“New Hampshire now joins an ever-growing number of states in passing constitutional carry,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Despite the best efforts of Michael Bloomberg-funded groups to distort the truth, the New Hampshire legislature and governor stood strong for freedom.”
Sununu’s signature on SB 12 makes New Hampshire the 12th state to allow constitutional carry. New Hampshire joins its northern New England neighbors Maine and Vermont, both of which allow constitutional carry.
Sponsored by Sen. Jeb Bradley (R-3), Senate Bill 12 will repeal the license requirement to carry a concealed pistol or revolver, unless a person is otherwise prohibited. For those who choose to obtain licenses, SB 12 will also increase the length of time in which a license is valid from four years to five years.
It’s accepted by many, if not most, in the shooting sports community that the Second Amendment is our carry permit. That’s probably not the most accurate way to interpret the Second Amendment, though; like all the other items in the Bill of Rights, the Second enumerates a natural right that the government is not allowed to interfere with; it in no way permits us to do anything. It actually refutes the need for a permit.
But, as the Bard said, the law is frequently an ass, and the fact is that in most states today you can be locked up for bearing arms without government permission. But the momentum seems to be moving in the right direction now. New Hampshire is just the latest on the list.
The second-highest ranking official at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives recently authored a proposal to modify and reduce gun regulations in the United States.
The 11-page “white paper,” obtained by the Washington Post and drafted by the ATF’s associate deputy director and chief operating officer Ronald B. Turk, includes but is not limited to the following proposals: removing restrictions on the sale of suppressors; conducting a study concerned with lifting the ban on imported assault weapons; and requiring a higher amount of crime guns to be traced back to specific dealers before the federal government asks for additional information from those dealers.
Turk writes in the introduction to the paper, entitled “Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations,” that “these general thoughts provide potential ways to reduce or modify regulations, or suggest changes that promote commerce and defend the Second Amendment without significant negative impact on ATF’s mission to fight violent firearms crime and regulate the firearms industry.”
“This white paper is intended to provide ideas and provoke conversation,” Turk continues, “it is not guidance or policy of any kind.”
Turk also reminds that while his paper does not focus on enforcement or regulation, those are still “extremely important” parts of the ATF’s mission.
The Washington Post reports that ATF spokeswoman Jan Kemp said Turk’s proposals do not represent the views of the agency.
“It’s simply his opinion,” said Kemp, “and it’s to generate dialogue.”
Well, it would seem to have succeeded in generating dialogue – I mean, here we are, dialoguing. So while we’re here, let’s look at the proposals.
Removing restrictions on the sale of suppressors. Hell yeah – we just discussed this recently, so I won’t repeat the arguments, but this is a good idea.
Conducting a study concerned with lifting the ban on imported assault weapons. Also a good idea – the fact is that crimes are almost never committed with rifles of any kind, and isn’t ‘crime’ always the argument of anti-gunners? Except, of course, when it’s ‘need,’ as in “nobody needs an assault rifle!” That last is an argument (whether it be made about guns, SUVs or steaks) that is antithetical to liberty, and should be rejected out of hand.
Requiring a higher amount of crime guns to be traced back to specific dealers before the federal government asks for additional information from those dealers. Again, a good idea; gun dealers are already the subject of an extensive background check before becoming gun dealers and periodically again while gun dealers.
Of course, this is just one BATFE guy’s personal opinion, and will likely come to nothing. Still – it’s nice to see some common sense coming out of the massive Imperial bureaucracy for a change.
Been thinking of a suppressor for your favorite shooting iron, but have been deterred by the onerous Class III paperwork and fees? Relief may be on the way, for your ears and wallet both. Excerpt:
Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03) along with Rep. John Carter (TX-31) have introduced a bill called the Hearing Protection Act, which moves to eliminate a $200 tax and nine-month approval process on suppressors. Guns are loud, and these legislators are trying to spare some ears from permanent damage.
