A surprising number of people (mostly non-gun owners) have been rallying around the term "assault weapon." I have seen numerous articles and social media posts/memes saying "Nobody needs an assault weapon! That's not for hunting! Ban assault weapons now!" etc. They seem to have missed the big problem that they can't even define what an "assault weapon" is! Ah, but they do know, at least some of them...read on.
The anti-gun crowd like to describe "assault weapons" with broad vague strokes saying that they are "designed for killing," they have "mass capacity feeding devices," "they use too powerful bullets" etc.
However, try to write legislation based on that! Well, the U.S. Congress did in 1994 and passed a 10 year "assault weapons ban" (AWB). How did that go?
Well, manufacturers and people looked at the definitions and modified the firearms so that they met the requirements. Even after 2004, when the AWB expired 10 years later, CA continued with its own restrictions. People cried afoul that the firearms were still available with a few cosmetic changes - which is because that is the way that the bill's authors wrote it- based on cosmetic features that had little to do with a firearm's lethality. They said that it violated the "spirit of the law." Ah, but what is that? (keep reading)
And as for CA, people are crying afoul because the firearms recently used were ILLEGALLY modified. These changes didn't violate the spirit of the law. They outright violated the law.
So, with so many articles, editorials and comments about "assault weapons," what are they exactly again?
I don't know, but will know when I see one.
Yep, that's the comment that I am seeing more and more. What the hell does that mean???? And less importantly we have seen the rise of a new term: "assault-style" as in "assault-style clothes." I see a pocket capacity limitation coming for cargo pants, but I digress.
It is not very hard to boil down the what anti-gunners view as the "spirit of the law" and the firearm features that they object to:
- magazine fed (not even necessarily a detachable magazine, as I believe that they object to clips, tubes, etc. as "mass feeding")
Yes, I seriously believe when they say "assault weapons" they mean semi-auto. Sounds more menacing doesn't it? Especially when you consider that the most prevalent rifle in the U.S. for ownership and new purchases is the AR-15 and that the majority of hand gun purchases are semi-auto (I would be surprised if it wasn't 90%).
Basically, almost every gun owner in the United States owns what could be considered an "assault weapon."
Think about that the next time you read an article or meme calling for the ban and/or confiscation of "assault weapons." Instant criminalization of gun owners.
And the anti-gun crowd is at least being honest about it now.
What a change it has been though. Just in Oct. prevalent thinking was like this article in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/05/forget-about-changing-the-second-amendment-and-stop-focusing-on-mass-killings/) that said:
Few gun control advocates promote the idea of ending individual gun ownership. All of the major gun control organizations have come out in favor of individual gun ownership. All of them are fighting for more effective laws to prevent criminals or the mentally ill from getting their hands on guns.
Remember, it was only a couple of weeks ago that anti-gun people were calling gun owners "paranoid" and saying that "nobody wants to take your guns away?"
While today (Dec 4, 2015) we have this from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?_r=0):
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency...
and more directly to the point:
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
And despite the fact that the author admits that it will not stop the mass killings:
They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.
He justifies it because at least they (other countries) did something:
But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.
There you have it!! In black and white for the entire Nation to read. This is something that I believe that the NYT has ALWAYS believed as I believe the ultimate goal of many (if not all) anti-gun control supporters. This is not the only editorial that has this sentiment. After the recent shooting there was an editorial from UK Guardian calling for the assassination (!) of NRA Members (which I unsurprisingly can't find now) or this article from Vox (which has been out a while) saying that gun owners should be shot as a requirement of owning a gun: http://www.salon.com/2015/10/16/want_a_gun_take_a_bullet_new_rule_before_you_pack_heat_you_will_know_what_it_feels_like_to_be_shot/
"Reasonable regulation" or "common sense"? Hardly.
# of gun confiscated in Australia? There are conflicting reports but estimates are between 700K and 1 milliion.
# of guns in gun restrictive California? Over 10 million.
CA incidentally has a program to confiscate firearms from felons. Read about its high cost here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/05/05/california-discovers-its-really-expensive-to-confiscate-peoples-guns/
I haven't done a surprising celebrity with firearms post in a long time. Mainly because it is a forbidden subject in Hollywood but this one surprised me...Lizzie McGuire? The girl who sang the Laguna Beach theme song?
