kirotv.com:

Another company, Triggersmart, uses a radio ID tag that can be embedded in a ring.

But a poll done for the symposium reveals only 40 percent of current gun owners would switch to a smart gun — and 62 percent of gun owners reject any mandatory requirement to have them.

Dave Workman is a gun owner with the locally based 2nd Amendment Foundation.

“Let’s not even be talking about the technology until we are certain that it works,” Workman said.

King County Sheriff John Urquhart was on a panel, but wasn’t ready to commit to smart guns.

Urquhart says it will be years before the smart gun technology is ready. And then he’s not likely to mandate it for his officers.

Contrary to Dave’s edict, let’s talk yet again about smart gun technology.  I am a registered professional engineer, and I spend all day analyzing things and performing calculations.  Let’s not speak in broad generalities and murky platitudes (such as “good enough”).  That doesn’t work with me.  By education, training and experience, I reject such things out of hand.  Perform a fault tree analysis of smart guns.  Use highly respected guidance like the NRC fault tree handbook.

Assess the reliability of one of my semi-automatic handguns as the first state point, and then add smart gun technology to it, and assess it again.  Compare the state points.  Then do that again with a revolver.  Be honest.  Assign a failure probability of greater than zero (0) to the smart technology, because you know that each additional electronic and mechanical component has a failure probability of greater than zero.

Get a PE to seal the work to demonstrate thorough and independent review.  If you can prove that so-called “smart guns” are as reliable as my guns, I’ll pour ketchup on my hard hat, eat it, and post video for everyone to see.  If you lose, you buy me the gun of my choice.  No one will take the challenge because you will lose that challenge.  I’ll win.  Case closed.  End of discussion.

Now to the real issue.  I won’t have a weapon that can be manipulated by anyone, or for which outside interference of any kind is possible.  As I said about Gottlieb’s position, “I’m not opposed to people spending their money the way they want.  If Gottlieb wants one, let him buy one.  Leave me out of it.  And don’t ever … ever … EVER … tell me what kind of gun I can have or must buy.”

Prior: Smart Guns tag

Ammoland:

The National Firearms act regulation of short barreled rifles and shotguns from 1934 should be eliminated.   It made little sense when the primary purpose for the regulation was thwarted when it passed, it has become increasingly irrelevant, and it makes no sense at all after the Heller and McDonald decisions.

The reason for the ban on short barrelled rifles and shotguns had very little to do with the criminal use of such items.   After all, criminals use handguns many, many, times more often.    Short barreled rifles and shotguns are, in fact, as modified and used by criminals, expediently manufactured pistols.

The National firearms act of 1934 originally lumped in handguns with full auto firearms.  It is clear that the Roosevelt administration wanted to subject pistols and revolvers to the same draconian regulations and taxes that machine guns were finally subjected to.   Congress simply would not go along.  It was a step too far for even the heavily Democrat Congress of 1934.

Once you understand that licensing of handguns to the point of prohibition was the major target of the legislation, the reason for including short barreled rifles and shotguns becomes clear.    What is the point of banning handguns if any person can buy a rifle or shotgun, a hacksaw, and make a functional pistol in fifteen minutes from that rifle or shotgun?

That’s the first explanation I’ve ever heard that makes any sense at all as to why the law exists.  If seen in a vacuum, it is completely irrational and unworkable.  If seen in context, it is part of a larger scheme to deprive us of God-given rights across the spectrum, not just with SBRs.  It’s just that they failed with the rest of the control.  Thus, this piece of legislation sits alone, in need of more heinous and draconian controls to make any sense.

If you’re like me, you admire the fine, beautiful machinery in a revolver.  They beat plastic guns without mercy.  I love me a nice wheel gun.  But if you aren’t a revolver aficionado, there are things you need to know.  This is the very first one.  Watch.  Learn.

David Codrea:

Further reading confirms copies of the judgment were served to Attorney General Eric Holder, as well as to the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of Inspector General. Leaving the door open for further action, the opinion noted pending a final response from DOJ, “the court will reserve the question whether one or more of defendant’s attorneys acted in violation of the court’s rules and should be disciplined thereunder.”

