I know, about now you’re thinking “what can Josh Sugarmann teach me about M855 green tip ammunition?  Not much, except that it pays to understand just what the enemy thinks.  It’s also important to know just how behind the times they are in understanding what we think, but more on that in a moment.

This is despite the fact that ATF is only doing what the NRA and other members of the gun lobby consistently argue should be done: enforcing the gun laws already on the books. Opponents also allege that no law-enforcement officer has been shot with one of the cartridges fired from a handgun. Testing the veracity of that assertion is challenging, but the whole point of the ban on “armor-piercing” ammunition is to prevent law enforcement and first responders who rely on body armor from ever having to face assailants wielding handguns loaded with armor-piercing rounds.

Yet left unstated is the fact that ATF’s proposal, as detailed in a new report from my organization, the Violence Policy Center, is the direct result of the gun industry’s own actions.

Facing a continuing decline in household gun ownership, the gun industry is constantly engaged in efforts to create new product lines to sell to a shrinking consumer base. In recent years the industry has aggressively marketed AR-15 assault pistols that use common rifle ammunition, such as the 5.56-by-45-millimeter round used in AR-type assault rifles.

So it’s possible that Josh doesn’t really understand anything about rifle ammunition, or perhaps he does and is playing dumb (or lying) in order to deceive his idiot readers at Huffington Post.  But just to make sure you understand, let’s cover this for a moment.

Common 5.56 mm ammunition will penetrate soft body armor, all of it, period.  Kevlar will not stop 5.56 mm ammunition (lead ball) shot at 3200 FPS.  Nor will soft body armor stop most rifle rounds.  Soft body armor is [routinely] tested for 9mm pistol ammunition, not rifle ammunition.

ESAPI (enhanced SAPI plates, or the ceramic ballistic plates worn in ballistic plate carriers) are designed to stop rifle rounds, and are specifically tested for M855.  No cop today (or anyone else for that matter) wearing Kevlar is protected from any rifle round (unless it is from something like a pistol caliber rifle), and the existence of M855 or lack thereof doesn’t change that.  Likewise, a cop (or anyone else) wearing ESAPI plates is protected from rifle rounds, including the M855, and the existence of the M855 round or lack thereof doesn’t change that.  Finally, even ESAPI plates must stop a certain percentage of rounds (so there is some probability of fracture and penetration even with tested and specified rounds regardless of type).

So you understand, don’t you, that the M855 ban has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with LEO safety, the liar in the White House notwithstanding?

As for the notion that gun owners are demanding that existing law be enforced, who is doing that?  No seriously, who is doing that?  Not me.  Are you?  If so, why?  Okay, perhaps the NRA has used that stupid argument, but we want open, constitutional carry in every state in America, and we want the Hughes amendment repealed, as well as prohibitions on things like SBRs in the NFA repealed.  That’s just a start.  We don’t want the existing laws to be enforced.  Every federal gun law is a violation of the constitution.  Every one.

Sugarmann then shows us a screen capture from the Rock River Arms web site.  Perhaps this will be good advertizing for them.  One can only hope.  Sugarmann ends with his usual propaganda that gun sales is down and ownership is increasingly focused on a smaller and smaller percentage of people.  Whatever.  If Josh wants to think this that’s alright with me.  The less they know about us and our beliefs, the better.

Read also Kurt Hofmann:

One (presumably very much unintended) argument against banning “armor piercing” handgun ammunition for private citizens came a while back from a very surprising source–the Violence Policy Center. As that group’s director, Josh Sugarmann, was cited in the U.S. News & World Report:

Gun control advocacy groups like Sugarmann’s say the body armor worn by the shooters in Newtown [which wasn’t “body armor,” anyway] and Aurora undermines the argument made by gun advocates that shootings can be stopped by someone with a handgun.

In other words, Sugarmann seems to be arguing that armed private citizens would have a reasonable chance at stopping mass shootings, if only they were not denied handgun ammunition capable of defeating body armor.

