It’s been hard to keep the blog going with family from out of town for the week, and during that week we hiked Mount Mitchell, Crowder’s Mountain, Pinnacle Mountain, and mountain biked.  Before that I biked single track at DuPont.  It’s nice to be alone on a cold, cold day at DuPont riding Jim Branch down the mountain.

I thought you might enjoy this picture.

TheAlaskan:

“So there you are, in your easy chair, watching an episode of law and order, and an army of cops come up your road and demand you come to the door. Last week, I would’ve gone to the door and asked, “what’s up, can I help you,” and possibly gotten slain.

This week, and from now on, I’m getting everyone with me (kids), on the floor or into the basement. I’m getting armed and I’m calling 911 and demanding to talk to the chief or better yet the ranking officer on the ground outside my home. I’m also calling my neighbors (in my case…few) to have them head my way to start rolling cell video with full acknowledgement by police who are present to muddy things up a bit.

It’s has become plain to me that our homes need to be hardened with shooting positions and safe egress points and perhaps, secret hiding spaces. Strategies need to be developed and practiced with family and like minded neighbors.

We are now living in and facing a lethal police state.”

Tucson.com:

But the attorney who crafted it for Republican state Rep. David Stringer said that still won’t let Arizonans keep their “bump stocks” if the federal government declares them illegal.

The legislation spells out the kind of firearms the state believes are necessary for those who are members of the state militia. Existing Arizona law already says that automatically includes all “able-bodied citizens of the state” between 18 and 45.

And just to be sure that folks who turn 46 don’t lose their gun rights because of new federal laws, HB 2057 also would expand the definition of the militia to remove the maximum age. But it would add a new requirement that they be “capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

The measure — and a companion constitutional amendment — were introduced by Stringer who said he wants to ensure that whatever occurs in Washington doesn’t interfere with the right of law-abiding Arizonans to possess firearms.

But Stringer left it to attorney Michael Taylor, who has some expertise in the area of gun rights, to come up with the actual language. And Taylor said it is crafted to conform to a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have upheld gun rights.

Courts will never decide in your favor, sir.  Never.  The festooned, robed tyrants will always decide for more communism.

That’s why this is toothless and powerless right out of the gate.  If you’re not willing to enforce this Arizona law by arresting ATF agents who enter the state and throwing them in the state penitentiary, and protecting your citizens by allowing them to purchase guns and ammunition regardless of form 4473 (which the FedGov will use to its advantage), then you’re setting your citizens up for illegalities and yourself up for failure and complete embarrassment.

You’re a loser.  Unless you act like you have some guts about this thing.  I have confidence you won’t do that, and neither will your fellow statesmen.

David Codrea:

The Department of Justice anticipates issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would interpret the statutory definition of “machinegun” in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to clarify whether certain devices, commonly known as “bump fire” stocks, fall within that definition,” a Tuesday Federal Register notice advises. “Before doing so, the Department and ATF need to gather information and comments from the public and industry regarding the nature and scope of the market for these devices.”

The document comment period ends on January 25, the notice continues, providing ways to send them in either by mail or via a submission form. The notice also provides background information, including a summary of claimed statutory authority as well as the ”justification” for the proposed rule, which unsurprisingly relies heavily on last October’s Las Vegas music festival murders to make the case that such controls are needed.

I knew this and had discussed it, but I’m torn on this.  On the one hand, I need to submit comments.  On the other hand, while I’ve seen ATF responses to my points before (concerning importation of shotguns), I’ve never been given more than cursory, dismissive treatment.  I don’t expect better treatment this time around.

I’ll let readers decide for me.  I need help if I’m going to submit comments.  My readers write better than I do, have more background in legal matters than I do, and can present the case better than I can.  I would actually like to submit comments from TCJ rather than just me.

If you have thoughts on this, whether merely single comments, multiple comments, or an actual outline for a response, please respond either in comments to this post or via email.  I’d rather it be in comments to this post since that will cause others to think about the issue and add to the information here.

As always with the federal bureaucracy, although we may want to call them names and curse at them, that will cause them to throw away our comments.  Keep it civil and make it something that will actually be difficult for them to deal with.

Via WRSA, this video on the Wichita Police Department home invasion and murder.

Remember what I said?

It doesn’t matter if he was armed, any more than it matters whether he was a gamer or if he was Swatted by another gamer.  While Swatting is illegal, the perpetrator didn’t do the shooting.  Being armed while answering the door isn’t illegal or immoral.  Gaming isn’t illegal or immoral.

While the media will present all of these misdirects as will the Sheriff when he finally presents his case to the public (the gamer did something illegal, my deputy thought he was armed, blah, blah, blah), the reality of the situation is that the shooter is a murderer, and the team that helped him is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

If he had answered the door armed with a rifle pointed in the direction of the perpetrators (the cops), that would have been entirely within his moral and legal rights.

But don’t expect any jury or judge in America to do anything but exonerate cops, ever, under any circumstances.  Because cops.  Heroes of the community, they are.  Brave souls who keep us safe, they are.

Or murderers.  You make your mind up about it.  I already have, long ago.  You want a police state?  Because this is how you get a police state.  But I’m certain that an internal affairs investigation will conclude that he followed department procedure.

Hey.  Do I get to shoot cops for making “furtive movements?”

Ammoland:

The bullet then continues to rise until, under the influence of gravity, it starts to fall back toward the sight-line. This highest point in the bullet’s flight, the “maximum ordinate,” is reached at 140m. At this range, the bullet is six centimeters above the sight line, but no more.

As it continues downrange, the bullet then falls back toward the sight-line, crossing it once more (this time on the way down) at 240m. This is the “second intersection.”

The bullet then continues to fall until it is, once again, six centimeters below the sight-line. This takes place at 260m.

So, between point-blank and 260m, the bullet is never more than six centimeters away from the sight-line, “all other things being equal.”

However, the foregoing holds true only when the rifle itself, as it is fired, is perfectly horizontal. When a shooting position necessitates the rifle be fired from a “rotated” position, the six-centimeter standard collapses after 150m.

Thus, I tell students that their M4 is basically a 150m gun. Within that range, it is deadly accurate, no matter the shooting position, no matter the wind, no matter most other factors.

The “back-curve zone” is that portion of the trajectory which lies between maximum point-blank range and the ultimate point of bullet impact. Any time a rifleman is working in ranges that involve the “back-curve” of the trajectory, that is, after the bullet has fallen more than six centimeters below the sight line (after the second intersection), the path of the bullet becomes harder and harder to predict.

[ … ]

Yet, today’s snipers are amazing is (sic) their ability to skillfully use the back-curve zone, and they enjoy my admiration! But, the rest of us, under “field conditions,” using generic military rifles, will squander much ammunition trying (mostly in vain) to get reliable hits there.

Well then.  I need to tell my former Marine that all that 500 yards qualification he did to earn the expert rifleman badge is worthless.  And all of those kills he had at greater than 150 were just fake news.

Who knew?