Like I said, “this is criminal activity, and if it can be proven to the standards of the American Bar Association, they could be disbarred.  Finally, if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, they could face criminal penalties.”  People need to be disbarred and in prison over this.

Kurt Hofmann:

This bill is an exact copy of one he introduced last July, H.R. 5344. At that time, he actually came out and said that he wants private citizens to be more vulnerable to gunfire … How one would “protect the safety” of “the general public” by outlawing safety equipment is left unexplained. Even many of the armored backpacks, sold for use by school children, would be banned.

PPEs are awesome, unless of course it makes you more protected from totalitarians trying to rule over you.

What Baghdad movie-goers think about American Sniper.  It’s instructive.

So let me get this straight.  Being an actual terrorist has to do with geographical interests and not methods or intent?  Okay.  Got it.

Mike Vanderboegh on Gottlieb on smart guns.  Very well.  I’m not opposed to people spending their money the way they want.  If Gottlieb wants one, let him buy one.  Leave me out of it.  And don’t ever … ever … EVER … tell me what kind of gun I can have or must buy.

We just discussed how at least one of the proposed pieces of legislation in Texas is licensed open carry.  A deal may very well have been struck well before the session concerning what the Governor expected to come to his desk.  This isn’t the only open carry bill in Texas, and so the show isn’t over yet.  But there is a cold wind blowing concerning the promises made to the voters.

Texas never met a gun-rights bill it didn’t like.

But if one actually fails to pass the Legislature this session, the author of the state’s 1995 handgun permit law knows why.

A bill to allow Texans to pack pistols without a permit won’t pass “because of the Tarrant County open-carry group’s obnoxious behavior,” former Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson warned by email Tuesday.

Earlier Tuesday, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said a different bill allowing open carry with a permit “does not reach to the level of prioritizing” before adjournment June 1.

Basically, Patterson said, that bill might have a chance if Open Carry Tarrant County stays home.

Patrick’s comment will “stir up a lot of folks,” Patterson wrote, adding: “I hope these folks don’t make another scene.”

Patterson called that “foolish.” Watkins’ comment: “Shame on you.”

Patterson wants the Legislature to pass bills allowing open carry and carrying at public colleges, both with a permit.

Since he worked hard for permits, he likes them.

Consider me shocked – a member of the ruling class likes it when the government gets to approve or disapprove of rights.  The promise strategically didn’t include constitutional carry, and the so-called “obnoxious” behavior of open carry advocates has given him a convenient excuse for something he never wanted to do in the first place.

Another report (thanks to MackH) tells us more about the political machinations.

Speaking the day after pro-gun advocates again flocked to the state Capitol, Patrick said he thought “Second Amendment rights are important” but he didn’t think “there’s support in the Legislature to pass” a bill to legalize the open carry of handguns. In Texas, you can openly tote long arms like rifles and AR-15s, but the same has been illegal for handguns for more than 125 years.

“On open carry I’ve been very consistent, that if the votes are there, the bill will pass out of the Senate,” said Patrick. “But I’m not an open carry person myself. I wouldn’t open carry but I respect people’s right who want to.”

[ … ]

While Patrick’s comments on open carry Tuesday morning were nothing new – he ‘s made similar statements on news programs and at town hall meetings in the recent past – they seem to contradict campaign material that promised the then state senator and radio show host would more actively support the effort. On his campaign website, one of the five “Second Amendment” issues Patrick lists as priorities is to “fight for open carry.” A campaign ad also includes a promise to “support” the effort.

In a retweet of a San Antonio Express-News story from November 2013, Patrick campaign consultant Allen Blakemore also stated, “@DanPatrick supports open carry.”

If this all sounds like politicians making promises in order to get elected and then reverting collectivist after being elected, it’s because that’s exactly what happened.  And as to the propaganda that this all has to do with those “obnoxious” open carriers, Sebastian fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Remember, before their little stunt, this was supposedly a done deal … So far all all the OC Tarrant County folks have accomplished this session is getting the legislature to install panic buttons, and scuttling a bill that looked like it had the legs to pass. What else will they manage to accomplish in this legislative session?

