Rich Simpson:

While not a panacea, reloading can give you a temporary hedge on politically driven market shortages by allowing you to build up an adequate store of ammunition while the components are readily available and still reasonably priced. Second Point: On a more personal level, I absolutely love the fact that reloading gives me the ability to custom tailor ammunition for each of my firearms, thereby maximizing the performance and versatility of every firearm in my collection.

I’ve never been a reloader, but there are advantages to it if you know how, including a level of QA likely not brought to the task by factory loads.  Then again, Massad Ayoob has a warning for you concerning handgun ammunition.

For years, I’ve warned people that there are a couple of serious concerns with using handloaded ammunition for personal or home defense.  The big one is forensic replicability when the shooter is accused, and opposing theories of distance become a factor.

How often does this happen? One time some years ago, that question came up on an internet debate.  I looked through the ten cases I had pending at the time as an expert witness, and gunshot residue (GSR) testing to determine distance from gun muzzle to the person shot was an issue in four of them.  Forty percent is not what I’d call statistically insignificant.

[ … ]

… if you have any friends who use handloads for serious social purposes, please share. You might just save them from the sort of nightmare suffered by the defendant in New Jersey v. Daniel Bias, who was bankrupted by legal fees before the first of his three trials was over, and wound up serving hard time.  Both of his attorneys were convinced he was innocent, and told me they believed that if he had simply had factory ammo in his home defense gun, the case would probably never have even gone to trial.

Remember that if you ever have to shoot in self defense, the entirety of the legal system – witnesses, judges, juries, police and prosecutors – is stacked squarely against you.  Do you need anything else in that stack?

Guy Relford writing at WIBC.com:

On Monday, the Indiana Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Thomas Pinner v. State, which addresses the issue of whether police officers may detain and question a person based only on a report that the individual has a gun.  In agreeing with the Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision handed down last August, the Supreme Court ruled that officers violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures when they detained and questioned Thomas Pinner after a taxi driver called 911 to report that Pinner had dropped a handgun when exiting a cab at a movie theater.

Under rules announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1968 case of Terry v. Ohio, a police officer may briefly detain and question a person if the officer has a “reasonable articulable suspicion” that the person is engaged in criminal activity (or in the words of SCOTUS, “that criminal activity is afoot”).  If the officer also has a reasonable suspicion that the person “may be armed and dangerous,” the officer may conduct a brief pat-down of the person’s outer clothing to check for weapons.  Together, this process is called “stop and frisk” or a “Terry stop.”

Before the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday, there has been a long-standing debate in Indiana.  On one side, many police officers and prosecutors have argued that a Terry stop is justified based on a report that a person is carrying a gun – or an officer’s own observation that the person has a handgun – because the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is carrying a handgun illegally until the officer confirms that the person has a handgun license.  On the other hand, defense attorneys and Second Amendment advocates have countered that the mere possession of a handgun, without some additional indication that such possession is illegal, does not justify the detention of the individual to investigate – much like police are not allowed to randomly stop vehicles to confirm that a motorist has a driver’s license.

In the opinion handed down last August by the Indiana Court of Appeals (and written by highly-regarded Judge Melissa May), Indiana resolved that issue for the time being by holding that “the mere possession of a handgun, which is legal, cannot produce reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry Stop.”  The court went on to state that “the State has not directed us to a reason why the police believed when they stopped Pinner that his possession of the gun was illegal, nor has the State asserted any other criminal activity was ‘afoot.’  Accordingly, we are constrained to hold the stop of Pinner was not supported by reasonable suspicion.”  Thus, without a basis to believe that Pinner was carrying a handgun without a license – or engaged in some other illegal activity – detaining Pinner to investigate his possession of a gun violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment.

In Monday’s opinion, the Supreme Court wholly agreed with Judge May’s analysis.  Specifically, the court ruled that a police officer, based only on a tip that a person possesses a handgun, may not detain that person to confirm that he has a license to carry …

[ … ]

Said the ruling:

“The United States Supreme Court has previously declared that law enforcement may not arbitrarily detain an individual to ensure compliance with licensing and registration laws without particularized facts supporting an inference of illegal conduct. See Prouse, 440 U.S. at 663 (‘hold[ing] that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment’). In like fashion, we decline to endorse such behavior to ensure compliance with Indiana’s gun licensing laws.” 

This case is actually similar to the case of Nathanial Black decided by the Fourth Circuit.