From TMZ (I know lol): http://m.tmz.com/#article/2015/11/09/hilary-duff-buys-gun/
Someone asked if I would be returning to SHOT next year (Jan). I am pleased to announce that I am!
I do not have an Industry Day (range day) invite so I will not be able to test anything but it still promises to be a great Show!
I will be selectively stopping at booths again this year. If you have a vendor that you would like me to stop at please let me know.
I like to stop at lesser travelled spots or ask that oddball question.
If you are going too - let me know if you want to have a beer!
Disclaimer: All trademarks are registered to their respective holders. I am not affiliated with any of these companies or products in any way. The pics are not stock photos and are my own - all items are privately owned.
I had the opportunity to hang out with a couple friends and the conversation came up of what we were all carrying. As it turned out we were all carrying some popular subcompact pistols: a S&W (tm) M&P (tm) 9c, a Springfield XDS, and an M&P Shield (tm) - all in 9mm. Too bad I didn't have my new Glock 43, but unfortunately I haven't broke it in yet.
So, naturally, I took a few comparison pics for the curious (since we were).
A couple of notes first: the Shield (tm) had the longest grip. The 9c (tm) had the shortest, at least with extended mags. All of the pistols were almost identical in thickness - except of course for the 9c (tm) obviously double stack grip. The XDS had the best feeling trigger IMO and was the most streamlined, probably able to fit in any of the other two's holster. One person found the XDS' grip texture be a bit too aggressive firing. I thought it was fine, and although the XDS appears to have the highest bore axis, shooting it didn't reveal any noticeable difference.
Anyway, on to a few pics. Order is the same: 9c (tm), XDS, Shield (tm)
Click on a pic to enlarge
LEGAL NOTICE: All trademarks are registered trademarks of the companies they are registered to, as are the companies. Any such references or trademarks are made only as a result of quoting the below referenced article. The references will be removed (again) at the formal request of the referenced company or trademark owner.
I (me or this blog) do not represent any of the companies, organizations or trademarks referenced by the quoted article. Nor am I affiliated in any way to anything. Please do not threaten to sue me again.
Quote begins below:
Gun discounts for LAPD unit may have violated ethics rules
By KATE MATHER
Los Angeles police officers in a unit that evaluated Smith & Wesson handguns for a new department contract used their relationship with the gun company to privately purchase discounted pistols for members of the unit, a possible violation of city ethics rules, according to a report made public Friday.
The officers bought about $27,000 worth of discounted guns and magazines last year shortly after Smith & Wesson pistols became the LAPD's standard-issued duty weapon, according to the investigation by Inspector General Alex Bustamante.
The Firearms and Tactics Section officers cut the deal with the gun company at a Las Vegas gun show even though Smith & Wesson had previously refused another request on behalf of the department for a similar discount for all LAPD officers who might want to privately purchase pistols, the report said.
The deal allowed the unit's officers to make a “one-time, bulk purchase” of guns and magazines at a discounted price. Forty-two officers ended up buying 67 guns, Bustamante found, pooling their money into a single cashier's check sent to Smith & Wesson.
Although the unit's officers were allowed to purchase various pistol models and calibers, the report found that the average discount for Smith & Wesson M&P 9-millimeter handguns was about $125 to $130 off the already reduced price of $455 usually offered to law enforcement officers.
City ethics rules prohibit city employees from trying “to create or attempt to create a private advantage or disadvantage, financial or otherwise, for any person,” Bustamante's report said.
In addition, employees who are required to file statements of economic interest are not allowed to solicit gifts or accept gifts of more than $100 from a “restricted source” —someone who has sought or signed a contract with the city employee's agency. City ethics rules also prohibit “restricted sources” from offering or giving those employees gifts of more than $100.
Bustamante's report said eight of the officers who privately purchased the weapons using the discount were required to file statements of economic interest. The report did not name any of the officers.
The Police Commission, the civilian board that oversees the LAPD, is scheduled to discuss the report at its meeting Tuesday and determine whether further action should be taken.
The Firearms and Tactics Section tested and evaluated different pistols for the LAPD before the Smith & Wesson M&P was approved as the department's standard-issue duty weapon, replacing pistols manufactured by Glock.