Yea, he is arguing first that guns are of no use against body armor so why would ordinary citizens have guns?; and second, there are millions of rounds in circulation that can defeat body armor, so they must be banned.  Sugarmann doesn’t care about consistency.  He’s just parroting the latest talking point.

News from the great Northeast:

A Rensselaer County transport officer’s pistol accidentally fired Tuesday morning inside city police headquarters when inmates were moving to and from City Court, the Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Office said.

“He was attempting to put his weapon in the holster when it discharged,” Sheriff Jack Mahar said.

The incident occurred at 11:25 a.m. Tuesday in an area near the police station sally port where transport officers store their weapons in lockers when they bring prisoners in to appear in Troy City Court on the second floor. The officers are not permitted to bring their weapons into the courtroom.

The bullet was fired into the floor, shattering pieces of the concrete floor, Mahar said.

An Albany County jail inmate said he was struck in the arm. Mahar said the inmate was treated at the scene by Troy firefighters and taken to Samaritan Hospital for additional examination.

The inmate, Daniel McCann, suffered an abrasion and was returned to Albany County jail where he was examined by the jail medical staff , Albany County Sheriff Craig Apple said.

The transport officer, who was not identified, was relieved from transportation duty and assigned to work inside the Rensselaer County Jail until the investigation is completed.

Gosh.  I hate it when that happens to me.  But I sure am glad that in the many times I’ve shot someone accidentally while holstering my firearm, I wasn’t sent to prison either.

Chuck Schumer wants to do just that.  It sounds oh so reasonable, right?

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer is calling for passage of legislation prohibiting individuals on the U.S. terrorist watch list from buying guns.

The New York Democrat noted the arrests this week of three Brooklyn men on charges they conspired to join ISIS in Syria or carry out attacks at home. If they were on the terrorist watch list, the bill Schumer’s backing would have prohibited them from buying firearms or explosives.

The watch list prevents individuals from flying on airplanes into and out of the country.

The federal database used to check gun buyers currently prohibits convicted felons and people with certain mental illnesses from buying guns.

“There is a major loophole in the federal law that would make your jaw drop,” Schumer told WCBS 880. Astoundingly, under current law, known or suspected terrorists on terrorist watch lists or no-fly lists can legally purchase weapons and explosives anywhere in the United States.

“We’re announcing a bipartisan drive to close that giant and dangerous loophole.”

Schumer said information from the Government Accountability Office shows individuals on the terrorist watch list cleared background checks 455 times in 486 attempted gun buys in 2013 and 2014.

Well, the prohibition against people with “mental illness” from purchasing guns is pure bigotry as I have pointed out before.  They don’t have a propensity to crime any more than anyone else does.  As for the issue of “terrorists” trying to purchase guns, I’m not too worried about that as long as I have them too.  But more to the point, tell us who those terrorists are, Chuck?  Give us names.  Would they potentially be Americans who the FBI is watching because they believe in certain things?

So let’s run down the kinds of things that worry the federal government, shall we?

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians

Well, let’s see.  I’m a Christian who believes abortion is murder, who supports secession, who has a negative view of the U.N., who stockpiles ammunition (as his budget allows), who believes in the right to bear arms, who is deeply concerned about immigration (and not just illegal immigration), who believes in the militia, who opposes the “new world order,” who believes that Islam is a fairy tale concocted by an evil pedophile for the purpose of keeping his roving band of murderers and thugs together, who believes that the American way of life is under attack and has been for a very long time … shall I continue?

You see, you are a potential terrorist, and Chuck wants to add you to the list of prohibited persons who cannot purchase firearms, coupled with universal background checks so you can’t do a person to person transfer.  Do you understand?

