Politico:

Preparing for life with Donald Trump as president and Republican majorities in Congress, Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group is threatening to spend more than $25 million in 2018 races.

Everytown for Gun Safety, founded and funded by the billionaire former New York City mayor, is hiring several new top staffers and turning much of its attention to state legislatures, while moving to a defensive posture in Washington as it tries to stop what’s known as “concealed carry reciprocity” from becoming law. That will include starting to score congressional votes, like the National Rifle Association does, to guide spending decisions more directly.

We knew that collectivists never give up, and neither can we.  Unfortunately, Bloomberg has been moderately successful at the state level in blue states at infringing more on gun rights.  That’s why as I’ve recommended to nice people that you can’t be nice with Everytown.  You have go to war with them.  They are at war with you and your rights, and war is interested in you whether you’re interested or not.  It remains a bright spot in my blogging history that Jennifer Mascia came into my back yard on behalf of Everytown and tried to run with the big dogs (my commenters) and got chewed up.

As for what Trump has or hasn’t done on our behalf, while I’m disappointed in the degree of control that McMaster seems to have over him and his entry into the war to topple Syria, there are bright spots in Trump’s brief history of appointments.

Jesse Panuccio, the third-highest ranking official at the Department of Justice, has argued to allow firearms sales to people under age 21 and in defense of a Florida law that prohibited doctors from asking patients if they owned guns.

Noel Francisco, Donald Trump’s nominee for solicitor general, has described the Second Amendment as “a structural protection that’s intended to protect all other rights.”

And Tom Wheeler, now a senior lawyer in the DOJ’s civil rights division, once gave a speech with the title: “Arming Teachers to Prevent Tragedies, Responding to Sandy Hook.”

Forget for a moment that Sandy Hook was a false flag.  These are good appointments (go read the entire article).  On the other hand, I hold out very little hope that national carry reciprocity or the hearing protection act will get traction (much less amending or outright undoing the NFA).  The gaggle of gargoyles and demons that inhabits the House and Senate has no interest in your rights, and even if they did, trying to get anything useful done is like trying to herd cats.

So I can only recommend that you don’t wait on national carry, and if you wanted to suppressor or SBR, go ahead and get it and file the paperwork.  If there is success on the horizon, I just don’t see it.  Perhaps I’m just being pessimistic.

What do my readers think?

Via Codrea, this:

An Australian man wearing a crucifix and his girlfriend were attacked by a Muslim gang on a Sidney train on April 4 who yelled, ‘F*** Jesus!” and praised “Allah” as transit police witnessed the attack but did not intervene, according to an April 8 report in the Daily Telegraph.

The thirty-year-old Greek-Orthodox man who was attacked is only identified as “Mike”. Mike told Miranda Devine with the Telegraph he was riding the train from Campsie to Bankstown with his girlfriend when they were attacked by the Muslim gang of men and women.

[ … ]

He claims that five uniformed railway “Transport Officers” watched the attack and did nothing to help him, although police were waiting for the train when it reached Bankstown station.

Two police officers took the names of three alleged assailants and a statement from Mike, photographed his injuries, told him they would review CCTV footage from the train and that he should expect a letter in a month, which may require his attendance at court…

Well that’ll show them.  No good Muslim gangster wants to get a letter from a worthless cop.  Seriously Christians, I can say this because I’m a Christian too.  You’d better stop being such pussies.  You’d better gun up and prepare to fight.

If you don’t, you will be listening to calls to prayer from the Mosques that surround your home, your women will have to wear hijabs and only leave home with you or get raped, your sons will get converted to Islam, and you’ll convert or die.  If you’re truly a Christian you won’t convert, so you’ll die.

So if you’re going to die anyway, and you will at some point, wouldn’t you rather go out as a warrior protecting your clan?  Wouldn’t you rather be considered a crusader fighting for justice rather than a drag on society who allows others to conduct your battles?

Yes, just like Google (who owns YouTube), Twitter, Disqus, the MSM, college professors, corporate leadership and just about everybody else in power.  Next question.

David Codrea:

Then, one idea I haven’t seen explored (beyond me suggesting it) is to use “the enemy’s” own tactics against him. The small “l” libertarian in me says social media giants are private enterprises, and if we don’t like the way they operate, we should go our separate ways. That does not account for the tremendous influence these corporations have on government actions and policies, which introduces coercive potential into the voluntary associations.

I think this is the best approach.  It’s what I have attempted to do with Disqus comments.  If readers will notice, I’ve dumped Disqus and gone back to something simpler.  For a test period we had something like it with responses, but we’ve hopefully got something similar or better in the works.

