Reuters:

A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that Connecticut police cannot claim immunity to quash lawsuits seeking millions of dollars in damages from a botched 2008 raid by a SWAT team that severely injured a homeowner and killed his friend.

The decision by the U.S. 2nd Court of Appeals in New York clears the way for a judge to decide whether five suburban Connecticut police departments violated the constitutional rights of homeowner Ronald Terebesi by using excessive force.

On May 18, 2008, a heavily armed SWAT – or special weapons and tactics – team unit knocked down Terebesi’s door, threw stun flash grenades into his Easton home and fatally shot 33-year-old Gonzalo Guizan of Norfolk as the two men watched television.

Guizan, who was visiting the home, died after being shot a half dozen times.

“The court ruling here is going to be relied upon in other courts throughout the country,” Gary Mastronardi, a Bridgeport attorney who represents Terebesi, said on Tuesday. “They set up the parameters that define the extent to which qualified immunity can be asserted by police in SWAT cases.”

In a 51-page ruling that upholds a lower court decision, the appeals court said the police responded with unnecessary and inappropriate force and under the circumstances, are not protected by “qualified immunity” from the lawsuits.

Good.  Like I’ve said before.  If you are the police and you want to come into my home, call and make an appointment.  Otherwise, you may get shot.

This is the way it should be.  Engineers don’t get immunity when bridges collapse or systems malfunction, and doctors don’t get immunity when they leave surgical instruments inside of your body.

I hate incompetence.  I truly do.  And the incompetence in many SWAT teams we see today (piss poor rules for the use of force, no trigger discipline, no muzzle discipline, wrong addresses, etc.) is compounded by the indifference of police to the rights of citizens, as if no one has the latitude to press the issue of safety except law enforcement (for their own safety rather than yours).

One can only hope this ruling is used as precedent across America.  Now, if we could only get what reader Ned Weatherby calls Herschel’s law passed across these United States?

David Codrea:

The group, which has not endorsed Republican challenger Tom Foley at this writing, understands he is a far cry from a perfect candidate on guns. The choice they face is to decide which of their two options available to them — allowing a committed gun-banner to re-secure political power without significant opposition, or sending a message to anti-gun politicians that there is a price for undermining rights by supporting a moderate — is preferable.

This is the question we all face in so many upcoming elections, isn’t it?  I’m not a single issue voter, but if I look first to a candidate’s position on guns, I’m generally able to find out in short order whether they are progressive or constitutional.  Whatever else one might think, Connecticut is a rough place to be if you believe in the constitution.

Kurt Hofmann:

John Lott, Gary Kleck, and others are noted researchers, vastly more knowledgeable about statistical analysis than I will ever be, and have sold a great many books trying to provide that proof, or at least compelling evidence–and frankly, I don’t really care.

I don’t care because fundamental human rights–and the right to self-defense must be seen by any rational, ethical person as chief among those–cannot legitimately be held hostage to a requirement for a favorable statistical outcome.

Good for Kurt.  Statistical outcomes.  It’s the same way the collectivists argue when they tell you facts and figures about how it is more likely that you’ll commit suicide than ever use a gun in self defense.  First of all, I doubt those “facts,” and second, I don’t care what the collective does with weapons.  I’m not the collective.

From Matt Bracken.  All they’ve done is provide me with a target-rich environment.  Double tap — double tap — double tap — etc., reload, repeat.

I have previously attempted to explain and rebuke the pacifist sickness that affects the Christian Church, but it seems that the examples of said sickness are sadly numerous and still surfacing.  Apparently, many Christian leaders would rather see their parishioners and congregants beheaded than defended.

But sadly, they won’t.  They have waited too late to “weapon up.”  And witness what happens without self defense.  Pat Dollard links a Live Leak video in which ISIS fighters promise a “Christian” (I have no idea if he really was a Christian) converting to Islam that Allah is merciful and he will be spared.  The man converts, and the ISIS fighters promptly behead him anyway.

There is one thing in particular that needs to be corrected in the perspective cited above, and it is that “The first duty of the state is to protect the people, but if the state is unable to fulfil this, then the right to defend oneself reverts to the person, because such a right cannot ever be taken from that person …”

No, and a thousand times no.  It is not either-or, it is both-and, and the order is wrong.  The state is responsible, to be sure, for protecting nations against invasion, and our pitiful nation refuses to meet even the simplest of responsibilities like this by securing the Southern border.