LAPD officials told the inspector general that the private purchase orders were necessary for the section's officers because the department's new Smith & Wesson pistols were issued to recruits but not firearms instructors, the report said. Among the section's responsibilities is providing firearms training to officers.
But Bustamante said recruits were issued only M&P 9-millimeter handguns, while the Firearms and Tactics Section officers were also allowed to purchase other pistol models and calibers using the discount.
Cmdr. Andrew Smith, an LAPD spokesman, declined to comment on the report.
“The department only recently received a copy of the report and we are in the process of reviewing it,” he said. “We will discuss it with the Police Commission.”
The commission's vice president, Steve Soboroff, said he wanted to know why the officers requested and obtained the discounted guns and whether ethical and department rules were broken. He said it is possible that the officers did not know what the rules were.
Soboroff said he hoped any problems could be “solved in a positive manner.”
A spokeswoman for Smith & Wesson could not be reached for comment.
The inspector general's findings were part of an investigation into the way the new pistols were tested and evaluated. Bustamante's report said the LAPD's Policy and Procedures Division should have coordinated and supervised the evaluation of the weapons the department could have chosen but was instead left out of the process.
Instead, the Firearms and Tactics Section officers tested three types of pistols in 2011: the Glock Gen 4, the Springfield Armory XD-M and the Smith & Wesson. The department initially recommended the Smith & Wesson, saying it “outperformed the competition in almost every single category,” according to Bustamante's report.
Officials told L.A.'s General Services Department — which makes purchases on behalf of city agencies — there was no need for a competitive bidding process because the Smith & Wesson pistol was a “sole source” exception, meaning it was the only product that met the LAPD's specifications.
Smith & Wesson signed a contract with the city, Bustamante wrote, but it was never executed. The General Services Department determined the Smith & Wesson pistol did not qualify as a “sole source” option because Glock was another viable choice.
In 2012, officers with the Firearms and Tactics Section met with Glock representatives, Bustamante found. Glock offered the LAPD some perks should the department continue its contract, including an enhanced maintenance package and warranty.
Officers then recommended that the Glock gun be used by the LAPD, according to the report. The LAPD told the General Services Department that it now considered Glock pistols the best option and again pitched the guns as a “sole source” option.
The city again rejected the idea of a “sole source” contract. The General Services Department ultimately decided the Glock warranty didn't meet the department's needs. The contract went to a Smith & Wesson dealer in October 2013.
Three months later, the Firearms and Tactics Section officers negotiated their discount deal with Smith & Wesson at the Las Vegas gun show.
The inspector general's report said the “deviations” that occurred during the process — in which department personnel did not follow appropriate channels for evaluating and selecting the guns — “were not unique to the procurement of the Smith & Wesson pistol and had similarly occurred with several other equipment items.”
Bustamante outlined a series of recommendations, including making sure employees who evaluate products for the LAPD understand the city's ethics rules and implementing better oversight of how equipment is evaluated before it is purchased.
Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Recently there was an insane editorial on the 2nd Amendment posted in the LA Times:
At least they call it an opinion piece. Here is the quote that is the most insane:
This page believes the Supreme Court erred in the initial Heller decision by upending an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that had been embraced for half a century — that the amendment's reference to a "well-regulated militia" limits the right to keep and bear arms to organized military units, such as the National Guard.
I wrote this response:
Say this out loud and you can (hopefully) see how ridiculous it is:
The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution protects "the right to keep and bear arms to organized military units, such as the National Guard." Yes, because that needed to protected.
1. National Guard came into existence in 1933.
2. The 50 years of history alluded to mysteriously is a huge misrepresentation of U.S. vs Miller (SCOTUS)
3. Since when does the Bill of Rights protect the rights of the Standing Army? That's a bizarre twist. Consider the fact that after the Revolutionary War the Standing Army was DISBANDED!
I am posting this today because others have noticed the editorial and responded also. We should not such a ridiculous claim to stand on its own:
We need to educate people! The irony is that this author is accusing of rewriting history, when that is EXACTLY what they are trying to do! And what is worse is that the 50 years of "history" they are referring to is incorrectly interpreted.
The New Zealand Ministry of Defense has selected LMT to supply their new rifles. Strangely, the article didn't say with what.
In 2011 they had adopted the LMT AR10 as their DMR. The British Army had adopted their AR10 as their DMR also the year prior.
Please remember those that have, and are serving!