Transitioning away from things like this isn’t easy.  We’ve also transferred web hosts from Media Temple to another, because Media Temple had started to gouge me on prices.  Why did they do that?  I don’t know.  I also know that my problems with Disqus left the theoretical and entered the practical when they moderated a commenter’s comment and I couldn’t approve it.  It didn’t show up in the comments, but I saw it as site owner, although in Disqus there was nothing to approve.  Disqus left it impossible for me to approve the comment.

I don’t use Facebook and have no account, and don’t do Twitter.  Perhaps that’s one of the reasons for low visits compared to similar blogs (“yea, blame it on social media rather than your own writing you putz” – the couch).  Either way, until we begin to divorce ourselves from the censoring censors, they will keep censoring us.

And before I forget it, I share David’s dislike of The Firearm Blog’s claim that it’s not politics, only guns.  Sure it is.  I’ve seen exceptions to that rule, and they make them when it’s convenient.  They ought to defenestrate the entire rule and blog on whatever they want.  This is only going to get worse with time.  Be prepared for more censorship with the ever increasing war on guns and traditional culture.

Regarding Cops Given Pass For Shooting Innocent Man In His Own Home, a reader wrote in an corrected me concerning a word in the post.  I faithfully reproduced the sections of Bob Unruh’s article, and correctly discussed the Lake County Police and their actions, right up until I confused the issue with Lake City Police, which is something entirely different.  I have corrected the original post.  I regret the error.

The State:

Impassioned pleas by legislators from both sides of the aisle failed to stop a majority of House members Wednesday from advancing a bill that allows for the carrying of firearms without a permit.

On a 64-46 vote, the S.C. House of Representatives passed the bill, which had been clouded in controversy over how it progressed through committee and allegations that Republicans stymied debate. It’ll head for the Senate after a perfunctory vote on Thursday.

“The legislative history of this bill is an embarrassment,” said Rep. James Smith, D-Richland, who repeatedly attempted to thwart a vote on the bill after Republicans invoked a procedural move that limited debate.

The bill calls for what proponents refer to as “constitutional carry,” or allowing those who can legally buy a firearm to carry a concealed weapon without having to obtain a permit.

It also allows for open carry, which grants weapons holders the ability to carry their firearms on their person for everyone to see. The law still would bar carrying a firearm while committing a crime.

Smith was not alone in trying to delay a vote. Several Republicans joined in, because they were against how the bill was advanced or didn’t like parts of the proposed law.

Rep. Gary Clary, R-Pickens, said he was against the bill because during his time as a judge and as a legislator, he has advocated for allowing all sides to have their say. Invoking a procedural vote to limit debate prevented that. He also said he just thinks “it’s a bad bill.”

[ … ]

Like Clary, Rep. Bill Crosby, R-Charleston, called the proposal a “bad bill.” He was against the portion that allows for open carry.

While dangling his concealed-weapons permit from his wallet, Crosby stressed he is “for guns” and the Second Amendment. He said he just didn’t think this change is needed.

“This bill doesn’t help the Second Amendment,” Crosby said. “All it does is it makes these good ol’ boys who like to have guns strapped to their hips not conceal them.”

Crosby said he is thankful for the Senate, which will probably kill the bill by having it languish in committee. Previous permit-less carry bills have suffered that fate in past years.

First of all, invoking a procedural stipulation that limits debate is a tried and true, well recognized procedure allowed by parliamentary rules.  Anyone who has worked under “Robert’s Rules of Order” knows that, and those complaining about closing debate also know that.  They’re making up their objection to closing debate.  It’s just a red herring.  Debate has to be closed at some point, and they just did it sooner rather than later.  It’s entirely possible under parliamentary procedure to have absolutely no debate at all.  The vote is what matters.

As for Crosby’s complaint that “All it does is it makes these good ol’ boys who like to have guns strapped to their hips not conceal them,” we may reply that all the current law does is make those boys have to conceal the guns they have on their hips for no good reason at all except that you want them to.  You like to conceal, others may not.  And your way doesn’t do anything at all for the second amendment.  Your way forces a rule on people who neither want it nor need it.  Our way undoes an unnecessary rule.  You’re the bad guy here, not us.  See how that works, Crosby?

If this does indeed die in the Senate like so many times in the past, then we’ll know who to go after for the next primary and election cycle.  You guys aren’t going to get away with the things you once did.  We’re watching very closely.  Ask former state senator Larry Martin if you don’t believe me.  Go ahead.  Ignore gun owners one more time.  Let’s make sure your name is written down in the memory of patriots everywhere across South Carolina.  We don’t forget.

