David Codrea:

… a Facebook colleague has alerted us to a source that just doesn’t get it: The White House.

Per its explanation of the Constitution:

“The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.”

[ … ]

I just got done creating a White House petition.

“Recognize that the government does not ‘give citizens the right to bear arms,’’ it asks, further explaining and requesting:

“The White House website section on the Constitution instructs ‘The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.’ This is exactly wrong and contradicts the very nature of unalienable rights, the clear intent of the Founders and the understanding of the right as articulated by the Supreme Court.

“Privileges are granted. Rights are inherent to the condition of being human. The Second Amendment didn’t create a right to keep and bear arms — it acknowledged a right that was already assumed and accepted at the time of ratification. Nobody in government gave us that right, so it’s not theirs to take away.

“Please correct your website description and make an announcement about the change.”

I signed.  You should too.  It’s simple and quick.  This is 3-second activism.

I would add that the notion of unalienable rights is based on the condition of being human only insofar as you accept the notion of man as made in the image of a Holy God.  It’s beyond the scope of this little post to engage in a debate over the concept of Lockean “natural” rights versus a Christian world and life view.

I disagree with Locke, I am a Calvinist.  Nature is impersonal, powerless, and confers nothing at all on any man or animal.  In fact, according to a naturalistic world view, man is an animal.  Animals kills each other all the time without regard for moral righteousness.

The subject here is moral righteousness.  What is right, just, absolute, an unalienable.  That can only come from God and His immutable law-word, not nature.

There are a lot of pregnant quotes in this video worth parsing: “I would love to know who called” … “You can find that out sir, you know you can find that out” … “We don’t want to be put in this position” … “Some way to avoid more headaches …”

American Suppressor Association:

Last week, Rep. Jennifer Wexton (VA-10) introduced H.R. 3404, the Empowering Law Enforcement for Safer Firearm Transfers Act. Her bill, the text of which was published today, would give Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEO) 90 days to assert uninhibited veto power over NFA applications. The American Suppressor Association is opposed to this unconstitutional attempt to create a local veto provision in the NFA process.

As drafted, local law enforcement would have absolute discretion to deny any applicant the right to acquire NFA items. The bill, which has intentionally vague standards, would unlawfully extend judicial powers to local law enforcement, allowing them to summarily deny the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who have committed no crime.

Prior to the enactment of ATF 41F in July 2016, individual applicants were required to obtain a CLEO signature before submitting their Form 4. In many jurisdictions this amounted to a de facto ban on NFA ownership, as CLEOs could refuse to sign the application for any reason. Recognizing the overstep, the Obama administration eliminated the CLEO signoff requirement through regulatory reform by enacting ATF 41F.

Rep. Wexton’s bill is an unconstitutional step in the wrong direction that would do nothing to prevent violent crime. Under current law, requirements for comprehensive background checks are already in place. Every applicant on every NFA application must pass a check by the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) before they are able to take possession of the NFA item.

The goal here isn’t safety, it’s control. As we’ve said before, the American Suppressor Association is unequivocally opposed to any attempt to ban or further regulate suppressors. We are unwavering in our support of the Second Amendment, as well as the individual right to possess suppressors.

I’m uncomfortable arguing that since everyone who purchases an NFA item already has to go through an NCIS there is no need for anything else.  The point is that there is no need for the NICS, and its very existence is an unconstitutional infringement.

Take note that this is a further empowerment of CLEOs, as if anyone thought the progressives would ever do anything else.  While this may go nowhere this term, it’s an indication of what’s coming when the progressives take back control of the House, Senate and W.H.

Tactical Life.

Steyr Arms recently announced a new training program exclusively for law enforcement at the Steyr Academy at the CMP Range in Talladega, Alabama. Steyr will offer its long-range training course to designated marksmen for law enforcement agencies. Above all, it’s offering this premium training course absolutely free of charge.

The long-range course comprises two days of instruction, taught by Steyr’s Training Academy Director Eduardo Abril de Fontcuberta. A long-range shooting world champion, Fontcuberta brings more than 25 years experience. Further, he served as both a military and police sniper instructor and armorer. He is also considered one of the world’s leaders in extreme long-range shooting, according to Steyr Arms.  Now Fontcuberta dedicates his time to teaching a no-nonsense course. It takes place in a personal training environment that provides his students with the knowledge necessary to become a super-accurate, long-distance shooter in any condition, according to Steyr.

“At Steyr Arms, we are proud to support law enforcement,” said Scott O’Brien, president and CEO. “We are using our training academy to show our respect for police officers across the country who put their lives at risk every day to keep us safe. This is our way of saying thank you for everything you do.”

