Military Times:

President Donald Trump said that he is considering sending even more troops to the southern U.S. border to help with security missions there, calling the situation there increasingly dangerous.

“I’m going to have to call up more military,” he said Wednesday during a roundtable with supporters in Texas related to his plans for a southern border wall and tighter immigration laws for Central and South American migrants.

Ain’t that something?  They’ll send sons of America to fight all sorts of police actions and “authorizations to use force” around the globe, but the one thing they are tasked by the constitution for doing – preventing and responding to foreign invasions – the elitists in charge call illegal under Posse Comitatus.

There’s nothing wrong with Posse Comitatus.  What’s wrong is in Washington, D.C., and the demons, gargoyles and pit vipers who ensconce there.

This is an interesting commentary on whether to use JHP or FMJ for personal defense.  It’s situation-dependent, but this memorable quote sticks out.

With these factors in mind, hollow points, with their limited capacity for penetration and greater chance of performing in a way that will stop the attacker with fewer shots, start to sound attractive. When one remembers “there’s a lawyer attached to every round you fire,” and the greater possibility of FMJ rounds traveling through the target and beyond, HP sounds like the more responsible choice.

He also mentions the Lucky Gunner gel testing, which I think is still the go-to spot for data.  Then there is this article from Shooting Illustrated.

I call those who live in this world “Jell-O junkies.” They’re folks who believe that ordnance gelatin holds all the answers. Hell, the FBI has all but said so. At one time I was a card-carrying member of this fraternity, and I, like many who still are, was of the opinion that reliable predictions about incapacitation could be made by looking through those urine-colored blocks of squishiness.

[ … ]

Gelatin testing and the results from it are only tools to be used. If you consider either anything more than an indication of terminal performance or lethality potential, you might be a Jell-O junkie—Don’t be a Jell-O junkie.

Whatever.  Thanks for an uninteresting waste of my time.  I learned nothing from your article except that you want to be smarter than everyone else.  The most informative data comes from one of the comments.

Cartridge; Percentage of stops; Ratio of stops
.32 ACP—65%—–11 out of 17
.380 ACP—–70%—–83 out of 119
9mm—–83%—–224 out of 271
9mm +P—–88%—–170 out of 193
.357 SIG —–94%—–45 out of 48
.40 S&W—–94%—–292 out of 311
.45 ACP—–96%—–142 out of 148
10mm—–too new to include but said to approach 100%

HANDGUN AMMUNITION STOPPING POWER UPDATE
By Evan Marshall

I haven’t read it and cannot vouch for the information.  I do know this.  I carried FMJ when I was in bear country, and I usually carry JHP when I’m around the threats of the two-legged kind.  If I don’t happen to have .45 JHP in my guns at the time and have FMJ (let’s say I’ve been to the range recently), I don’t sweat it.

John Basilone said it was okay.  I trust him more than I do Shooting Illustrated.

News from New Zealand.

Stripping farmers of their semi-automatic weapons and forcing them to use contractors for pest control is “completely illogical”, Federated Farmers says.

However, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says proposed legislation has tried to anticipate the “legitimate needs” of farmers.

On Monday, the Finance and Expenditure Committee released its report on a new law to ban semi-automatic and military-style weapons.

It recommended the bill be passed but suggested several changes, including allowing semi-automatic firearms to be used for pest control on farms.

Farmers would not be allowed to do the work themselves and would have to use specialised businesses approved by police.

“We consider that there would be some narrow circumstances where use of a prohibited firearm was absolutely necessary to carry out pest control on private land or non-conservation Crown land for conservation, environmental, or economic reasons,” the report said.

“Our recommendation would allow a private landowner to engage a wild-animal or animal-pest control business to use such firearms while still removing most semi-automatic firearms from circulation.”

Federated Farmers rural security spokesman Miles Anderson said the Government had failed to deliver on its commitment to landowners that they would continue to have access to the weapons required for effective pest control.

“There are five million hectares of privately owned high and hill country in New Zealand. What these landowners have been left with is the equivalent of painting the Auckland Harbour Bridge with a toothbrush.”

He said Federated Farmers had backed the Government on the issue of gun law reform from day one, based on the need to both protect public safety and ensure continuing access to the appropriate firearms for those with a genuine need.