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
So, at first glance being background checked and approved to purchase a firearm may seem ok to some. However, the proposal is being fingerprinted and background checked administered by local law enforcement who will then provide the information to a unspecified Federal agency and database.
hmm...Since all 50 States issue CCW licenses (in some format) wouldn't you think that some sort of system ALREADY exists and that we should utilize that? Every CCW license holder that I know of has already had both fingerprints and background check done. This information/mechanism is redundant. Not to mention the wait and fees involved.
Additionally, what happens when you purchase a firearm at a dealer? A background check is done. The exact SAME background check that would be for the "gun owner license" and waiting period depending on your state.
Seem redundant? Yet, no one has talked about replacing or retiring the current system for this new one.
So, let me get this straight...
- Want to have a firearm? Get gun owners license: apply, fingerprints, background check, pay, wait
- Want to buy a firearm? Get gun owners license, background check, pay, wait if applicable to your state
- Want to carry a firearm? Get gun owners license, apply, fingerprints, background check, pay, wait
You see what they have done here? There is not even the premise of reducing crime, it is simply to discourage people from having firearms by increasing the wait times and increasing the process and government bureaucracy required to process it. Oh, and in addition to your home state having your information, now so does local law enforcement and the Federal Government in their own separate databases. That's efficient.
Does that sound like a compromise???
How about this for a compromise:
I will support a "gun owner license" by going through a background, fingerprint, photo, paying, waiting, etc. *IF* that license is SHALL issue (meaning it will be approved there is a clear objective criteria) and it entitles to own, purchase, and carry a firearm without going through the whole process again in ALL 50 States.
That should be a reasonable compromise right? After all, wasn't the real goal to make sure that people were qualified and legal to own firearms?
Huge Bloomberg/Everytown DEFEAT: Nevada to add to CCW reciprocity and scraps Las Vegas ridiculous "notification/registration" lawWritten by Reg Mathusz
SB 175 signed into law but you probably won't hear about in mainstream media. We won't have the new list until it is published July 1.
I haven't gone through the whole bill but it looks very hopeful:
Sec. 4. NRS 202.3688 is hereby amended to read as follows:
202.3688 1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person who is at least 21 years of age and possesses a permit to carry a concealed firearm that was issued by [a] another state [included in the list prepared pursuant to NRS 202.3689] may carry a concealed firearm in this State in accordance with the requirements set forth in NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive.
2. A person who [possesses a permit to carry a concealed firearm that was issued by a state included in the list prepared pursuant to NRS 202.3689] meets the requirements of subsection 1 may not carry a concealed firearm in this State if the person:
(a) Becomes a resident of this State; and
(b) Has not been issued a permit from the sheriff of the county in which he or she resides within 60 days after becoming a resident of this State.
It is also the end of Las Vegas' antiquated notification and city registration law.
You can read it here: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/78th2015/Bills/SB/SB175.pdf
It looks like the approval of Form 1's to manufacture SBRs in WA was very short-lived. It appears that the ATF is using a loophole in the RCW because the RCW doesn't explicitly say "manufacture" although "acquire" and "possession" are ok. No word if an FFL can build it and transfer it.
(2) It is not unlawful for a person to possess, transport, acquire, or transfer a short-barreled rifle that is legally registered and possessed, transported, acquired, or transferred in accordance with federal law.
When a first got my CCW license I quickly learned the value of a good belt that can sustain the weight of a pistol. After destroying several cheap belts a broke down and bought a Galco SB5 1.5" belt. That was 25 years ago or so, if my waist hadn't um increased over the years I would still have it. The one I currently wear is over 10 years old.
I have tried other belts like the Wilderness 5-stitch and BladeTech/Looper leather belt with kydex insert but it is not the same.
And why do I bring this up? I recently bought two kydex IWB holsters and neither had clips that can accommodate such a thick belt. Only one (BladeTech) had a solution (rubber clips instead of kydex loops) which they provided for free! I was surprised that they had not encountered this before - the clips were a legacy style. NOTE: I am talking about the thickness of the leather and not the belt size and not width like 1.25" vs 1.5".
It is interesting to note that I have not had this problem with any hybrid holster. I will do reviews of the holsters shortly.
I like the minimalist size and thinness of the all kydex. So I am wondering what kind of belt are you wearing?