Nathaniel Black was part of a group of men in Charlotte, North Carolina who local police officers suspected might be engaged in criminal activity. In particular, Officers suspected that after seeing one of the men openly carrying a firearm – which was legal in North Carolina – that there was most likely another firearm present. When police began frisking the men one by one, Mr. Black wished to leave, but was told he was not free to leave. Officers chased Mr. Black and discovered that he possessed a firearm; it was later discovered that he was a previously convicted felon. Mr. Black was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Before the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Mr. Black moved to suppress the evidence against him. His suppression motion was denied, he entered a guilty plea preserving a right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion, and he was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, determined that the officers had improperly seized Mr. Black, suppressed the evidence against him, and vacated his sentence.

Like Indiana, North Carolina is an open carry state.  Simply openly carrying a gun isn’t grounds for detention.  It must be a so-called “Terry Stop,” and openly carrying a weapon, since it is entirely within the law, isn’t justifiable reason to detain an individual.

The Indiana Supreme Court got this right.  I’ve argued similarly against the new open carry law in Texas, pointing out that “… 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.”  As stops must be Terry Stops, and since Texas has no stop and identify statute, and shouldn’t because they are unconstitutional (despite what the courts have said), LEOs in Texas are left with no direction concerning open carriers.

I don’t want LEOs in Texas to be given more direction, any more than I want that for LEOs in Indiana.  I advocate simple observation of God-given rights, and living by the covenant to which we are all obliged, i.e., the constitution.

I knew if I waited long enough, the nice precision chassis rifles would become affordable.  Companies won’t decide to forego making products if they can turn a profit, they’ll just let the market seek its own equilibrium.

Bergara has done a nice job with their B-14 Hunting and Match Rifle (HMR).

Bergara Rifles, a division of BPI Outdoors, is pleased to announce its Bergara B-14 Hunting and Match Rifle (HMR) has won the Outdoor Life Editor’s Choice Award for 2017.

Over several days of shooting, Outdoor Life tested all of the new rifles for 2017. Drills were done to mimic practical shooting positions. The rifles were shot for accuracy off the bench and tested for reliability by being shot in a way to try and induce malfunctions. Each firearm was taken apart and inspected to ascertain the quality of manufacturing and the amount of innovation put into each firearm. The rifles were tested by a group of five independent judges and were evaluated on 10 different categories. In each of these 10 categories, each rifle was scored using a scale from 1-10. After the shooting stopped and the dust settled, the B-14 HMR came out on top.

But I have to say, I own a Tikka T-3, and they have also entered this market with their new T3x TAC A1.  The Tikka is a bit more pricey at around $1600 – $1700, while the Bergara is around $1100.

USA Today:

I was at a meeting with some senior members of the law enforcement community when Comey backed off the investigation and they expressed utter bewilderment at what he was doing. It went beyond how this would affect Comey’s career or his reputation; he was potentially tarnishing the Bureau itself. And for all this Comey said he had no regrets.

Oh bullshit.  There is nothing to be bewildered about.  Comey was a “player” from way back.  For those of us who followed George Webb on YouTube, we know that Comey was neck deep in all of the nefarious workings of the government and global players.

He had to appear as nonpartisan as possible to the idiots and players on capital hill, while at the same time never quite closing the deal on the Clintons and their ilk for their criminal and immoral acts over the years.  He finally wore out that game.

He was neck deep in protection of the Clinton Foundation, The Clinton Global Initiative, involvement with DynCorps, nation-toppling in North Africa, and the global smuggling racket.  Comey is a bad, bad man.  It’s a shame that it took this long to fire him.

Now for the next steps.  Calling Andrew McCabe.  Do you hear the grim reaper behind you?  Well, do you?  He’s coming for you.  You will not get out of all of this with your life.  If you happen to live through it, you have certainly lost your soul.

By now most readers have heard about Bob Owens passing away.  Apparently he was very troubled and yet didn’t seek help.  Folks, please seek help when things seem this bad.

He leaves behind family, and for this I’m very sorry and hate to see what happened today.  Col. Douglas Mortimer (reader) and others have exchanged mail with me on this, and while there are very mixed emotions, including my own, in my opinion there is no mortal sin.  I’m not Roman Catholic.  When Jesus paid it all on the cross in the vicarious atonement, that means all, sins past, present and future for His chosen people.  If Bob knew Christ, he is with the savior as we speak.