“The whole select committee has shown both a lack of trust and a complete lack of understanding of the needs of the rural sector on this issue,” he said.

“Labour has the opportunity to fix the bill over the next few days, otherwise Federated Farmers will feel duped by this process.”

However, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said all elements of the gun debate had been considered and she hoped it had created an outcome there would be support for.

The proposed changes were in stark contrast to the Australian legislation and tried to anticipate the legitimate needs that existed within the farming community, she said.

When asked if the requirement for farmers to employ contractors for pest control sent a signal she did not trust them, Ardern replied,  “Absolutely not.”

“We created carve outs, particularly around the use of 10-round .22s five round shotguns but beyond that have put in place measures, where there is large scale pest eradication, for framers (sic) to be able to access those who can legitimately use those weapons, too.”

But Anderson said requiring farmers to use contractors for pest control was ineffective and inefficient and rural landowners with a genuine need to use the weapons should be eligible to apply for an exemption.

“For generations farmers have been doing that job and now they’re going to have some of the tools that allow them to do it effectively taken away.

“We’re not talking about AK-47s and we’re talking about hundreds of farmers, not thousands,” he said.

“There are farmers who are dealing with rabbits and they shoot tens of thousands every year. In those situations, a 50-round magazine wouldn’t be excessive.

“If you’ve got a mob of 30 goats, a 50-round magazine is probably the right tool for the job.”

You see, in a land where peaceable men give up their guns, the government gets to decide what is and isn’t allowed, and when “special people” get to do things that others do not.

And the government gets to decide “carveouts,” where they throw a bone to the slighted, call it even, and tell you there’s no room for debate.

And here’s a news flash for Mr. Anderson.  Naïve gun owners, who think they can just appeal to the sensible side of government for “special needs,” as long as it is someone else who gets the shaft, are always, always duped by the process.

I’ve told the Fudds among us before, and you’d better listen to me again.  “When you let the government go after other people because you aren’t affected, not only is that selfish and cowardly, it’s bad strategy.”

When you use bad strategy, you will always lose.  So your precious break-action or pump shotguns for fowl hunting, and your bolt action guns with a detachable magazine for deer hunting, yea those.  The FedGov will want those too.  They want all of the guns.  All of them.  No exceptions.

This picture of New Zealand – the American gun controllers and the FedGov is watching closely.  It’s a trial run, boys.

Glomming off of Wirecutter’s hard work (WiscoDave sent this our way), here is a very good video of 300 BO Q&A by someone who sounds like an experienced practitioner.  I don’t shoot 300 BO, but if I wanted to start, I’d begin with his video.

That’s my title because that’s the title of the video.  Forget for a moment where this is occurring, or that it’s a little dated (2016).  I found this profoundly interesting, and if you watch it with an open mind I think you’ll find all sorts of lessons and tactical applications.  I’ll let you fill in the details in the comments section.  And I think you’ll be surprised at some of what happens in the video.  I’m posting it for educational purposes only, of course.

Yes, you read that right.  In Nevada, maybe.

But you can kill as many human babies as you want as long as they are a sacrifice to Baal.

And in New Mexico, certainly.

Well Betsy, let’s call them what they are – they’re not Coyotes.  Coyotes don’t exist any more.  They are Coywolves or Coydogs.  They aren’t the “shy, curious canines” you’re making them out to be in your rainbow world of dreams of pixie-dust unicorns.  They’re just not.  Just make sure you don’t let your pet out unguarded, or go anywhere they could be, or let your children loose when they could be around.  You’ll see what I’m talking about.

Dean Weingarten:

These are all the cases I and associates have found where both bear spray and firearms were used. Tom Sommers is the only case where the firearms were of uncertain efficacy. The bear was moving away when the single shot was fired; Sommers was blinded by bear spray and blood. There are cases where only bear spray was used when firearms were present. There are cases where only firearms were used when bear spray was present.  Those cases are not included in this article.

This is a good followup to his piece on Pistols or Handguns 95% Effective When Used to Defend Against Bear Attacks, 63 Cases.

I would never say not to carry bear spray.  I just wouldn’t use it myself.  And I would never be caught in the bush without a gun.

