Outside:

I’m not anti-gun, nor am I a city-dwelling ideologue. I’ve lived in Montana for nearly 20 years, and I own guns. The only time I carry one into the woods, however, is to hunt. To kill game. That’s what they’re built to do.

I’ve been an outdoor writer and editor for nearly as long, covering everything from skiing and climbing to hunting and fishing. I own a backcountry guide service and operate exclusively in grizzly country, including some of the most bear-dense parts of Yellowstone. I’ve had dozens of grizzly encounters, run-ins with polar bears on Arctic ski expeditions, and more than a few awkward conversations with disturbed individuals over the years—all sans sidearm and no worse for wear. Some of these experiences were scary, but I’ve never pulled the trigger on my bear spray (much less a pistol), and every one of those encounters made me a better outdoorsman.

Honestly, every time I read one of these pieces my eyes just glaze over when I have to wade through their ridiculous creds.  Why can’t anyone simply say what they think?  Why do they have to trot out their creds?  You know, that’s “appealing to authority,” or in other words, it’s formally called the genetic fallacy.  But this guy still isn’t finished.

I’ve also worked as an armed courier, transporting millions of dollars in an armored Freightliner—a job that required defensive-firearms training and certification with law enforcement and former military contractors. Guns were part of my wardrobe, and I’m comfortable with almost any firearm you could put in my hand. It’s guns in other peoples’ hands that make me nervous.

I’m not going to cite statistics about rifles and pistols or their effectiveness in wilderness-self-defense scenarios (the outcomes are generally piss-poor).

I don’t know anything about this guy and I’ve never met him, but one thing we learn from his writing is that he’s either a liar or a very sloppy and careless man.  But you knew that already.  His allegations disagree with what we learned from the fantastic research work performed by Dean Weingarten concerning bear attacks.  So whatever else you think of what he says, just remember he’s lying or is just too stupid to know the real facts.

We are not in danger on our favorite hiking trails and in our national forests. In fact, these places are ridiculously safe

So if someone listens to him, he disarms himself and loved ones in the face of potential danger.

There are three practical reasons why carrying a gun in the backcountry is silly.

First, any responsible owner knows that the highest priority is the security of their weapon at all times. On the trail, that becomes a real issue, since there’s no way to safely store your weapon. Want to go for a quick swim? Sorry, you can’t leave your sidearm unattended. Need to head into town for a resupply? Public transportation is off-limits, and most businesses don’t allow firearms. Want to grab a cold beer at the local watering hole after a particularly humid stretch of trail? Bummer, because in most states guns aren’t allowed in bars.

Second, hikers and backpackers are notorious gram counters. Are you seriously going to agonize for months over how to save a few grams on your stove, tent, and shoes, and then pack two pounds of loaded pistol on your hip? You may as well carry an external frame pack and a canvas-wall tent.

Finally, and most importantly, carrying a gun changes the way we interact with and feel about others. For thru-hikers, the social element is an enormously rewarding part of the experience. They meet people from around the world, adopt kooky trail names, share information (including who might be sketchy or carrying a weapon), and coexist for a brief time in a remarkable place, doing a remarkable thing. Bring a firearm into that dynamic, and it won’t be the same. Others don’t know you—they don’t know your training, demeanor, judgment, or intelligence. All they know is that you have a weapon and, with it, the power to hurt them. And that’s all that truly matters. Guns intimidate.

So basically this all boils down to three things with him.  First, beer.  Second, weight.  Third, intimidation.  So if you like beer on the trail, or if you’re concerned about a couple of pounds that could save your life, or if you like to gather with folks who call each other by kooky names, then perhaps he has a point.  Or maybe not.  I didn’t have any problems with a couple of additional pounds, I never had beer on the trail, and I’ve just never worried about intimidation when I carry.  That’s not the point.

If you’re not experienced in the bush but very concerned about how people feel about you – in other words you’re a unique and special snowflake – this might be the guide for you.  On the other hand, he might get you killed too.  My bet is that for whatever reason he has been blessed in the bush, and he is conflating his lack of means of and need for self defense with something totally out of his control.

He isn’t in control over the disposition of wildlife or two-legged threats in his life.  On the other hand, he is indeed in control over his own decisions, and he has chosen the option less safe.  That’s his prerogative, just as it is mine to call him an idiot.

This is a very recent picture of my son in Austin, Texas.

You’ve got to give them both credit.  Austin is a happening place to be if you want the front lines of the culture war.

Via reader Fred, The Charlotte Observer.

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to federal regulation of gun silencers Monday, just days after a gunman used one in a shooting rampage that killed 12 people in Virginia.

The justices did not comment in turning away appeals from two Kansas men who were convicted of violating federal law regulating silencers. The men argued that the constitutional right “to keep and bear arms” includes silencers.