But let’s be clear.  The first duty to protect rests with a man and his home, not the state protection for the man or his family.

Do you understand?

David Codrea:

“I know Gillespie and I will not support him or vote for him,” a frequent correspondent active in Virginia Second Amendment promotion and support told me. Part of that may be due to Gillespie’s refusal to personally commit to the issue, as illustrated by his failure to return a Virginia Citizens Defense League Candidate Survey. Part of it may be due to his consummate insider loyalties to the GOP establishment as a former Bush White House staffer and head of the RNC. Part of it may be that he established a “bipartisan” lobbying firm with a Democrat partner, and a former White House Counsel to Bill Clinton at that. And the big part is that there was a better candidate that the establishment did not want..

Another survey Gillespie failed to answer is the one on immigration put out by Numbers USA, where he rates “indecisive” on the question of amnesty for illegal aliens …

Read the rest of David’s analysis.  When I see that there was a so-called “tea party” candidate running against an establishment candidate, and the establishment brought in the power brokers and dollars to run the tea party candidate out of the race, I won’t go to the polls on election day to vote for the establishment candidate.  Thus, I will not be voting for Thom Tillis in my own state.

This is entirely a personal choice, and I am not advocating that you make it too.  I’m saying that I’m not a prostitute and won’t whore my vote out to the highest bidder (or in this case, the least progressive candidate).

Dave Workman:

Contrary to what the gun prohibition lobby would have the public believe, the firearms community is hardly a monolithic voting bloc that thinks and talks alike on every issue. Gun owners argue amongst themselves about all manner of subjects, and the disagreements can get downright brutal. Such can certainly be said about the past 72 hours with the discussion and debate over the JPFO/SAF controversy.

And I’m sure there will be more to come.  My expectation is that good folk who work for JPFO will keep us informed of the vicissitudes of their labors there.

Kurt Hofmann:

Both Reid and Horsford appear to be arguing that the fact that sometimes law enforcement agencies do indeed abuse the power of certain firearms should not mean that agencies that do not engage in such abuses be forced to get by with lesser guns. Does the same logic somehow not apply to the rest of us?

Of course not.  Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and Reid certainly has a small mind.  I suspect he is thinking about how his jack booted thugs at the BLM were stood down by boys toting rifles that looked the same as his thugs.  Awe … did your son not get rich selling out America to Chinese business partners because of AR-15s, Harry?

The Washington Times:

An 86-year-old Illinois man with a concealed carry permit fired his weapon at an armed robbery suspect fleeing police last month, stopping the man in his tracks and allowing the police to make an arrest.

Law enforcement authorities described the man as “a model citizen” who “helped others avoid being victims” at an AT&T store outside Chicago where he witnessed the holdup. The man, whose identity was withheld from the press, prevented others from entering the store during the theft.

Police said the robber harassed customers and pistol-whipped one.

Since Illinois started granting concealed carry permits this year, the number of robberies that have led to arrests in Chicago has declined 20 percent from last year, according to police department statistics. Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.

[ … ]

The Chicago Police Department has credited better police work as a reason for the lower crime rates this year. Police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy noted the confiscation of more than 1,300 illegal guns in the first three months of the year, better police training and “intelligent policing strategies.”

Of course the police account this to better policing.  What else would a collectivist do?

I have made it clear here and here that I do not support making innate rights contingent upon favorable statistical outcomes.  But the two interesting things about this report are (a) we are discussing a precipitous drop in crime rather than the bloodbath predicted by the statists when more weapons are present in the city, and (b) the police will ascribe it to literally any reason to avoid saying that it has to do with an increase in the ability for self defense.

When policing Chicago has failed for decades, suddenly they have gotten smarter and applied more intelligent policing strategies in order to precipitate this drop in crime – so they would have us believe.

This is a narrative fail of mammoth proportions, leaving the police to scramble and look for excuses, even claiming the credit.  And it’s fun to watch.

David Codrea:

I’m not going to sit here and try to patch up differences people have with Gottlieb. I’ve had them myself in the past, and I’ll be surprised if I don’t have them again. I have good friends who can’t stand him, and think I’m being duped by not joining them in that assessment, and for giving him credit when I think it’s due him.

Here’s the thing: I’ve talked to the guy many times, face-to-face, on the phone, and via email conversations, and it’s easy for those who have not to draw a portrait based on the impressions of others who may not have.

I had a good relationship with Aaron Zelman, too. Guess what: I didn’t agree with him on everything, either.