Right.  They’re all a-skeered of the open carriers, enough to install “panic buttons.”  It sounds to me like they aren’t a-skeerd enough.  The legislators are supposed to be in our employ, and maybe what they need to see is more voters carrying guns.

As for the open carry bill they floated, I’d sooner have nothing.  As I’ve said, licensed open carry in a state with no stop and identify statute for enforcement is a shooting-by-cop waiting to happen.  And I certainly don’t support empowering the police state any more by giving them a stop and identify statute.  That would be making something bad even worse.

Gun rights advocates are better off to hold out for constitutional carry rather than begging for scraps that fall from the master’s table.  As for Texas politicians, color me unimpressed.  They seem like a lot of hot air and no action or honesty.  I guess the underhanded, conniving, bullying days of Bob Bullock are still going strong even as Bob lays in the grave.

David Codrea:

“The bill is taken almost word for word from The Kelly Report, a multi-authored, gun control perpetual wish list released last year from Kelly’s office,” Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership reported Tuesday. “Authors of the Kelly Report include such veteran gun control advocates as Harvard’s David Hemenway, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc.), and National Urban League President and former New Orleans mayor Marc Morial.

Read all of David’s article.  If you want me to respect you, show me children raised to adulthood, or gray hair, a life well-lived, or something that shows you are a man.  This person is an unserious little boy.  As for the promised gun control, bring it. We’ll see who wins that fight.

Also, read about David’s insurance policy.  Hmm …

Kurt Hofmann:

Actually, that wouldn’t be a new development, with the Violence Policy Center having espoused such bans on what they call “intermediate sniper rifles” (to distinguish them from “heavy sniper rifles”–mostly firing the .50 BMG cartridge) since 2001. If that effort ever comes to fruition, does anyone seriously believe they’ll not eventually find their way to warning us of the dangers of private citizens’ access to “light sniper rifles”?

More recently, we’ve seen an especially hysterical anti-gun group (and an anti-gun group has to really work to distinguish itself from the crowd in its level of hysteria) calling for a ban of rifles “too accurate” for private citizens–and stunningly, wants private citizens limited to rifles that miss 70% of the time …

Read all of Kurt’s article.  Everything is proceeding just as I had foreseen.

I had previously asked the question of a purchase at Walmart, “If someone had purchased a really nice bolt action .308 with expensive glass, what would the press have done if this had gotten into criminal hands?  Perhaps call it a “sniper rifle?”

And in this same spirit, Mike Vanderboegh weighs in.

Personally, I can think of no more wonderful outcome than if the movie prompts the firearm prohibitionists to go after deer rifles. They mess with Elmer Fudd at their peril and frankly the Fudds could stand being reminded that we are all guests at this disarmament party.

Yea.  It isn’t just that AR-15 with the high capacity magazine they don’t want you to have.  That nice .308 bolt action rifle you’ve been thinking about – you know, the one you want to put the nice Nightforce or Vortex scope on?  Yea, that rifle.  That’s the one.  They don’t want you to have that either.  Just because.  You can’t be trusted.

The secret was out about a week ago.

Another hot topic this session is open carry and Senator Perry already has an idea of what may come of that.

“I think you will see open carry on multiple levels. I think at the end of the day, Governor Abbott was very clear and Lt. Patrick has said the same thing. So, if an open carry bill meets the desk of the governor, it’s going to get signed. I would say if there is a bill that comes out of the house or senate chambers regarding second amendment it will be a license to carry” Senator Perry said.

As if on cue, the bill that has been filed follows what is likely a “behind closed doors” or “gentleman’s agreement.”

AUSTIN – State Sen. Craig Estes filed a bill on Friday that would authorize open carry of modern handguns in Texas by anyone with a license, so long as the handguns are carried in shoulder or belt holsters.

Texas is currently one of the few states that does not permit citizens to openly carry modern handguns under any circumstances. The other states that deny their citizens the right to carry handguns openly are: California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and South Carolina.