According to CNN Money, the federal government started restricting them in 1934 with the National Firearms Act, aimed at controlling gang violence. As gang violence continues to rise in today’s world, the legislation was clearly unsuccessful.
Current regulations are supposedly meant to keep suppressors out of the hands of criminals, but criminals, for the most part, do not even use suppressors. They can’t afford them, they are cumbersome to carry, and they don’t actually make gunshots silent.
For those who have watched too many James Bond or “Bourne” movies, and believe silencers actually “silence” guns, here’s a bit of perspective:
An unsuppressed AR-15 is about 165 decibels, and a suppressor will reduce that by about 30-35 decibels, to about 125 or 130. An unsuppressed shotgun sounds off at about 145-165 decibels, and a suppressor can bring it down to about 137 decibels. Meanwhile, a suppressed pistol is about 125db.
Many online sources state that the threshold for pain is about 120db, and that a nearby jackhammer rates at 130db, so how can anyone argue that a silencer actually enables criminals to get away with gun violence? Unless you’ve attended one too many rock concerts or lost your hearing aids at church, you’re going to hear the blast whether you try to or not.
Now, this bill doesn’t completely deregulate suppressors – it just removes them from the Class III/NFA list, making buying a suppressor just like buying a rifle, shotgun or handgun. You’ll have to go through the same background check system that you go through buying a firearm. So the “easy access for criminals” argument just won’t fly.
Neither does the “we should be more like Europe” argument. In most European countries, suppressors are freely sold, and their use is encouraged – in some places required – as a courtesy to one’s neighboring landowners when one is hunting or engaging in a little target practice. So why not here?
Crimes committed with suppressed firearms, even where they are are readily available, are so infrequent as to be almost non-existent. There’s no rational reason to oppose this bill.
But then, would-be gun-banners have never been long on rationality.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said Congress is “complicit” in the deaths of Americans due to gun violence and he encouraged President-elect Trump to do the “unpredictable” with gun control measures.
“Shortly, we’ll have a new president unlike President Obama – hardly committed to the cause of ending gun violence, but there is a moment of opportunity here. And my hope is that newly elected President Trump will use this opportunity much as President Nixon did in going to China,” Blumenthal said during a press conference on Capitol Hill with family members of gun violence victims and survivors. “It’s a Nixon to China moment for Donald Trump when he can defy the expectation, do the unpredictable – he likes doing the unpredictable – respond to a rally, which he also likes to do, and the rally is the America people who are clamoring and demanding action.”
“Donald Trump has a legacy moment,” the senator added. “When he can seize this opportunity, a historic opportunity, do the right thing and adopt these common-sense measures: background checks for every gun purchase, a ban on terrorists buying guns and ending the immunity, the legal immunity, unprecedented, unknown to any other industry for gun manufacturers. These are your ideas, Donald. We’ll give you credit for them.”
Let’s subject a few of Senator Blumenthal’s statements to the our patented Lefty-to-English Universal Translator(TM):
Statement: “It’s a Nixon to China moment for Donald Trump when he can defy the expectation, do the unpredictable – he likes doing the unpredictable – respond to a rally, which he also likes to do, and the rally is the America people who are clamoring and demanding action.”
Translation: “My cocktail party friends are clamoring and demanding action. I have no idea what the America(sic) people want.”
Statement: “When he can seize this opportunity, a historic opportunity, do the right thing and adopt these common-sense measures: background checks for every gun purchase…”
Translation: “I know we already have background checks mandated by law for every purchase from a Federally licensed dealer, but I want to mandate them for private purchases, a law that will be essentially impossible to enforce and which will be roundly ignored, but it will make liberals feel good.”
Statement: “…a ban on terrorists buying guns…”
Translation: “…a restriction of a fundamental Constitutional right by unelected bureacrats with no due process involved whatsoever…”
Statement: “…and ending the immunity, the legal immunity, unprecedented, unknown to any other industry for gun manufacturers.“
Translation: “…and making gun manufacturers the only class of manufacturers to be legally liable for criminal use of their products; they now are only subject, like every other manufacturer, to liability for failure of their products through manufacturing flaw or design flaws, but fuck that, we want them hit harder.”