And I’m not going to condemn Claire Wolfe for taking an action I know to be principle-based and required no small amount of courage, even if I’m not embracing her conclusions. She would not take a paycheck for her final article. That tells you something.

I don’t presume to be smart enough or influential enough to play peacemaker in this. What I’m interested in doing is helping, and seeing that positive efforts toward liberty are promoted and supported. So all I can do is that which I’ve said from the start, from before the JPFO news became public knowledge: I will continue my efforts for the organization until such time as someone tells me they don’t want me to, or until I come to see that my faith has been misplaced.

If I feel further association is untenable due to changes in organizational principles, interference, censorship, control issues, you name it, I’ll bail too.

Please go read David’s entire assessment.  He ends with this: “And yeah, I get that all I may have done here is get supporters of both sides mad at me.”

It’s a hazard of the job.  I’m convinced that half of my readers (or more) stay pissed off at me most of the time.  I’ve got readers who regularly read my prose for the purpose of increasing their hatred of me.  David has run with the big dogs for a while now.  I’m doubt that he will be persuaded by reaction from the readers.

Here is my take – for whatever it’s worth.  I’ve gotten extremely mad at the NRA for endorsing Harry Reid before (or did they simply say nice things about him?).  It makes no difference to me.  Yet I’m still a member – begrudgingly.

One has to consider the limits of his patronage of a given organization very carefully.  Alan Gottlieb has a fundamental problem of perspective, and a fundamental divide with me given his (past) support of universal background checks.  Alan forgets why the progressives want it.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it.  The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.

And yet Alan was prepared to give on this non-negotiable point.  That tells me everything I need to know about Alan.

But I don’t have relationships with corporations or organizations.  If I did, I would have already divorced the NRA.  I have relationships with people, and two people I consider friends write for JPFO: David Codrea and Kurt Hofmann.

As long as David and Kurt are writing for them, I’ll continue to link there.  I know in my heart of hearts that both would rather starve than sell out gun owners, even though I know no such thing about Alan Gottlieb.  When the time comes that I see articles at JPFO advocating universal background checks, regulation of semi-automatic firearms, magazine capacity limits and the like, I’ll separate myself from them and link no more.

Like David, I believe that He and Kurt have a right to eat too.  I’ll help as much as I can, even thought it may not be much.  In the mean time, I feel no compunction whatsoever to support organizations or corporations with my money.  If you think differently, don’t waste your time trying to convince me that you’re right.

Listen, I’m doing as much as I can do sending the NRA my small amout just to see the progressives have a nervous breakdown thinking that the evil gun group is telling its members what to do and what to think.  That’s about as far as I can bring myself to go.  Any other help will be to an individual, not a corporation.

So there you have it.  On the one hand, I won’t send the JPFO my money.  On the other hand, I won’t seek a separation either.  I’ll take a wait and see attitude, expecting David and Kurt to lead the way telling us what they’re experiencing at that organization so that I can make a more educated assessment.

I ran across this fairly informative podcast late last week.  If you want to listen to it I encourage you to do so.  It is just short of twenty minutes.  If not, I will summarize for you.

The law passed several years ago in California forced all new firearms to be microstamped with laser etching right at the time of firing, with spent cartridge casings showing the serial number of the firearm used – ridiculous technology that no professional engineer would seal (this is my judgment, not that of the podcast).  It would be too expensive, it wouldn’t last, and it would be subject to removal by anyone.

The law stipulated that the law becomes effective when the attorney general deems that the technology exists.  The attorney general of California is a liar because she deems the technology to exist even though it doesn’t.  Therefore, all new firearms sold in California must include this technology which doesn’t exist.

Here is the operative phrase: new firearm.  Gun makers can continue to sell existing firearms if they have previously been approved by California, including the silly limited capacity magazine.  But because a new firearms is defined as any firearm that has had any change at all made (part tolerance, alloy specification, gun color, etc.), and because even small changes routinely made by manufacturers would be included in that list and necessarily involve approval which included microstamping (which doesn’t exist), gun manufacturers are no longer selling guns in California.

We’ve discussed this before in slightly less detail, and noted that Smith & Wesson will continue to sell to law enforcement (or at least, they won’t commit to me that they won’t), thus providing weapons to LEOs that other citizens can’t have.

You can let Smith & Wesson know how you feel about this.  I have.  At the same time, remind them that it is way past time to remove themselves from the communist state in which they are ensconced and come South like most other gun manufacturers.