“Texas is one of only six states, including California, New York, and Illinois, that still completely ban open carry,” said Estes, R-Wichita Falls, who represents Palo Pinto County. “As Governor Abbott recently said, ‘If open carry is good enough for Massachusetts, it’s good enough for the state of Texas.’”

[ … ]

If passed, the new license to carry created by this bill would replace the existing concealed handgun license. Applicants would have to meet the same requirements that they currently do to get a concealed handgun license.

That’s really too bad for Texans.  The government shouldn’t be in the business of licensing anyone to engage in a constitutional right.  Voters might want to let their elected officials feel their disapprobation.

Now, how is this law to be enforced?  Texas has no “stop and identify” statute.  Either massive confusion is on the way, or more onerous laws like a new stop and identify statute will be part of this bill (or some future bill).  Terrible.  Just terrible.

Charlotte Observer:

An advocacy group staged a protest at Harris Teeter in the Myers Park neighborhood Saturday, demanding that the grocery chain stop customers from openly carrying guns in its stores.

Members of Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America chopped up their customer loyalty cards and told a store manager they would not shop at Harris Teeter unless the policy is changed.

“We’ll come back if the store is safe,” one protester said.

The group has been lobbying Cincinnati-based Kroger, which bought Harris Teeter last year, to ban openly carried guns in stores even in states such as North Carolina where “open carry” is legal. Members have recently seen success persuading well-known chains, including Target and Starbucks, to ask customers to leave firearms outside their doors.

But Harris Teeter said it won’t change its policies, which allow open carry in states where it’s legal. Harris Teeter operates about 200 stores in eight states, but most are in North Carolina.

Gun owners in the state can openly carry firearms in most public places. A permit is required to carry a concealed gun.

“We have and will continue to adhere to the firearms and concealed handgun laws as outlined by the states in which we do business,” Harris Teeter spokeswoman Danna Jones said in an email. “We believe this issue is best handled by lawmakers, not retailers.”

The company gave a similar response in November after Moms Demand Action delivered more than 72,000 petitions to Harris Teeter’s Matthews offices asking it to halt the open carry of firearms in stores.

Moms Demand Action, which pushes for tougher guns laws, was founded after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012. A gunman killed 20 children and six adults in the school.

The organization boasts members in all 50 states, including 384 in the local chapter that organized Saturday’s protest.

About 10 women, men and children held placards in the Harris Teeter parking lot, cut their customer loyalty cards in front of television cameras and carried a letter to the store manager.

They said they do not oppose the Second Amendment right to bear arms but added that some stricter controls are necessary to protect children.

“It’s not about the guns; it’s about the people,” said Christy Clark, a Huntersville mother and leader with Moms Demand Action. “Moms, kids and stores cannot tell the difference between a good guy and a bad guy.”

Look Christy, if moms and kids could tell the difference, like this instance when Harris Teeter stores were robbed at gun point, you couldn’t do anything about it.  You couldn’t protect your children, because criminals don’t obey laws or follow rules (even if Harris Teeter made such a rule).

You see, I carry a weapon in Harris Teeter stores, as I do everywhere else.  The fact that you can’t see it doesn’t mean that I’m not a bad guy, and if I open carry, that doesn’t mean I’m not a good guy.  This all has to do with your private psychological peculiarities, and says nothing whatsoever objective concerning anyone else.  This all has to do with things going on in your mind, not reality.

Moreover, if you do ever get into a situation in which you need protection and your husband isn’t with you, one of us might just save the day.  I wouldn’t rely on the police if I were you.  Their response time is far too long, and they have proven again and again and again that they can be very dangerous people with guns.

Harris Teeter doesn’t want this fight.  There are far too many of us and they don’t want to lose the business.  So I recommend that you go somewhere you’re wanted and leave the Harris Teeter parking lots free for folks who want to shop there.

On a related subject, this sign is still hanging on a column at the Harris Teeter at Matthews Township.

I spoke to a front end manager about this and got a call from the manager before I even got home from shopping and was told to feel free to exercise my constitutional rights at Harris Teeter.  The sign needed to come down and they just hadn’t gotten to it.