The gist of Blumenthal’s rant: “Americans are buying guns in record numbers, gun ownership is at an all-time high while crimes committed with firearms are at near-historic lows, and outside of a few of our major cities our violent crime rate is lower than Sweden’s; but I don’t think Americans are smart enough to own guns responsibly.”
Fortunately the chance of The Donald’s taking any of his statements to heart are essentially zero.
A group of House Republicans formed the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus on Thursday.
The group, headed by Rep. Thomas Massie (R., Ky.), said the caucus plans to draft and sponsor pro-gun legislation in the upcoming Congress.
“Caucus members will lead efforts in the House of Representatives to pass meaningful firearms legislation and protect Americans against infringements of the Second Amendment,” the group said in a statement.
Massie said the election of Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress were the catalyst for the formation of the caucus.
“The recent election results present us with a new opportunity to advance pro-gun legislation and reverse the erosion of the Second Amendment that’s occurred over the last few decades,” he said. “I look forward to working with the new president and this determined group of conservatives to promote a pro-gun agenda.”
In addition to sponsoring and supporting pro-gun bills, the caucus said they also plan to invite firearm experts, constitutional scholars, and pro-gun groups to speak to them regularly.
Imagine that – having people who actually know something about guns to testify on legislation affecting guns and gun owners. What a concept!
Concealed-carry reciprocity is part of what may be accomplished with the soon-to-be-installed President and Congress. We may also see some meaningful attempts to improve the national background check database; it’s likely that the “no fly, no buy” issue will come up again, and here’s a matter for concern, since during the election President-elect Trump voiced support for this policy, depriving American citizens of a Constitutionally defined right with no due process.
This time – this time we may actually have a chance of getting this thing passed, and President-elect Trump made it part of his campaign platform, so he’ll sign it; concealed-carry reciprocity!
The whole thing’s pretty simple. The summary of this bill states:
Amends the federal criminal code to authorize a person who is not prohibited from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm under federal law, and who is carrying a valid, government-issued identification document containing that person’s photograph and a valid permit issued by any state to carry a concealed firearm, to possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) in any other state that permits residents to carry a concealed firearm, in accordance with the restrictions of that state. Makes presentation of facially valid documents prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required.
The bill’s sponsor, North Carolina Republican Rep. Richard Hudson, said:
“Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and I plan to introduce legislation in the first days of the 115th Congress to guarantee that. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is a common sense bill to provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits,” Hudson wrote in a statement to The Daily Caller. “As a member of President-elect Trump’s Second Amendment Coalition, I look forward to working with the administration to advance policies that support and protect our right to keep and bear arms.”
I see very little reason to oppose such a bill, but plenty of wet-pants types will. Expect the usual hand-wringing and cries about shootouts over parking spaces and the like, even though the bill very clearly states that the armed citizen has to comply by all laws of the state they are in, and they they have to carry a government-issued ID to prove they are who the permit says they are; one unclear point there, as my Colorado CCW Concealed Handgun Permit is a government-issued photo ID.
The folks who cause problems with concealed guns are most assuredly not CCW permit holders, and many if not most of them are already “prohibited from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm under federal law.” In other words, they are not law-abiding to begin with, and laws against concealed carry won’t stop them.
This is a law with a great deal of sense behind it. That’s probably why the anti-gun Left will fight so hard to stop it becoming law.
Programming note; well, really an observation. Posting from Japan is weird. I’m posting today’s Tuesday update on the normal Tuesday morning schedule, but here in Akishima it’s Tuesday evening. I guess that gives me more time for daily news posts, but it feels odd somehow.