Somewhat amusingly (and I missed this when it came out), Wes Siler, who was once of the school of thought that bear spray is most effective against bears, now carries guns in the bush when he might be around a bear.  The dispositive and determinative element?  Funny you should ask.  ” … the salubrious effect of moving into grizzly bear territory in Bozeman, Montana.”

Just yesterday, this instance of a bear attack thwarted by bear spray occurred in Montana.

Liberty Headlines:

(Matthew Adams, Dallas Morning News) RW Arms, a Fort-Worth, Texas, firearms dealer, has filed a federal lawsuit seeking damages after destroying 72,400 bump stocks to comply with a Trump administration order that took effect March 26, the company announced Monday.

The company filed the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause, which prohibits the government from seizing property.

RW Arms destroyed the bump stocks on March 26, resulting in its losing millions of dollars, the company said.

When I saw the headline over news search I immediately thought “They must have done this under an illegal taking.”  Sure enough they did.

It’s the only way they can show standing, and it applies.  They should win in a just world.  The world isn’t just, and neither is the U.S. government.  Sorry to say, I predict a loss.

This is Trump’s bump stock ban.  It belongs to him.  He owns it.  We can call it by it’s proper name forever.  550,000 bump stock owners = 550,000 voters.  Grok that, Trump.

From reddit/firearms:

One never knows exactly what to think of some of the sources on reddit, this may be legitimate and it may not be.  But the weight of evidence is on the side of legitimacy.  Gateway Pundit has this.

Now that police in New Zealand are going door-to-door to confiscate firearms, which involves bird-dogging people at work and monitoring their online activity, one man who has gotten caught up in the covfefe was recently stripped of his airsoft BB guns and his crossbow.

Here’s the letter.

NOTICE TO SURRENDER AIRGUN OR ANTIQUE FIREARM

PURSUANT TO SECTION 41, ARMS ACT 1983

I, Inspector Olaf Karl Jensen, a Commissioned Officer of Police, hereby give notice that in my opinion you are not a fit and proper person to be in possession of an airgun or an antique firearm. Police are currently holding the following described airguns

1x Ruger Blackhawk .177 calibre Air rifle

1x Hatsun Striker .177 calibre Air Rifle

You may within three months after the date of this Notice or such longer period as the Commissioner of Police may allow, sell or otherwise dispose of any airgun or antique firearm owned by you to a person approved for this purpose by a member of the Police.

Failing that, all airguns or antique firearms delivered to a member of the Police may be detained for such a period as the Commissioner of Police thinks fit, or may, in the discretion of the Minister of Police, become the property of the Crown, free and discharged from all right, title or interest possess in respect thereof by any person.

You may by way of origination application, appeal to a District Court Judge against this Notice. (Section 62, Arms Act 1983 refers).

My reason for this decision is as follows;

1. I do not believe you to be a fit and proper person to be in possession of an airgun.

2. Police hold serious concerns regarding your mental and emotional wellbeing.

Should you wish me to review my decision or you dispute the facts you may make written submissions or arrange an appointment with me within two weeks of the date of this notice.

Any submissions you do make must be accompanied by a letter from a medical practitioner attesting to your mental and emotional wellbeing at this time.

His next related post to Facebook reads thusly.

Here is the states there’s that pesky second amendment thing.  The elitists are doing their dead level best to get around that with red flag laws (so-called extreme risk protection orders).  When Ms. Lindsey Graham and the democrats get finished with a federal red flag law, Trump will sign it.

And then Trump owns it – that and the bump stock ban.  It defines who he is, and who he will ever be.  As for Ms. Graham, the stupid voters of South Carolina will put him in office for yet another six year term.

Massad Ayoob:

For April 2019, the question was what to do if the police showed up at your home with a warrant authorizing them to seize your firearms.  You can find it here.

Spoiler alert: their unanimous advice is “Don’t resist.  Allow them to take the weapons. Sort it out later in court.”

So at the risk of being too simplistic, this isn’t really a viable long term strategy because red flag laws are subject to the whims of the court, and the color of your eyes may disqualify you from owning firearms.  Massad Ayoob still believes in the “American Justice System.”  I believe in that too, just without the word justice.

Wirecutter saw this one too, and titles it And to think I used to like this guy.  Eh … I never really liked him.  I never saw why folks thought he was so special.