Their customer base is watching – carefully.

Ms. Elizabeth Sharp, VP of Investor Relations (Lsharp@smith-wesson.com)

Janes:

Thales Australia has disclosed it is developing a new family of high-lethality small arms ammunition, including a 5.56 mm round that the company says outperforms 7.62 mm ammunition at all ranges.

The so-called F9 technology is scalable in calibre, from 4.6 mm up to .50 calibre, and is being developed in collaboration with an undisclosed overseas partner, Graham Evenden, Thales Australia’s Director of Integrated Soldier Systems, told IHS Jane’s on 20 August.

The initial focus is on 5.56 mm ammunition. Trial batches use a projectile developed by the overseas company, low toxicity, optimised propellant from the Thales-operated Mulwala propellant and explosives plant in southern New South Wales, and cases produced at the Thales-owned Benalla munitions facility in northern Victoria.

The design of the 5.56 round involves yawing in flight (even for boat tail ammunition) such that impact tends to fragment the round leaving multiple ballistic tracks through tissue.  UPDATE: This is a correct and functioning link to the paper entitled Small Caliber Lethality: 5.56 mm Performance In Close Quarter Battle.  Warning, this is a PDF supporter by a very slow server.

Color me unpersuaded until I see test results.  But I’m interested, if someone from Thales Australia wants to contact me and give me more detail.

Washington Times:

A competing rifle outperformed the Army’s favored M4A1 carbine in key firings during a competition last year before the service abruptly called off the tests and stuck with its gun, according to a new confidential report.

The probable takeaway from all of this is that the Army is in a sloppy love affair with Colt, and nothing will ever replace it.  Colt lost the contract for M4s almost two years ago, and due to pressure from various lawyers, government entities (GAO) and others, they reopened the bidding and testing process.

Then it closed, with no selection of a new firearm.  You know what I think about H&K (their attitude to customers, “you suck and we hate you“).  I really don’t care much for who won the competition because I think it was badly framed to begin with.

Phase one has had nothing to do with evaluating test prototypes, but instead has focused on weeding out companies that may not have the production capacity to make thousands of weapons per month. This has become a bitter point of contention that has driven away some companies with credible names in the gun business.

“I’m not going to dump half a million to a million dollars for them never to review my rifle,” said Steve Mayer of Rock River Arms, standing amid his racks of M4-style carbines at Shot Show, the massive small-arms show here that draws gun makers from all over the world.

But you, dear reader, can have whatever you want for the right price.  The government doesn’t (yet) have the authority to tell you not to buy a Rock River Arms AR-15, or LaRue Tactical, or whatever you want.

And let’s try to keep it that way.  Weapons are best vetted and tested in the civilian market anyway.  The Army and Marine Corps uses what they’re given.  We have the right to use what we want.  We are the most picky users who give the best feedback.

If some reader wants to pick at this issue until he gets hold of this report, we would all be interested to read it.

Reading the comments to this post by Mike Vanderboegh has persuaded me to weigh in on Ferguson and the liberty movement.  It had to happen.  The liberty movement – at least for some – sees a common enemy, the police state, and is allying itself with crooks and liars.  This is to be avoided since it does nothing except harm the movement.

Let’s begin by divorcing the person of the LEO who is the subject of the goings-on in Ferguson.  He has as much right to self defense as anyone else, and had someone tried to beat the shit out me of I wouldn’t have waited until the perpetrator was going after my weapon.  It would have been 230 grain fat boys to the belly until the magazine was empty – and then reload and do it again.  I suspect that the LEO was shooting 9mm, which is why it took six rounds to put him down (wound track is everything).

Furthermore, the perpetrator in question was apparently walking in a traffic lane, which is a crime.  I don’t do that, and no one I know does that.  The cop had a right to tell the perpetrator to get out of the traffic lane and arrest him if he doesn’t.  As for whether the shooting was justified (i.e., it was in self defense), the facts will have to bear that out.  I cannot and will not comment on that.  But the point is that this isn’t unlike a thousand such incidents that occurs every day in America.  There is nothing special about Ferguson.

Now on to the main issue.  Militarization of the police is a bad thing, always, under any circumstances, and especially when it comes to invasion of homes.  Any serious reader can study my tag on SWAT and see my views.  I couldn’t care less if it is a black man in suburbia Chicago dealing drugs or me in my home writing on my web site.  A man’s home is his castle, and he deserves for it to be so.  My history is clear on this.  Find another way to do evidence collection.  If the police want to come into my home, they should call and make an appointment.