In July, the Crime Prevention Research Center published a comprehensive report on those Americans who hold concealed-carry permits. Among the findings, the Center notes that while the police are dramatically more law-abiding than the population as a whole (37 times more law-abiding), permit holders in Texas and Florida — two states that keep comprehensive records — were even more law-abiding than cops. Police officers committed crimes at a rate of 103 crimes per 100,000 officers. Permit holders in Texas and Florida committed crimes at a rate of 22.3 per 100,000.
But don’t tell the New York Times. Last week it editorialized against legislation that would require states to recognize lawful concealed carry permits issued in other states. In “support” of its argument, it tried to make the case that permit holders are a threat to public safety. Using research from the anti-gun Violence Policy Center, it ominously claims that “since 2007, concealed-carry permit holders have been responsible for at least 898 deaths not involving self-defense.” Follow the link to the study, called “Concealed Carry Killers,” and you’ll find that almost 300 of those 898 deaths were suicides.
Where does that number fit within the context of all gun deaths in the United States? During the same ten-year span when 898 deaths occurred, there were more than 100,000 homicides and more than 300,000 total gun deaths. Given that approximately 6 percent of the adult population has a concealed-carry permit, legally concealed weapons are involved in remarkably few deaths.
Take note of that first paragraph: In Florida and Texas, at least, you’re safer standing next to a concealed-carry permit holder than you are standing next to a cop.
There’s a lot of angsting right now over mass shooter situations, although those incidents are as rare as they are ballyhooed by the legacy media; you’re more likely to be killed by lightning than by a mass shooter, be it a jihadi or the more a-religious nutcase type. But when the predictables in the media start talking about how to react to a mass shooter – “run, hide, fight” is the current mantra – “shoot back” is never on the menu.
Now, I respect the rights of private property owners. Our Aurora, CO (name ring a bell?) theater owners almost all have anti-CCW signs posted. Until the Aurora theater shootings, I respected the wishes of the theater owners and left my Glock 36 at home.
No longer. Now I carry in the theater, signs be damned; if I’m discovered all the theater personnel can do is ask me to leave, and I will quietly and politely do so.
But if another Joker-styled nutcase bursts in, I’d rather be armed than not. When I mentioned that to a friend some time back, he replied “but then there will be two people shooting. Aren’t you worried that will make things worse?”
“That nutcase (whose name I won’t mention) was walking calmly around shooting helpless people. How the fuck can things get any worse than that?”
Programming note: I’ll be flying to Tokyo on Sunday for a two-week gig, so look for some interesting travel posts.
Now, today: Thoughts on the classic shotgun collection!
Since I now have both 12 and 16 gauge versions of the renowned Winchester Model 12 and Browning Auto-5 shotguns – one of that latter being the sought-after Sweet Sixteen version – I’m casting thoughts not only to 20-gauge versions of those guns but also to another iconic American scattergun, the Winchester 1897.
The 1897 is an interesting piece. Designed by the DaVinci of firearms, the ’97 was the first commercially manufactured pump-action shotgun. It was used by the U.S. military in WW1 and WW2 as a trench broom, as well as being sold in a variety of sporting versions including the Black Diamond trap guns. Being an aficionado of trap shooting myself, a Black Diamond Winchester would be a neat addition, but there are plenty of 12 and 16 gauge guns available.
There’s another unique feature of the 97 – its external hammer. There is no other safety on these guns, but I have always been of the notion that a gun with an external hammer needs no other safety, and besides which the only real effective safety on a gun is the one between the shooter’s ears.
If I decide to go down this road, one thing I may eschew in a restoration is the addition of choke tubes. While I have done this on other guns (and I highly recommend using Briley for these conversions – you get what you pay for, especially on old Winchesters with their notoriously thin barrel walls) it seems appropriate to keep this historic gun more or less as is.
I haven’t made up my mind yet, but if I run across a particularly fine example, I may not be able to resist the purchase, especially if a Black Diamond gun is in the deal.