Kurt Hofmann:

OK then–what has changed in this supposed threat to law enforcement officers since 1986, when BATFE granted the exemption? According to that agency, the change is the appearance on the civilian market of pistols that can fire the round–pistols that unlike the single-shot models generally recognized as intended for sport, and not of much interest to people with nefarious, violent intentions, are repeaters. That, the BATFE tells us, is the difference …

“Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged – much less offered evidence – that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer.” And if the BATFE has no evidence of that, they certainly have no evidence of such a round having been fired from a handgun through an officer’s body armor–the “threat” that supposedly justifies the ban.

[ … ]

In the final analysis, to be free, we the people must have the means to present a credible threat to those who would presume to rule us–and to the enforcers of that rule–should they dare to slip the bonds of the Constitutional limits on their power. Ammunition that can penetrate government myrmidons’ armor, usable in a firearm that can be easily concealed, is a part of that threat–and that’s why the Obama regime wants it banned.

Read all of Kurt’s analysis.  Several interesting things may be noted about what Kurt has said.  I haven’t spent the time to give this proposed ban all the time it deserves, but now that I think about it, the ATF surely must know that their reasons for the proposed ban are at best head-scratching and at worst laughable.  If I had decided to go to war against police or anyone else – and I haven’t – I surely wouldn’t choose a SBR or “pistol” (i.e., barrel < 16″) without a stock.  An AR pistol, with its buffer tube, is just not concealable, and besides that, I’m not certain what being concealable has to do with anything anyway.  We may as well be debating the man in the moon and how he pertains to the price of eggs in China.

Anyway, Kurt cuts through the smoke in his last paragraph.  We must have the means – weapons and ammunition – to present a credible threat to those would would abuse authority over us.  Green tip ammunition, while not perfect for every scenario, allows increased penetration when it’s necessary (e.g., shooting through glass windows or walls when someone is shooting at us and we don’t want our rounds to ricochet off track).

Via David, here is JPFO’s position on the green tip ban.  Yea, yea.  It sounds like a lot of bluster to me without any willingness to do anything about it.

Speaking of JPFO, here is a communication from David Codrea:

Over the weekend, I submitted my resignation as a content contributor to and adviser for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Here’s why:

Last week, I submitted my article on Mike Vanderboegh’s BamaCarry speech to KeepAndBearArms.com Newslinks, another website SAF bought. It never appeared.

It’s no secret there is hostility between Mike and Alan Gottlieb. And Mike was apparently told by some readers that Alan has forbidden articles by or about him to appear on any properties he controls.

Alan confirmed that was the reason for the piece being banned.

I had previously said that I do not align myself with organizations, but with individuals.  JPFO is hanging by a thread in my book, since Kurt Hofmann is the only reason I would have left to pay them any attention whatsoever.  IF they lose Kurt, they may as well drop of the face of the planet as far as I am concerned.  David’s loss is huge, and I am truly sorry for this loss of income for my friend David.

David Codrea:

News that can help shape the political landscape of the gun rights advocacy community was broken last night on the nationally-syndicated Armed American Radio program, when Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, announced GOA will begin scoring politicians on their support or opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens.

Good for Larry.  I appreciate his stance on this issue.  My views are well known, and align with the idea that immigrants from South of the border are a risk to gun rights.

Handgun “safety instructor” in West Virginia worried about constitutional carry bill.  Ya.  I’ll bet he is.

Jihadists try to capture a Christian girl, but she had a machine gun.  We have the Hughes amendment.

The video below is being bandied about over various internet forums, as well as via Bob Owens.  Bob’s commenters are all confused and basically don’t know what they are talking about.  Similarly, the comments over the YouTube video – some of which are supportive and some of which aren’t – point to a problem of understanding and confusion.  Watch the video and then I’ll clear up that confusion for you.

He was just trying to tell if the person was a felon, or so the comment[s] at YouTube go.  The cop clearly is in favor of gun rights, claiming (falsely) that he is a three percenter.  “I’m sympathetic to the cop here,” says Uncle.