The term “designated marksman” is fairly unique to the U.S. Marine Corps.  The Army doesn’t employ that expression because it has no place in Army small unit doctrine.  They have snipers, but so does the USMC (“Scout Snipers”).  The training undertaken by DMs in the USMC includes most or all of the classroom and range training that the Scout Snipers go through, just short of the actual final Scout Sniper concealment, ingress, egress qualifications.  I know this because my son was a DM.  If police in America use the expression DM, they stole it from the military.

Exactly what Steyr thinks of the militarization of police in America they don’t say.  Exactly why police in the U.S. need such a thing as a DM Steyr doesn’t say.  Nor do they appear to question it, or question the history of use of such people in policing in America.  But if this is a raw attempt at a sales pitch to LEOs, it might be interesting to know what the Steyr management thinks of a future in which the only people who can legally take the course are LEOs, the same [and only] ones who can purchase Steyr products.

It won’t work.  There won’t be enough LEO money to go around after firearms are restricted.  Not even the companies left in business will be financially healthy.  Assuming, of course, all of that comes to pass.  And it might also be interesting to know what Steyr management thinks when the Fraternal Order of Police support such bans in America and Steyr goes bankrupt because there aren’t enough people to buy their products.  “The lion will eat me last” has never been a wise strategy.

Steyr may also want to ponder asking Mr. Eduardo Abril de Fontcuberta how he feels about training in America and the [current] freedom to do so given the gun control that exists in his home country of Spain.  It seems a bit hypocritical to travel to America to conduct training while living in a country that prohibits most people from even owning weapons.

I would expect Steyr to see pushback on this, but if they haven’t yet, they should.

Frank Gaffney:

Vice President Mike Pence will have today what could be a decisive meeting for tens of millions of Christians in Nigeria now facing the prospect of genocide and forced mass emigration.

Mr. Pence’s visitor is a man who should be on their side, his Nigerian counterpart Yemi Osinbajo. After all, he’s one of the very few Christians in a Nigerian government otherwise dominated by Islamist Fulani tribesmen.

Unfortunately, Mr. Osinbajo is instead part of the problem. He lies shamelessly – including this weekend in New York – about the anti-Christian persecution his government is at least tolerating and, at worst, enabling.  Osinbajo’s own tribe has sharply repudiated him for doing so.

If Vice President Pence makes clear that all the persecutors in Nigeria will be held accountable and face penalties, he may be able to prevent a catastrophe there on his and President Trump’s watch.

What penalties, Frank?  Name them.  I’m betting that you can’t name a penalty that isn’t associated with armed violence, or that (in the case of economic sanctions) isn’t associated with a country that stays in power by the threat of armed violence.

That means that any saving to be done is catalyzed by arms, large or small, you pick.  And what it means that anyone has to go to a president or vice president of the U.S. to demand this is that the Christians won’t go to war themselves to prevent being evicted from their own country.  Note well the irony – Christians won’t engage in collective self defense, but we’ll demand that the folks who are armed defend them.  With guns.  One is seen as unrighteous, the other righteous.

Christians around the world have bought into the notion of Jesus as a Bohemian, peacenik, pacifist, hippie flower child.  But no one is coming to save you.  America is bankrupt, and cannot afford another war and occupation.

Christians, arm up and prepare to do battle.  It’s the righteous thing to do.

[From the video] It sounds like something a .gov would say, regardless of manifestation.

The owner of one of New Zealand’s largest ammunition companies has warned of a violent revolution if gun owners feel shortchanged by the Government’s gun buyback scheme.

Paul Clark’s company, New Zealand Ammunition, supplies both the Police and the Defence Force. He told RNZ‘s Checkpoint that many gun owners were planning to intentionally skirt the law by hiding their banned weapons.

He was “absolutely sure” that gun owners or organisations would appeal to the courts over the proposed prices of the gun buyback, and he was currently considering taking an action himself.

He said that if gun owners could not access the courts “the only alternative is revolution”.

When asked by host Lisa Owen what he meant by “revolution”, Clark said “Literally, what I just said. What have you got to lose? What other alternatives have you got in life?”

When Owen asked if he was talking about “a physical, violent, uprising,” Clark said it was likely.

“Yes, it could happen,” he said. “People are aggrieved. You’ve been screwed by a government for a crime you didn’t commit. How do you think that makes you feel?”

He said he knew of gun owners who were being radicalised as a result of the gun buyback.

“There’s a lot of pissed off people. It wouldn’t take a lot to set some people off. There’s some pretty heavy, strong, hard feelings out there.”

However, he said he would not go to police with the information he had, because “I didn’t create the problem, someone else did”.

He estimated that he would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of the gun ban, including orders that he has had to cancel.

On Thursday, Finance Minister Grant Robertson and Police Minister Stuart Nash announced the budget of the gun buyback scheme had been increased to $208 million.