As for the militarization of police in Missouri, they shouldn’t have all of that gear.  It’s wasteful, expensive and sends the wrong message – to the LEOs themselves.  As long as they want to dress up and play soldier-boy, the damage is minimal.  If they want to enforce the law that way, I object.  And don’t carry around a patrol rifle unless I can carry one too.  But what I really object to is home invasions, and the best of my knowledge, that has not happened in the context of Ferguson.

In any case, I think it’s a sad commentary on the police that they appear the way they do.  But that fact doesn’t in the least cause me to side with crooks, liars, looters, criminals, ne’er-do-wells, and other maladjusted folk.

I have for a very long time taken the position – at work and at home – that I don’t fill in the gaps for people.  If you work too hard to repair the bad decisions by management at work, they never learn from their mistakes.  If you undo the consequences of every bad decision your child makes, he never learns.  Like it or not, in God’s economy, consequences is the premier teacher.  Blocking consequences is the same thing as hating your child.  Don’t do it.

My position on Ferguson is that the police should back away.  If the criminals want to tear up the gas stations, grocery stores, roads, sewage and water supply systems, then so be it.  Let them do it.  They will learn from the consequences of said actions when no more groceries can be obtained, no automobile gasoline is available, and they have no power for their air conditioners, heaters and televisions.  We owe them nothing.

There are no good guys in Ferguson.  The liberty movement doesn’t have to side with anyone in order to maintain the position that criminals should be prosecuted and the police shouldn’t be militarized.  It’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.  Aligning with the criminals is a bad move not only from the perspective of optics, but also from the perspective of morals.  I am not a criminal, and I have no sympathy for criminals.

Liberty is not equivalent to lawlessness and anarchy, and if you think so then you don’t understand liberty.  In fact, you don’t understand much.  Battlefield USA discusses warts in the liberty movement.

I support your liberty, just like I support your liberty to house just enough explosives in your own home to blow it and yourself up… not mine, nor the whole neighborhood. You might be the most responsible super-duper explosives handler bar none… but give every idiot the “liberty” to store enough explosives in their home to blow up the neighborhood is just plain stupidity.

There is a reason why the military has hardened weapons bunkers. There was a reason why the colonials had store/arms rooms for their cannons and black powder.

And on and on… There are too many in the “liberty” movement who can not reason, can not logic, who don’t understand that with liberty, comes responsibility.

Just like I told my new neighbor a few years ago. He has every right to party. He has every right to listen to his music… he has no RIGHT to blast his music in my ear and off my windows and walls that my damn windows and walls literally shake and vibrate. I asked him if it was okay if I threw rocks at his ears, windows, and walls… and why not. He GOT THE POINT and apologized.

I’m not the sharpest cookie on the block. I have my faults… but ya know, there are really some dumb fucks in the liberty movement that think liberty is all about them. It’s all about the… individual… and by individual, they mean… all about them.

I have a responsibility to not endanger your life. I don’t drive drunk. I don’t go outside and go all Rambo with my firearm. I don’t drive down the street like a maniac at 120 mph. I don’t house enough black powder to blow up the whole frikkin block… or my own house.

I have as much as a responsibility for you and yours as you do for me and mine.

When you are out there doing your liberty thing… keep that in mind.

Otherwise, you’re just a savage. Which is an excuse for license.

Ferguson is the hive’s chickens coming home to roost.  It is the collectivist’s nightmare.  A class of people who have had the family destroyed for generations, been taught that we owe them something for generations, and think they can break the law with impunity, are at odds with the police and other authorities, while the police and other authorities are under criticism for using the very tactics on this entitled class that the collectivists set them to to use, because they want to fill in the gap and prevent the effects of consequences (I think Mike Vanderboegh pointed out something like that with his clever title).  We should all stand back and say to the collectivists, “Look upon what thou hast created.  Are you proud?”

Nightmare.  And it’s just beginning.  Ferguson is a microcosm of Chicago, LA, Houston, New York, and Atlanta.  It’s all unraveling for them.  Your job is to be prepared, not to side with any of them.  This is their nightmare.  Let them live it alone.  Let Ferguson burn.  Don’t fill in the gaps for them.  Don’t side with criminals or militarized police.  Let it all collapse, you have no friends in the fight.