Now, take a deep breath, calm down and let’s clear up the confusion.  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a legendary body slam to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department for stopping a man for openly carrying a weapon in an open carry state (North Carolina), even when it was later determined that the man was a criminal.  See Fourth Circuit Finds That Carrying A Firearm In An Open Carry State Does Not Create Reasonable Suspicion And Provides Thorough Analysis Of The “Free To Leave” Standard.

This was clearly not a so-called “Terry Stop” (the cop didn’t believe a law had been broken) and the LEO had no need or right to know whether the man was a felon.  According to the court, it was none of his business.  No demurral, case closed, end of discussion.  Period.  That’s all.  You don’t need to know any more than that.

But since the bed wetters (who may be reading this) might need to know more, we’re going to help you.

OK, it is fairly simple.  If you are under arrest refuse to provide your name, date of birth, or residence address, you commit a Class C misdemeanor unless you have warrants outstanding, when it is a Class B misdemeanor.  If you are either under arrest or lawfully detained, it is an offense to provide a false name, date of birth or address.  The later is a Class B or A misdemeanor, dependent on whether you have outstanding warrants.

What is not an offense is refusing to provide your name, date of birth, or residence address when you are lawfully detained. See Dutton v. Hayes-Pupko, No. 03-06-00438-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6030, 2008 WL 3166324 (Tex. App.–Austin 2008, no pet.).  The court held that Deputy Derrick Dutton had arrested Sheryl Hayes-Pupko without probable cause since the law did not require her to identify herself while she was only being detained..  Dutton’s mistake of law did not provide a defense for the false arrest claim.

Unfortunately, this is not unusual for Texas.  Police officers in this state have an idea that they have the right to identify anyone at anytime for any or no reason.  The courts have repeatedly slapped them down on this.

• “The application of Tex. Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, § 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct.  Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is Reversed.”  Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
• “It is clear petitioner was arrested and convicted for his refusal to answer Officer Jennings’ question requesting that petitioner identify himself. This is impermissible even in the context of a lawful investigatory stop.” Spring v. Caldwell, 516 F. Supp. 1223 (S.D. Tex. 1981), reversed on other grounds 692 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1982).
• “First, Officer Lowe obtained identification from each occupant of the automobile though he had no legal basis whatever for demanding them.”  Lewis v. State, 664 S.W.2d 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
• “Moreover, the Supreme Court has previously dealt with a case in which Texas police officers demanded that an individual identify himself even though they had no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime. In Brown v. Texas, the Court [11]  ruled that Texas Penal Code Ann. § 38.02 (a), as enacted by the Texas legislature in 1974, was unconstitutional because it allowed an officer to stop and demand identification of an individual without any specific basis or belief that he was involved in criminal activity.” Weddle v. Ferrell, No. 3:99-CV-0453-G, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2659, 2000 WL 256891 (N.D. Tex. 2000).
• “Officers have the right to conduct an investigation of a driver following a traffic violation, but do not have authority to investigate a passenger without reasonable suspicion.”  St. George v. State, 237 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (holding that arrest of passenger for failure to identify not valid absent legal detention).

Yet we still see police officers demand identification in Texas and threaten arrest (or actually make arrest) on Failure to Identify when in fact, no offense has occurred.

Although oriented towards Texas law, this is true even in states that have stop and identify statutes if the stop isn’t a so-called “Terry Stop.”  The officer has no need or right to know who the person is.  Period.  Do you understand now?

The officer was a jackass, but worse than that, he was wrong as to the details and application of the law, like many LEOs today are.  Before the bed-wetters blow their bladders, they need to study the law a little bit.  And Bob Owens needs to educate his readers rather than allowing the pooling of ignorance in comments over his web site.  That is unseemly and undignified.

Via WRSA, this:

The White House has plans to legalize 13 to 15 million illegal immigrants who will then establish a “country within a country.”

The following Mark Levin interview with Susan Payne is shocking but it also puts all the pieces into place.