A police price list showed that guns in new or near new condition would get 95 per cent of its base price, guns in used condition would receive 70 per cent of value, and guns in poor condition would see 25 per cent.

“Injury prevention program.”  It all sound so innocuous, yes?  But revolution.  What?

Over money?  A few dollars worth of firearms?  So what is it, my friends and readers in New Zealand?  Is it turn in your weapons, hide them, wait for fair payment, or revolt?

“Injury prevention program.”  Remember those words.  You might hear them again by another slick politician.

In case you’re an idiot and were wondering.

Two Senate Democrats falsely claimed Monday that the AR-15 is not used for hunting and isn’t “viable for home protection” in a tweet promoting gun control proposals.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) penned an op-ed in TIME calling for the banning of AR-15s and similar assault weapons.

“Guns like the AR-15 aren’t used for hunting and they’re not viable for home protection. They have only one purpose, and that’s to fire as many rounds as possible, as quickly as possible,” they wrote. “Outlawing these weapons, an action supported by 60 percent of Americans, will bring down the number of mass shootings and reduce the number of casualties, just as it did when the ban first passed in 1994.”

However, the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America, is used for hunting and home defense. MRC-TV noted a poll showing more than 25 percent of hunters reported using the rifle to hunt big game. In addition, the rifle is popular for home defense given its light weight and limited recoil, making it easier for owners to handle.

It’s only good for shooting at multiple home invaders, and managing recoil while regaining sight picture quickly, and ease of handing, and so on, and cops use them all the time, but they are no good.

Every day is opposite day, I guess.  I feel like I’m listening to a child explain calculus.

News from Florida:

LAKELAND — A 32-year-old woman was arrested on June 15 when she gathered her husband’s guns to turn them over to the Lakeland Police Department.

According to Courtney Irby’s arrest affidavit, she told police her husband had been taken to jail for trying to run over her with a car. Irby said she went to Joseph Irby’s apartment on Village Center Drive in Lakeland and searched for the guns she knew he had.

When she told a Lakeland police officer she had the guns with her to turn them in, he replied, “So are you telling me that you committed an armed burglary?” and Irby answered, “Yes, I am, but he wasn’t going to turn them in, so I am doing it,” according to reports.

Oh don’t even think that the cops had any sympathy for the husband or disagreement with the confiscation of guns.  The main problem here for the cops is that she broke the law.  It would have been okay if the cops did the deed.

Don’t you know – we can’t let people enforce the law, only LEOs can do that.

So there is yet another post about magazine springs and whether they should be replaced, and if so, when.  This is in the same theme I wrote about several years ago when there was another little flurry of articles and posts about this.  I’m going to cover this ground one time for everyone.

Metal creep is caused from slippage of crystalline structures along boundary planes, whether FFC, BCC, or whatever.  One reader writes that “springs don’t wear out from compression.”  This is along the same lines as most of the [mistaken and incorrect] articles I linked the last time I addressed this issue that claimed that stainless steel doesn’t creep below the yield limit.

Do you know any piano tuners?  I do.  Yea, they have to go back a few days later and retune because of metal creep.  But most piano wires are carbon steel under high stress.  What about stainless steel?

Do not make the claim that stainless steel (like SS304) doesn’t suffer creep below the yield limit and at low temperatures.  Yes … it … does  (“In all tests at applied stress/yield strength ratios above 0.73 some plastic deformation was recorded”).

No offense, but don’t try to be an engineer if you’re not one. If you make the claim that SS304 (I presume the material of most magazine springs) doesn’t suffer from metal creep, you’d be wrong, and then you’d also be answering the question the wrong way.

The right way to look at the question is one of whether the creep is significant.  It usually isn’t, and it is less significant than for carbon steel.  It’s also not significant for applied stress/yield strength ratios lower than what the authors tested.  Where your specific magazine spring falls in this data set is best determined by the designer, not me (I don’t have drawings or any other design information).

Besides, for most readers, you aren’t loading 34+ magazines per day and putting 1000+ rounds downrange for 300+ days per year as a workup to deployment.  For 99.99% of the world, this is a pedantic question.  For those who do put that many rounds downrange and have to use the magazines bequeathed to you by predecessors who did the same thing for years, you will want to watch your feed and ensure that it’s smooth, consistent and reliable.  If it’s not, then change the magazine springs (or get new magazines – there could be another issue).  They’re cheap, and it’s no big deal.

Note: No warranty express or implied is included with this article.  Nothing here constitutes formal engineering counsel – you have to pay to get that.  Nothing here includes claims on any specific magazine spring, whether said spring is loaded to the right applied stress/yield strength ratio to cause deformation, or whether anyone reading this article needs to change magazine springs in any given situation.