As for the “journalist” who wrote all of this, Cynthia Roldán, take note that the only ones around her who can make “impassioned pleas” are those who oppose constitutional carry.  It’s as if there is weeping in the halls of power in Columbia over the awful things taking place, not just among Democrats, mind you, but from “both sides of the isle,” with the emotionless gun advocates impervious to the weeping.  And she managed to locate those Republicans who voted against this bill and turn it into quite a dramatic presentation, yes?

Actually, she did us a service.  Otherwise, how would you have know what a putz Crosby was?

Great Falls Tribune:

The House of Representatives gave preliminary approval Tuesday to a bill meant to preserve Montanans’ right to bear arms by prohibiting the enforcement of any federal ban on firearms.

Senate Bill 99 would establish the “Montana Federal Firearm, Magazine, and Ammunition Ban Enforcement Prohibition Act.” The bill passed out of the Senate in February on a 30-20 vote.

Republican Rep. Seth Berglee is carrying the bill in the House for Republican Sen. Cary Smith.

“We did add a couple of amendments to it to allow for federal assistance, as long as it is not for the primary purpose of prohibiting, restricting or requiring any of the federal bans,” Berglee said.

At the bill’s first hearing in the House, lobbyist for School Administrators of Montana Patrick Audet opposed the bill. He says the bill would allow firearms on school campuses.

“If an officer couldn’t enforce that law, that would be a problem. We would be opposed to that,” Audet said.

Kansas had a similar law called the Second Amendment Protection Act.  Two gentlemen then got caught up in the web of cowardice when one of them fabricated and sold a suppressor, and the other one bought it.  Both men were found guilty of violation of the NFA.  And what did the brave patriots in Kansas do about it?  They did nothing.

I warned future “patriots” about this sort of thing.

I’ve said before, don’t even consider something like nullification unless you’re willing to go the mattresses for your people.  The lawmakers could have handed the governor the tools to deal with the federal intrusion, and the governor could have had the balls to do it.

But none of this obtained, and the citizens suffered as a result.  Unless you’re willing to arrest federal agents who attempt to enforce these laws and throw them in the state penitentiary with the other prisoners, don’t even consider nullification.

Nullification laws made for show are immoral.  Nullification laws made for real are admirable, but states have to be willing to back it all up with force.

I see no difference between suppressors and any other kind of firearm or associated equipment.  If Montana actually intends to enforce this law against federal agents who attempt to arrest people when they run afoul of federal laws, current or future, then I applaud this law.

On the other hand, if it’s another gimmick for votes or show-law for the purpose of making a statement, or in other words, if this law will have no teeth because Montana has the same kind of cowards in government and law enforcement as Kansas, then stop right here.

Don’t do it.  It’s time for a gut check for Montanans.  What will it be?

Oh swell.

“[T]he system uses ‘Cognitive Microwave Radar’ to detect any unwanted items, and ‘related hardware can be installed in hallways and doorways to covertly identify weapons and to alert security of an active threat entering the premises,’” the report elaborates. “If this test proves to be successful in their eyes, it could open the flood gates for companies looking to use this technology in their own locations.”

And not just companies. If it actually works, this could be installed in public places to flag down any and everyone carrying a gun. And that should raise all kinds of civil liberties concerns …

The answer to this problem for the Casinos is that I don’t believe in gambling so I don’t go to Casinos or other such places.  Nor do I like being around huge crowds anywhere.

But that doesn’t address the issue of public places where I might have to be, nor the possibility that the *.gov might want to use this when it’s none of their business who has a gun and who doesn’t.

Of course, this just dovetails nicely with the lust for knowing everything and everybody in a police state, yes?

Bob Unruh:

Lucky Gunner recently had a great article on Revolver Velocity Versus Barrel Length that I missed, and I recommend that you spend a couple of minutes studying their results.

Their results might surprise you.  First of all, barrel length doesn’t matter as much as you might have thought, perhaps as much as 100 FPS for barrel lengths in the range we normally carry or shoot.  You have to get really long barrels (such as for hunting) for the length to make any substantial difference.

Second, the +P loads do actually give you noticeably better performance (as much as 100 FPS or more) compared to the regular loads.

Third, as good as the +P loads do compared to .39 Special, they don’t compare to the difference you get with the .357 Magnum, which is as much as several hundred FPS depending upon bullet weight.

Lucky Gunner recommend that you test your own loads, guns and bullet weights if you want an accurate assessment.  They also link this article where a table is included that has good data for your consideration.