Susan Payne is a contributor to WCBM, Baltimore and Co-Host of the Pat McDonough Radio Show,

Unbeknownst to the Obama officials, Ms. Payne was invited to listen in on conference calls at an immigration rally. Cecilia Munoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, and 16 members of the White House cabinet were on the first call. White House officials were on all three calls.  What Ms. Payne learned needs to be immediately shared with Congress and the public.

It should be noted that Ted Hayes, founder of America’s Black Shield, also listened in on these calls.

The “Task Force of New Americans” and the “Receiving Communities” are part of a plan by the Obama administration to develop a “country within a country” which will eventually form a new, and instantly fundamentally transformed United States.

The conference calls and meetings surrounding the task force made it clear Barack Obama is planning to legalize and protect 13 to 15 million illegal immigrants who will then be moved onto citizenship.

When these “new Americans” come out of the shadows, the communities in which they’ve been placed will be designated as “receiving communities.”

The “new Americans” are considered “seedlings” by the White House and the “receiving communities” are the “fertile ground” to nurture them, according to comments made during the meetings.

Citizens will then be pushed into the shadows as the “New Americans” come out of the shadows.

One member of the task force said they will be forming a “country within a country”.

Unrelated directly to the issue of Hispanics and Latinos is this:

A top Texas law enforcement agency says border security organizations have apprehended several members of known Islamist terrorist organizations crossing the southern border in recent years, and while a surge of officers to the border has slowed the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants, it’s costing the state tens of millions of dollars.

In a report to Texas elected officials, the state Department of Public Safety says border security agencies have arrested several Somali immigrants crossing the southern border who are known members of al-Shabab, the terrorist group that launched a deadly attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, another Somalia-based group once funded by Osama bin Laden. Another undocumented immigrant arrested crossing the border was on multiple U.S. terrorism watch lists, the report says.

[ … ]

Authorities also apprehended immigrants who said they were members of terrorist organizations in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

[ … ]

The department said it had come into contact in recent years with “special interest aliens,” who come from countries with known ties to terrorists or where terrorist groups thrive. Those arrested include Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Pakistanis. In all, immigrants from 35 countries in Asia and the Middle East have been arrested over the past few years in the Rio Grande Valley.

And don’t overlook the fact that the U.S. State Department and their resettlement contractors have salted Minnesota with over 10,000 Somali refugees since 2005.

This is unconnected only insofar as the race and ethnicity is different.  The common element here is that the administration and its workers hate America and want to change it forever.  They have managed to accomplish just that.  The middle class will soon cease to exist, and the voters themselves will install a completely totalitarian government that will never be undone.

David and I have both warned you extensively about this threat.  I have been doing so for a very long time.  The GOP so lacks moral courage that they would sit and watch as their own mother and sister were being raped.  There is no answer to this except to prepare yourselves for the coming violence and hard times.

CBS Sacramento:

A federal court has rejected a challenge to California’s gun safety law, possibly paving the way for a requirement that new guns mark the bullets they fire so they can be traced.

The ruling on Wednesday was a defeat for two gun rights groups that argued the Unsafe Handgun Act violated the constitutional right to bear arms.

The law prohibits the manufacture or sale in California of any gun that doesn’t meet certain safety requirements. It was aimed at outlawing cheap “Saturday Night Specials” that were disproportionally used in crimes.

A 2007 amendment added a requirement that new or modified semi-automatic handguns include technology that microstamps a bullet casing with a code identifying the gun’s make, model and serial number.

That requirement was held up by concerns about patent issues on the technology but took effect in 2013. However, the federal challenge continued.

This week’s ruling “means that more gun crimes will be solved, more lives will be saved and California communities will be safer,” said a Friday statement from Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, who authored the 2007 amendment when he was a state Assembly member.

The gun safety law initially was challenged in 2009 by the nonprofit Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation, Inc.

Their lawsuit argued that the state law unconstitutionally prevented some members from buying certain types of handguns that were not on the state’s roster of permitted weapons.