Bob was an enigma wrapped inside a riddle, and I never quite knew what he was going to say or what position he was going to take.  He and I butted heads on open carry and well as other things.  That doesn’t diminish his life’s work, and I simply don’t take disagreements that seriously.  Life is too short to lose friends over disagreements.

I don’t believe in the phrase “rest in peace” (RIP).  There is work in heaven, just without the sweat of the brow.  I hope Bob is working and worshipping right now.

Outdoor Life:

In today’s world of high-capacity, polymer-frame, semi-auto pistols, we often forget about the original repeating handgun. While the roots of the revolver go back to the revolving arquebus, produced by Hans Stopler of Nuremberg in 1597, it wasn’t until 1836 that Sam Colt figured out how to make it work reliably. Once Colt started making revolvers, the world of repeating handguns changed forever.

Whether you’re in the field hunting, hiking, or exploring, or in any wilderness setting, the revolver is the top choice in a handgun. For personal defense, the double-action revolver may be a bit less popular nowadays, but it’s every bit as good a choice as it ever was.

I agree.  I have one concealed carry revolver, and two that are too big to conceal, requiring open carry.  I carry my small wheel gun regularly.  And while we’re on the subject of revolvers again, Lucky Gunner has a nice article on testing the Ruger GP100.  I love mine.  But that’s not what caught my eye.  While reading the Outdoor Life piece on carry revolvers, I noticed one I missed from two years ago that has some remarkable anecdotal data.

Even here in Alaska, where you’d think we would have the “bear sidearm” thing figured out, all you have to do is mention bear protection in a crowded place or online forum, and you will no doubt hear from numerous people who swear on their mother’s grave that their .44 mag, .454, .500, or other monster caliber is the ideal bear protection. I have however, only heard one claim myself of someone stopping a grizzly with one shot from a .460. The bigger-is-better idea is rapidly going the way of the buffalo, and here’s why.

I’ll say this very clearly. No handgun has the energy to drop a bear in its tracks (barring a perfect, or extremely lucky shot). Even the .500 S&W has little more energy than a .30-30. If you read John Snow’s blog last week, you saw a scientific comparison of several autoloading cartridges and the conclusions that the FBI drew from it. Yes, the bigger cartridges do slightly more damage than a .45 ACP, but we are talking about animals that can sometimes soak up .375 H&H rounds like they are BB’s. I’ve personally witnessed a brown bear take 13 solid shots from less than 20 yards with a .375 Ackley before it expired. I have seen black bears shot at under 15 yards with .338’s and 7mm Mag’s and not even lose their footing. The handgun is a last resort, slightly better than nothing. Never, EVER rely on a handgun as your primary defense if you know you are going to be in a risky situation. Take a large rifle you are comfortable with, or a shotgun.

[ … ]

I think that with a heavy wheelgun, you will get one shot off if you are lucky. If you’re wondering how you would do, next time you are at the range, see how many hits you can get on a 15” x 20” target at 15 feet in 3 seconds (including drawing from your carry holster). You probably won’t have much more time than that in the field, and possibly less.

Select your backcountry sidearm wisely, and be safe out there!

Okay, I hear you loud and clear.  But it’s still the case that soon after firearms were declared legal in national parks a man defended his life from a grizzly in Denali National Par using a .45 ACP handgun.  I always want more rather than less, but I’ll take what I’ve got and try to aim well if this situation ever presents itself.  I’m not sure that anyone can ever be truly prepared for an attack like this save doing it all of the time.

Ned Weatherby:

Wouldn’t surprise me if the “didn’t know” was true – but averting one’s eyes to avoid learning the truth in this political climate is BS.

However, I truly wonder how many of the people now bitching at various gun friendly websites about RRA & SA don’t do crap for gun rights, other than maybe being an NRA member – if that.

Here in AZ, the Arizona Citizens Defense League has only around 2000 members, and yet, AZCDL and its handful of members are responsible for most of the pro-rights laws passed the last few years in AZ. http://www.azcdl.org/html/accomplishments.html

So few do the heavy lifting. Sorry folks, but “activism” like not buying a RRA product is just keyboard commando posing horsecrap.

I see posts often on various websites from state-run gun rights organizations asking for help. How many of the “activists” who now won’t buy that new SA gun can’t even be bothered to follow a link and send the pre-prepared letters for their own state – much less join?

How many Illinois gun owners didn’t do squat about this issue, and are now bitching because some scumbag lobbyist also took “no position?”