Programming note: Friday morning I’ll be leaving for this year’s abbreviated elk/mulie hunt. I’ll have a Rule Five Friday post pre-loaded, the Saturday Gingermageddon will go off as usual; Monday through Wednesday we’ll have some totty filler posts. Regular posts will continue Thursday – and Friday the 11th and Monday the 14th’s posts will come to you from Anchorage, Alaska!
“DIY submachine guns are popping up across the West Bank,” the Washington Post reported recently in a piece about a weapon that has repeatedly played a role in Palestinian attacks upon Israelis. The guns are of a common type referred to as the “Carlo,” based on the Swedish Carl Gustav M/45, which dates to the World War 2 era. The article added that hundreds of the submachine guns have been confiscated over the past year, and raids staged on 35 mechanics’ shops that were cranking them out.
“The Carlo has remained so popular because of how little machinery and technical know-how is required to produce it,” a Times of Israel story noted earlier this year. “A drill press, some welding equipment and blueprints from the internet are all that’s needed to create one of these potentially devastating weapons.” The story lamented that “it’s nearly impossible to prevent its production.”
Ironically, Israelis themselves relied on homemade submachine guns during their War of Independence. In their case, they knocked off copies of the British-designed Sten gun and fed them with ammunition manufactured in a clandestine factory beneath a laundry. Similarly to the weapon copied by West Bank mechanics, “the Sten used simple stamped metal components and minor welding, which required minimal machining and manufacturing,” according to Wikipedia.
A simple submachine gun like the Sten, the Carl Gustav or the M3 Grease Gun is one of the simplest firearms to manufacture. Anyone with a drill press, a mill and a half-assed knowledge of how to use both can crank out a rough short-range lead-chucker that will be orders of magnitude more lethal and also far easier to produce than a handgun of any sort.
It’s near-impossible to build a Glock or a Smith & Wesson without sophisticated machinery. It’s pretty easy to build a Sten gun. It’s happening now all over the world, from the West Bank to Australia. If Her Imperial Majesty was able to realize the wet dreams of the more extreme gun-grabbers here in the States, you’d see it happening here too.
It’s basically a fundamental law of the universe: Bans produce black markets. That doesn’t stop the collection of nitwits and nincompoops we call our ‘political leaders’ from attempting such bans.
Conclusion to the linked article: …if you’re going to make something illegally, you might as well get the most bang for your buck out of the means you have at hand. If you’re looking to supply the demand for drugs, you cook methamphetamine in motel room laboratories. And if you’re supplying the illegal arms market, you download the plans for a Sten gun to a laptop in a brake-repair shop.
From the West Bank, to Brazil, to Australia, history demonstrates that if you want people to start making their own submachine guns, all you have to do is legally restrict their access to firearms of all sorts.
Is there such a thing as a justified shooting of a child? Well, maybe, if you define “child” as “anyone under eighteen.” I don’t think the subjects of this article qualify, but have a read anyway. Excerpt:
Feral. Animalistic. Barbaric. Sadistic.
These are the words that best describe the social media-organized lynch mob of hundreds of black youths attacking white college students and police in Philadelphia near Temple University Friday night.
So far, these violent young criminals have largely gotten away with their brutal criminal assaults because they’ve been fortunate in their victim selection process.
That won’t hold forever.
Eventually, they are going to attack an armed concealed carrier, or they are going to carry out one of these lynchings—defined as a punishing a person without legal process or authority, often as an act of bigotry—in front a of the residence or vehicle of someone who has firearms and the will to use them in third-party self defense.
This scenario may well likely happen, and it sure as hell will lead to a vicious backlash; the shooter, acting in self-defense (direct or third-party) will be painted as an extremist and very likely a murderer, and that person will never be safe appearing in public again. Mobs will march shouting “no justice, no peace,” ignoring the fact that justice was what was meted out; the shooter will probably be forced into hiding.
But what I object to is the characterization of these thugs as “children.” They aren’t acting as children, they are acting as adults – violent, out of control, murderous adults.
They have no one but themselves to blame if someone treats them as such.