The judge in the federal case rejected the argument that the law was onerous, saying that the commercial sale of firearms in the state “proceeds robustly,” with about 1.5 million handgun transactions since the lawsuit was filed.

The ruling also noted that the state’s roster of permitted handguns includes 795 models.

More from Orange County Register:

The law doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment because gun owners don’t have a right to specific types of firearms, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller in Sacramento said in her ruling.

“Plaintiffs insist they have the right to determine the precise way in which they would exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Mueller said. The insistence upon particular handguns falls “outside the scope of the right to bear arms,” she said.

Several observations are in order at this point.  First of all, Ms. Kimberly Mueller was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2010.  So much for gun rights being important to the GOP.

Next, it bears noting that while Ms. Mueller ruled that “[t]he insistence upon particular handguns falls “outside the scope of the right to bear arms,” she should have ruled that the constitution contains the phrase “shall not be infringed,” and that infringing is exactly what this law does.

Third, as to the notion that “this week’s ruling “means that more gun crimes will be solved, more lives will be saved and California communities will be safer,” said a Friday statement from Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, who authored the 2007 amendment when he was a state Assembly member,” it means nothing of the sort and Mr. Feuer is a liar.

Peaceable citizens purchase handguns from FFLs who follow the law.  Such people do not commit crimes where cartridges can be used to trace back to the particular person and weapon used to commit the crime.  That’s all a smokescreen to hide the real intent of the law.

They will no doubt argue that in order for this to work, they must implement the necessary corollary to the microstamping law, which is universal gun registration.  No, not just universal background checks, which effects sales going forward, but universal gun registration where the authorities have a record of all guns and who owns them.  The German Nazis wanted to know this sort of information too.  Of course, none of this has any effect on guns owned by criminals who will not register them.  It only applies to peaceable citizens.

Finally, the entire issue with the number of guns on the approved list today is yet another ruse.  The guns will fall off the list very soon.  The problem is that the list includes guns that do not include microstamping technology, and this is okay as long as no modifications are made.  Modifications might include melonite coating, different grips, safety improvements, match grade barrels, or anything else.  Since manufacturers do make routine minor (or major) modifications involving retooling the assembly line and machinery, that means that any new gun must include microstamping technology.

Gun manufacturers know exactly what will happen to their customer base if they produce weapons that are microstamped.  It will disappear from the face of the earth, and California politicians likely know this and are using it to rid California of legally sold guns.  In other words, they know that the “robust” sale of guns in California is a lie as it pertains to future sales.

I have interacted with Smith & Wesson, and to my dismay they won’t go on record and indicate to me that will refuse to sell to law enforcement if they cannot sell to other citizens.  This is a shame and a travesty of justice.  They will sell guns to law enforcement, while other citizens will see their list of potential guns dry up.  But to be fair to Smith & Wesson, the same is true of Glock, H&K and other manufacturers.  I just have more respect for the quality of S&W products and believe that they could be a beacon of liberty in California if they chose to.  They have not chosen to.  They have chosen money over freedom.

The NSSF has also weighed in.

… as several independent, peer-reviewed studies have shown, this nascent technology is flawed. It is incapable of reliably, consistently and legibly imprinting the required identifying information in two locations on an expended cartridge casing. Even the patent holder in a 2012 study he co-authored acknowledged the problems with this technology and called for further study rather than mandating its use. A National Academy of Science review, forensic firearms examiners and a UC Davis study reached similar conclusions. Because of the technology’s inherent limitations, no manufacturer can comply with this new law.

What the Legislature actually did was ban the innovation and stop the continuous improvement of today’s manufacturing processes that would otherwise enhance firearms safety and other functionality.

Compounding the problem is the state attorney general’s overreaching definition of what constitutes a “new model,” thus triggering the microstamping requirement. According to the attorney general, the slightest modification or design enhancement done as part of the normal manufacturing process for any product, such as changing the way a part is made or its dimensions to make it stronger and more durable, is a “new model,” which would now require microstamping. As a result, pistol models deemed as “not unsafe” by California are rapidly falling off the approved-for-sale roster.

