David Codrea:

What Hollis won’t do, if the suit prevails, is rescind the National Firearms Act of 1934, including registration and transfer tax requirements. What it would do is invalidate the absurd prohibition that says you can own a machine gun made before May 19, 1986, but if you possess an identical firearm made after that arbitrary date, you’ll be a felon in for a world of hurt. And the other thing it would do is create all kind so interesting market repercussions that have kept the prices of pre-’86 machine guns at artificially inflated (and then some) prices.

To anyone capable of grasping basic logic, acknowledging the ludicrousness of the cutoff would seem cut and dried. But when descending into the bizarre and often contradictory world of ATF rulings and judicial interpretations, a happy resolution is anything but a slam dunk.

Read David’s entire piece.  I sure would like to see the arbitrary cutoff go down in flames.  As I’ve argued before, this arbitrary cutoff also has other nefarious affects on the American arms industry, like preventing the development of fully automatic weapons technology.  Why do you think the only squad automatic weapon fielded today in the Army and Marines is made by FN Herstal?  Wouldn’t it be wise to invest in open bolt technology in order to have better weapons ourselves?  Sorry, can’t do that, because there isn’t enough money to develop weapons that may or may not be contracted by the U.S. armed forces.  Weapons like this need a civilian outlet in the case of rejection by the Army and Marines to make them financially feasible.

David Codrea:

“It is not believed that members of the various shooting clubs and organizations would concern themselves over a curtailment of highly-powered firearms,” Hoover opined, probably not altogether incorrectly considering the indifference of many who to this day still place sporting interests over rights. “Additional penetration is of no value to target shooting, and it is logical to assume that organizations promoting this sport would be in hearty accord with legislation curtailing high velocity bullets in an attempt to insure their members the continued use of target pistols.”

How interesting.  David has a great find on history of the .357 magnum cartridge and Hoover’s opinion of civilian ownership of weapons that can handle the cartridge.  He (Hoover) uses the word “insure” rather than the correct word “ensure,” a pet peeve of mine, so I think he was an idiot, and I would have slapped him around for it.  See David’s link to the document.  Between David’s research and what Jerry Miculek lectured and demonstrated, we are learning more about the .357 magnum.  And the more we learn, the more I like it.  I’ve always liked shooting it.

Handgun permitting by CLEOs may be done away with in North Carolina, like it should be.  Personally, I think it’s a pain in the ass in addition to being an infringement.  It’s a reversion to Jim Crow laws.  But look for CLEOs to fight it because they would lose revenue, control and justification for staffing.

See this billboard courtesy of Mike Vanderboegh.  This is a great billboard, in addition to being a very nice piece of art work.  I’d like to see a few in every state, or as many as we can get, with people all over this nation asking, “What’s this I’m seeing about III%?  What does it all mean?”