But the sign is still there.  It’s simple folks.  Get a ladder and cordless drill.  I’ll help, and post pictures of the event.  And everyone will go home happy.

David Codrea:

1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land” and that the Bill of Rights acknowledges a birthright of all Americans?

2. If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state?

3. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider constitutional.

4. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider unconstitutional.

5. Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit?

6. Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of militia utility?

Yes, yes, none of them, all of them, yes, and yes.  How did I do?  Read David’s entire list.  I’ve become very disenchanted with the process.  The NRA can’t even get the most basic things right, you know, like working to protect gun ownership and use.

Dan Morgan:

Our RON (Remain-Over-Night) is hidden well up the mountain in a draw, deep in the tangled nightmare of a laurel thicket, known to the locals as an “Ivy Hell”. The name speaks for itself.

Andy spotted the potential location as the four of us patrolled slowly following the spur northwest, first in a diamond formation then later, as the trees and vegetation thickened, into a Ranger file formation, down from the ridge line of the mountain behind us.

Andy was walking point and, as the compass man, reading the terrain and keeping us on course. Al, the second man in the patrol, was keeping the pace count. Andy noted, as he frequently looked back, that Al was maintaining a good interval far enough back to be just barely visible to Andy.

Passing the large laurel thicket about 500 meters down in the draw he stopped, turned to Al, and made eye contact with him. Andy slowly raised his support hand to shoulder level, palm open, fingers pointed up, and moved them in a tight circular motion …

This is good stuff.  It sounds like it happens in my neck of the woods, or at least where I can get to in a short time.

Mike Vanderboegh on the GOP caving on immigration.  Because the GOP sucks.

Mike Vanderboegh on the latest CleanUpATF post.  Read it all.

Outdoorhub has a review of the new Savage .17 HMR rifle.  According to this review, the Ruger 77 is the better of the .17 HMR rifles when the review was done.  I’ll tell you what.  How about each manufacturer sending me their models and I’ll test them out myself?  I can be reached as described at the contact page.

David Codrea:

Further detailed allegations, being investigated by this reporter and seemingly corroborated by the unsealed opinion, include Judge Allegra being contacted by Internal Affairs Investigator Christopher Trainor, a key witness in the Dobyns case, concerning his being threatened by a main government witness — one the judge himself had raised perjury questions about — and chillingly,also threatened by lead government attorneys. Trainor had reportedly earlier given the intimidation to ATF, which opened a criminal investigation, and then approached ATF and Department of Justice attorneys, both of whom allegedly refused to report the witness tampering allegations to the judge. It is further alleged Trainor was warned by the DOJ attorney that if he reported the witness to Judge Allegra, his career at ATF would suffer.

The judge then reportedly notified Attorney General Eric Holder, then-Deputy AG and (“Number Two” at Justice) James Cole, and the Office of Inspector General of DOJ attorney fraud against the court, and issued an order barring seven of the attorneys from filing any further legal documents in the Dobyns case. Although no direct connection has been established, it is noted that the timing of the judge’s notification appears contemporaneous with Cole’s resignation and Holder’s announced resignation.

I encourage readers to study David’s other research into the Dobyns case linked at this article.  This is extremely serious stuff.  First of all, it demonstrates a complete lack of professional ethics and personal moral compass.  But on top of that, this is criminal activity, and if it can be proven to the standards of the American Bar Association, they could be disbarred.  Finally, if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, they could face criminal penalties.

This is a very big deal, and it goes to show the lengths that the government went to cause disrepute on Mr. Dobyns.  The Arizona Daily Star reporter that David cited can’t fathom why the justice department would have gone to these lengths in a simple contractual dispute.  The answer is that this is more than a simple contractual dispute.  This goes to the entire obscene connection of the government with running guns to the Mexican cartels in order to justify more gun control for Americans.  They tried to ruin this man’s reputation and destroy his life.

It’s a picture of a failed state, because the government has lost the mandate of heaven.  It cannot be entrusted with even the most basic safety, health and welfare of society.  The federal government has itself become a criminal cartel.