And that’s what I just told you.  But notice the way Lawrence Keane broaches the subject.  He says, “What the Legislature actually did was ban the innovation and stop the continuous improvement of today’s manufacturing processes that would otherwise enhance firearms safety and other functionality.”

He means that the technology could otherwise be good and wholesome and improve safety and functionality.  He doesn’t mention that its corollary is universal gun registration and that we will not cross that line.  Ever.  Ever.

The NSSF is not your friend.  Their argument is wrongheaded because they have crafted it according to their wrongheaded views.  These measures in California are totalitarian in nature and the time has come and gone for peaceable folk to negotiate and befriend the process.  The black robes of the Supreme Court will not overrule Ms. Mueller.  It sounds to me like one of two things is in order.  Either civil disobedience, or relocation because the war for California is lost.  I do not begrudge either choice, and I don’t know which is best.

But as for me and my house, we will treat guns designed with microstamping as I do so-called “smart guns.  I will never have one.

News from Tennessee:

SMYRNA – An accidental police gunshot into lobby carpet at Town Hall startled officials attending a Town Council workshop Thursday night.

No one was injured after the weapon of Lt. Earl Barnes, the SWAT team commander, discharged after he tied his shoes in a chair in a lobby area. Doors were open next to the meeting room while his boss, Police Chief Kevin Arnold, was explaining upcoming training for his records office to elected officials.

“When it first happened, I thought it was one of these light bulbs (in the ceiling) that burst,” Arnold said during an interview Friday in the same meeting room.

After hearing the gunshot, the chief moved quickly from his seat in the meeting room that was closest to the door, reached for his holster and even thought it was possible an intruder had sneaked through the back door of Town Hall and shot Barnes.

“My main concern was not only him but ‘do we have a situation developing here,'” said the chief, who was relieved to see the lieutenant who usually provides security detail for Town Council meetings was unharmed. “Police officers are trained to go to the threat. It was very brief. He said, ‘I had an accidental discharge.'”

The kind of “accidental discharge” he had was preventable (well, I guess they all are).  Seriously though, they did have quite the “situation developing here.”  The chief pulled the trigger of his weapon in the wrong place at the wrong time.  But it gets even worse and weirder.

Lt. Barnes asked if he could go home after the incident, and the chief agreed.

“He was very embarrassed,” said Arnold, who estimated that Barnes has served with Smyrna Police for more than 25 years. “He’s an outstanding officer, but unfortunately, he made a mistake.”

The chief said Barnes will face discipline to be determined after Arnold discusses the gun discharge with Human Resources staff and Town Manager Harry Gill.

“It will usually be several days of suspension without pay,” Arnold said. “We are very lucky Lt. Barnes wasn’t injured. We’re very lucky that no citizens were injured, and no members of staff and no members of council were injured.”

Barnes made two mistakes, the chief said. One included Barnes failing to snap his holster to ensure the weapon would remain in place after he had used his pistol as part of a felony traffic stop to arrest a man accused of armed robbery of a gas station/convenience store at 33 N. Lowry.

“What we think happened is he didn’t snap it down enough in place,” Arnold said.

The other mistake came after Barnes sat down to tie his shoes and then reached for his gun when the pistol fell out of his holster.

Yea, I’ll bet he wanted to go home.  Listen to me very carefully so that you don’t act like the man in the article.  If your gun is falling and you have a round chambered, do not ever try to catch it.  Ever.  Ever.  I’ll leave it to the readers to explain why in the context of grip safeties, trigger brush guards, etc.

“We train our officers several times a year in using these weapons,” said Arnold, adding that his officers are expected to be armed and ready to shoot. “Unfortunately, we’re in the line of work where we have to carry weapons.”

