretto & Reich, 2016). Horton (2017) find that firms reduce employment at the intensive margin rather than on the extensive margin, choosing to cut employees hours rather than counts.
Such findings were backed up by Garret/Galland Research’s Stephen McBride, who highlighted in March the “minimum wage massacre.”
“Currently, rising labor costs are causing margins in the sector to plummet. Those with the ability to automate like McDonalds are doing so… and those who don’t are closing their doors. In September 2016, one-quarter of restaurant closures in the California Bay Area cited rising labor costs as one of the reasons for closing,” McBride wrote in Forbes.
“While wage increases put more money in the pocket of some, others are bearing the costs by having their hours reduced and being made part-time,” he added.
As noted by Red Alert Politics, the Bay Area is headed for a $15 minimum wage in July of 2018, though they’ve already seen over 60 restaurants close since September.
While it would behoove the Bernie Bros picketing for $15 an hour to take a look at this study, it’s entirely unlikely that such evidence would deter their entitled attitudes.
I posted regarding this phenomena before, but I obviously don’t have the gravitas of Harvard (nor, apparently the other sources I borrowed
It’s basic economics – businesses expect X dollar profit to be profitable – having the gov’t mandate paying their employees more money lessens profit. Something has to give.
We’re seeing many more kiosks on restaurant tables and counters these days.
They cost less.
“Come With Me If You Want To Live!”
Harvard ‘Shock’ Study: Each $1 Minimum Wage Hike Causes 4-10% Increase In Restaurant Failures
When I was making minimum wage, I changed jobs when I saw I couldn’t make rent and eat on that income. This was in the 70s, when I began making $1.60 an hour, and moved up to $2.10…
(I’m generally a rule follower – unless, of course, they are silly, or put me in danger. I DO like order, and dislike those who endanger those close to me – whether or not it’s through self-centeredness or malice. – Guffaw)
We’re staying at an undisclosed location, while the powers-that-be are repairing the shower leak in the townhouse. Or at least beginning the process. (The ceiling beneath the leak has been excised, and is being dried. We await the plumbers and subsequent reconstruction. No contractors present today!)
All guests herein are required to sign a form that this is a non-smoking campus.
My roommate is extremely asthmatic, and is sensitive to tobacco smoke.
So, this is a positive development.
On Day One here, she smelled smoke in the hall directly outside our room. On Day Two, it happened again, more intensely. We notified the front desk.
The second day, it did negatively affect her breathing. It was definitely stronger.
And pissed us off. We contacted the front desk.
Subsequently, we heard a loud discussion outside our room. Upon opening the door, we observed the general manager in confrontation with the tenants directly across the hall.
They were ‘young people’ (under 40).
At length, the manager called us and advised they had been charged an additional $250. As both a penalty, and to clean the room.
And they were evicted from the hotel!
I understand the mechanism of addiction. And also understand one must make amends for one’s mistakes. This is a step in the right direction.
PS – I’m NOT against smoking. It’s a quasi-legal activity, using a legal substance. And, I don’t like smokers being treated as third-class citizens.
But, follow the rules to which you agreed, people!
(from Judicial Watch…)
Just when you think we’ve learned most of what there is to learn about Hillary Clinton’s emails a new mole pops up out of the hole.
This week Judicial Watch released State Department documents including a declaration from FBI Special Agent E.W. Priestap, the supervisor of the agency’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email activities, stating that the former secretary of state was the subject of a grand jury investigation related to her BlackBerry email accounts.
The declaration was produced in response to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking to force Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to take steps to “recover emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton” and other U.S. Department of State employees (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rex Tillerson (No. 1:15-cv-00785)). We originally filed the lawsuit against then-Secretary of State John Kerry. The Trump State Department filing includes details of the agency’s continuing and shameful refusal to refer the Clinton email issue to the Justice Department, as the law requires.
In the filing, Priestap declares under penalty of perjury that the FBI “obtained Grand Jury subpoenas related to the Blackberry e-mail accounts, which produced no responsive materials, as the requested data was outside the retention time utilized by those providers.”
On April 30, 2015, Judicial Watch sued Kerry after the State Department failed to take action on a letter sent to Kerry “notifying him of the unlawful removal of the Clinton emails and requesting that he initiate enforcement action pursuant to the [Federal Records Act],” including working through the Attorney General to recover the emails.
After initially being dismissed by the district court, Judicial Watch’s lawsuit was revived on appeal by a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on December 27, 2016.
While at the State Department, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conducted official government business using an unsecured email server and email accounts. Her top aides and advisors also used non-“state.gov” email accounts to conduct official business. Clinton left office February 1, 2013.
The FBI convened a grand jury to investigate Hillary Clinton in 2016. Why is this information being released only now?
It is disturbing that the State Department, Justice Department, and FBI are still trying to protect Hillary Clinton. President Trump needs to clean house at all these agencies.