I spend an awful lot of time perusing articles, watching the forum posts, sending letters my readers never see, and writing for you to take the information and act on it.  I hope you do that rather than just read my posts.  Sending these links around pushes traffic and empowers the whole community.  But this takes a powerful lot of time.  I’m not complaining, it’s a labor of love.  But everyone has to do their part.

I’ll would certainly buy again from Rock River Arms.  There’s a sweet 6.5 Creedmoor rifle they have up on their web site I’d like to have.  It’s a bit too pricey for me right now, but after a couple of years of bonuses from work, perhaps it will be my next purchase.

I encourage you to make your feelings known to Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms.  They’ve given you the avenue to do that.  If they didn’t want to hear from you they wouldn’t have given you the chance to tell them what’s on your mind.

As to perfection in the gun rights community, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.  Consider Ned’s questions.

Before we get to the main subject of this article, let’s cover an incident perpetrated by Carroll County’s Sheriff’s Office in Maryland.

Gaithersburg, Md. –  The Carroll County Sheriff’s Office is admitting it was a mistake that led to a SWAT raid at a Montgomery County man’s home where he and his family were detained by police.

Israel Orellana has the same name as a man investigators were searching for in a gun theft case. Somehow, Carroll County got a warrant to search the wrong man’s home.

Orellana says he was in his bedroom Tuesday when he heard the noises. He says his mom had friends from church at their home at the time.

“I thought it was my mom’s friends because sometimes they pray and they start dancing,” he said. “So I get up from my bed and I start walking over to my door. And as I’m opening my door, I make eye contact with the SWAT officer and he pushes up against the door with his shield and he slams me against the wall. He starts screaming at me, ‘Stop resisting! Stop resisting!’”

Orellana showed FOX 5 a bruise on his face and scrapes on his arm. He said his hands were tied behind his back and he was taken upstairs to find that his family and his mother’s friends were also detained. He says officers barged in on his 14-year-old sister in the bathroom.

“It was really horrific,” he said. “You feel really helpless during the whole situation. Like you know you’re innocent, you’re telling them you’re innocent, but they just see you as a criminal.”

The Carroll County Sheriff’s Office got the search warrant for Orellana’s home and requested that Montgomery County police execute it. According to the search warrant, a man named Israel Orellana was linked to a home burglary where 20 guns and money were stolen. The suspect in the case was identified in surveillance video and investigators believed that Orellana’s driver’s license photo matched that video.

Both Israel Orellanas live in Gaithersburg.

“Stop resisting.”  Compliant sheeple, citizens are expected to be.  Shooting home invaders isn’t considered a right of citizens, and it’s questionable what a jury would have found, but there is no question that the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would have given the cops a pass had they shot the man if he had in fact resisted.

This all put citizens in a dangerous position.  Men need to protect their families, and single women are even more vulnerable in this calculus.  The reason is clear.

HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) — Police are trying to catch a group of armed robbers who pistol whipped a couple inside their condo while wearing fake SWAT uniforms.

“I think it made us hesitate enough to give them the jump on us,” Brad Ouellette said. “Just oh, SWAT, maybe the wrong house, what are you doing here?”

The masked men got away with three Rolex watches and five guns. They are also accused of inappropriately touching Ouellette’s wife.

“This reminded her of something she would see in Colombia,” he said. “She never thought she’d see it in America.”

Never forget those words.  “I think it made us hesitate enough to give them the jump on us.”   As I said before concerning armed invaders and the proliferation of police SWAT raids, “For those of you who are LEOs, do you understand?  Does this ring any bells with you as home owners and family members?  Does it make any sense to you that this is number 18,399 on the list of reasons not to conduct home raids, even if they are intended to find evidence of wrong-doing?

Well, does it?  I hope a LEO weighs in, because it’s crystal clear to me and most readers.  In addition to your felt need to “go home safely at the end of your shift,” we have an equivalent need to be safe in our own homes, to prevent flash-bang grenades from being thrown into our toddler’s cribs, to prevent your reflexively shooting our family dogs, and to prevent street thugs like this from raiding our homes under the guise of being police officers.

You see, we can’t just lay down and let people screaming “police, police, get the fuck on the floor, police, police” … come into our homes without countering those efforts with close quarters battle.  Because they may not be police.”

The proliferation of military tactics into ordinary policing work in America was first promoted by progressives fighting a war on drugs, but the police-worship is possibly even worse among the “law-and-order” neocons who also happen to be some of the most virulent Northeastern gun controllers.