Arnold said Barnes did what would be human nature to reach for something that was falling and forgetting the training to let the gun drop to the ground.

“Unfortunately, he made the mistake, and we are held accountable for our actions,” the chief said. “I have accidentally dropped mine at home. I cringed. It didn’t go off.”

A 25-year officer with Smyrna who has been chief for eight years, Arnold said his department has had four or five incidents involving officer guns firing by mistake. Only one of those in 1998 involved an injury to Officer Muhammad Ali (formerly known as Robert Ladell Haynes).

“He almost died,” Arnold said.

My God.  It looks like this department needs to be rid of their weapons before someone gets hurt even worse.  At least the (nearly lethal) negligent discharge didn’t happen to an artist formerly known as Prince.  Then I might think they were making this whole thing up.  It almost looks like that anyway.

WOWKTV.com:

The WV Senate on Feb. 27 passed a bill that would allow for anyone over the age of 18 to carry a concealed weapon in West Virginia without a permit.

Sen. Mike Romano, D-Harrison, offered three amendments before the bill passed the Senate with only two votes against it.

Sen. Ron Miller, D-Greenbrier, and Sen. Corey Palumbo, D-Kanawha, were the only dissenting votes.

One of Romano’s amendments would have added a training course for anyone carrying a concealed weapon. Other amendments would have capped the age of concealed carry at 21 years old. Each amendment was rejected.

Romano ultimately voted for the bill.

“I was an 18-year-old kid, and I don’t think at that age they’re mature enough to understand the grave responsibility they have,” Romano said of changing the age of carrying a concealed weapon. “The Senate, unfortunately, caved in to special interests. I voted for the bill because I think it’s right, but I thought the amendments would add common sense adjustments.”

The legislation goes to the WV House of Delegates for consideration.

Well good for them.  In spite of the gun control efforts to the Southeast by communist Terry McAuliffe, it’s good to know and show that better can be done.  It’s important to note that this is the Senate.  I don’t know much about the Governor or how likely he is to sign this legislation if it passes the House.  He is a democrat.

If I have any readers from West Virginia, please comment here and/or send me a note and keep us posted on progress of this legislation.

Via David Codrea, and also via reader Pat Hines, here is the Georgia Carry response to the proposed M855 ban.  It’s a good response, and readers will be familiar with the common concepts with which we deal every day, such as the difference between FMJ and MC ammunition (metal case where the tail end is not jacketed).  Also see the section on the fact that the “sporting purposes test” is unconstitutional.  Of course it is.

David Codrea:

That’s what’s going on with eight health organizations, notably the American College of Physicians, joining with the American Bar Association to demand more “gun control” in a “Call to Action” published earlier this week.

I’m glad David is covering this.  I saw the media frenzy this week and was uninterested.  I don’t think it’s any of my business trying to figure out ways to make the public safer from guns by curtailing the right to be armed.  I don’t think it’s any of their business either, but reading David’s piece reminds you that not only is it not their business, it isn’t in their area of expertise.  It would be like asking me what drugs to prescribe for congestive heart failure.  Doctors are going to have enough things to do under Obamacare (like useless paperwork).  They had better get their head in gear to deal with the coming calamity.

David Codrea:

In his speech Friday before the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Md., National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre discussed a host of issues impacting gun rights, declaring they all depend on each other. Curiously absent from his speech was any acknowledgment of the danger amnesty for illegal aliens with a “pathway to citizenship” would pose to continued government recognition of the right to keep and bear arms.

And yet, immigration – both legal and illegal – is the most significant threat we face as a nation and a people.  It is a clear and present danger.  David and I have both pointed that out.  Time is running out.

Per Mike Vanderboegh, here is an interview of Anthony Bosworth on his arrest.

Police chief arrested for brandishing gun while intoxicated.  Gee, I wouldn’t do something like that.  I guess it’s a good thing I don’t have all of that training and expertise that he does, you know, since he is a LEO and everything and I am not.