This is all setting up a national confrontation between the police and those who are being policed, and whether those who are setting all of this up actually understand the hazard this creates for themselves as well isn’t clear.  What is clear is that this is bound to get much worse before it ever gets any better.

But you simply cannot lay on the floor waiting for your door to be busted down because the home invaders might be police.  No honorable man can do something like that, any more than an honorable man can bust doors in and point guns at other people just because a judge says so.

Courthouse News Service:

A Cleveland security guard claims in court that the city has refused to return his guns that were used as evidence after he shot and killed a home invader, even though the case against the intruder’s accomplice is over.

Brian Bridges sued the City of Cleveland, Mayor Frank Jackson and Police Chief Calvin Williams on Thursday in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, alleging violations of his Second and Fourth Amendment rights.

In March 2015, Bridges came home to find two men robbing his house. During the ensuing confrontation, Bridges fatally shot one of the invaders, Joseph Eason.

“The shooting was in self defense and was justifiable,” Bridges’ lawsuit states.

The other suspect, Anthony Akins-Daniels, escaped, but he was eventually found and arrested. He pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter for causing the death of his “best friend,” Eason.

Bridges claims Cleveland police unlawfully seized his property, “including a Glock 21 semiautomatic handgun, ammunition, holsters and a redcherry piccolo,” to be used as evidence in Akins-Daniels’ case.

Despite the fact that the criminal proceedings against Akins-Daniels are over, police have not returned Bridges’ guns, he says.

Bridges noted in his complaint that he is a professional security guard and has a license to carry a concealed handgun.

He sued for replevin and violation of the Second and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Bridges seeks $20,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages. He also wants an injunction to stop the city from “enforcing any policy and/or actions that infringe upon a lawful gun owner’s right to keep and bear arms.”

The temptation of any attorney is to play up the ideas that (a) he’s a “guard,” he (b) has a permit, and (c) he was exonerated.

None of those things matter.  What matters is that asset forfeiture and seizure, even if supported by existing laws, are immoral.  They reek of royal ownership of personal property, and thus don’t even consider that a war was fought over just such things.

The owners of property, even if convicted in court, should get a chance to sell their property, give it to their family, or otherwise dispose of it in any way they deem appropriate.  It’s theirs.  Their property doesn’t belong to the state, to the king or queen, or to society at large.

This is one reason I oppose the modern concept of incarceration, as well as the notion and phrase that any man has a “debt to society” that must be paid.  No man has a debt to society.  If he has stolen he has a debt to the victim.  If he murders, rapes or kidnaps, he should be put to death.

Here’s a quick note to lawmakers everywhere.  Get rid of asset forfeiture and seizure laws.  Men’s property isn’t yours.  It doesn’t belong to you.

He seems like a good, decent and honorable man.

“The Second Amendment, while it allows citizens to protect themselves from other citizens, goes well beyond just allowing us to defend ourselves from a criminal,” Green said at a pro-gun rally in 2013.

He has withdrawn his name.

President Donald Trump’s choice for Army secretary withdrew his nomination Friday after mounting criticism over past statements he made about gays and lesbians, Muslims and other groups.

Mark Green, a Republican Tennessee state senator from Clarksville, pulled his name from consideration in a short statement Friday afternoon that said his nomination had become a distraction “due to false and misleading attacks against me.”

His decision came before confirmation hearings had even started for the West Point graduate and former Army medic — just four weeks after Trump picked him for the post.

“Tragically, my life of public service and my Christian beliefs have been mischaracterized and attacked by a few on the other side of the aisle for political gain,” Green said. “While these attacks have no bearing on the needs of the Army or my qualifications to serve, I believe it is critical to give the president the ability to move forward with his vision to restore our military to its rightful place in the world.

“Camie and I look forward to finding other opportunities to use our gifts to serve others and help make America great again.”

Once again, he seems like a very good, very decent and very honorable man.  I wish he were president instead of the jerk we’ve got who apparently wouldn’t fight the good fight to get him confirmed.  When I think of the Senate and House I think of a gaggle of demons, gargoyles and pit vipers, or perhaps the consortium of pigs in “Animal Farm.”

Color me unsurprised that Trump didn’t want to fight for him.  Color me unsurprised that the collectivists and God-haters wanted him defeated.  And color me unsurprised that he was gracious in his withdrawal.  Again, he seems like a very good, very decent and very honorable man.