The court’s action in the silencer cases was among dozens of orders in pending appeals, including decisions to add an international child custody dispute and four other cases to next term’s docket. The justices also will hear cases dealing with a death row inmate in Arizona, racial discrimination claims against Comcast by an African American owned media company, environmental cleanup at a Superfund site in Montana and a dispute between Intel Corp. and a retired Intel engineer.

In the silencer cases, Kansas and seven other states joined in a court filing urging justices to hear the appeals. The states said the court should affirm that the Second Amendment protects “silencers and other firearms accessories.” The other states are: Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.

President Donald Trump’s administration asked the court to stay out of the case and leave the convictions in place.

Shane Cox, owner of a military surplus store, was convicted of making and transferring an unregistered silencer, and customer Jeremy Kettler was convicted of possessing one, all in violation of the 85-year-old National Firearms Act. Both men were sentenced to probation.

I agree with everything he says.  Sometimes gun owners can appear to be pricks to those who aren’t in the gun community and haven’t grown a thick skin like we have.  Off-putting is a good word for how newbies see this elitist behavior, and it becomes a sort of de facto gun control, whether you intend it or not.

This picture was taken today near my home.

OutdoorLife has the analysis.

There are rifles all the way from .22LR to .30-06, with a large collection of guns for 6mm Creedmoor and 6.5mm Creedmoor, and prices that range from around $600 – $6000.

There is one rifle there in 350 Legend, and they don’t seem to like it very much (mainly for the reason of lack of accuracy).  Tim Harmsen has the same complaint.

They’re favorite appears to be the new CZ 457 Varmint MTR in .22LR.  CZ seems to be making very good guns these days, and also appears to be trying to tailor their products to the American market.  John Lovell has a very good review of the CZ P10c.  I find the P10c to be an aesthetically pleasing gun.

Here’s the OutdoorLife video on the rimfire guns.

News from Virginia.

Kate Nixon had considered taking a gun to work on May 31, the day a co-worker killed her and 11 others in the country’s deadliest mass shooting this year, a family attorney said on a radio show Monday.

The public utilities engineer was concerned about DeWayne Craddock “as well as one other person,” said Kevin Martingayle, an attorney working with Nixon’s family. So on the night of May 30, Nixon had discussed with her husband, Jason, “whether or not she should take a pistol and hide it in her handbag,” Martingayle said. She decided against it because of a city policy that prevents employees from bringing weapons to work.

So now she’s dead, just like the progressives wanted.  Just like the progressives want you to be too.

News from Connecticut.

Stag Arms, a New Britain manufacturer of automatic and semiautomatic AR-15 rifles, announced Friday it’s leaving the city for a yet-to-be-determined site that offers “significant support for the firearms industry.”

Good.  It couldn’t happen to a better state – or worse state – or whatever.  I hate that it took this long.  I hope Connecticut suffers financially from this at least a little bit.

News from Virginia.

Police responding to the deadly mass shooting at a Virginia Beach municipal building were unable to confront the gunman at one point because they didn’t have the key cards needed to open doors on the second floor.

Over the radio, they desperately pleaded for the electronic cards and talked of bringing in a sledgehammer, an explosive charge or other means of breaking down the doors.

The killer was eventually gunned down, and whether the delay contributed to the toll of 12 victims dead and four wounded is unclear. But the episode last week illustrated how door-lock technology that is supposed to protect people from workplace violence can hamper police and rescue workers in an emergency.

“That’s definitely a blind spot that this particular shooting has shown,” said Gregory Shaffer, a retired FBI agent and former member of the bureau’s elite hostage rescue team. “We need to make sure that first responders have full access to the building.”

“Elite,” huh?  I knew this a long time ago because I’m a thinking man and apparently you aren’t.  Here’s a news flash for you.  If you give “first responders” full access, the nature of that access will get out, become public knowledge, and the whole notion of preventative measures won’t work anyway.

The best first responded has always been, is currently, and will always be you.  This dovetails well with a recent comment left by Bill Harrison.

“From private interviews with people who were there,who have been warned not to say these things publicly.The building the shooter in Virginia Beach targeted had card locks on the door,like hotels do now.The Police talked about how soon they arrived,which is true,but the card locks kept them out of the building for 30 minutes after arrival.The Fire department arrived and also had trouble getting through the doors,too.Great to know if a fire ever happens in those buildings.They were calling around trying to find a sledge hammer to get in.The shooter had all the time he needed.Contrary to media reports,he was a constant discipline problem,and picked fights with fellow workers.When someone stood up to this,he cracked.So now the blackface abortionist/infanticide promoting Governor Northam is using the dead bodies to resurrect his dead career.The Lt. Governor,who has a couple of women claiming he raped them,doesn’t want any future victims armed,so he’s promoting Northam’s gun control agenda.So is the Soros employee attorney general of Virginia.None of Northam’s idiotic proposals would have stopped this shooter.He bought the guns legally,and his main advantage was that he knew that first officers on the scene would have difficulty coming after him until he completed his murder spree,due to the automated security doors and the (of course) gun free zone public building.Now the regular employees will have to go through metal detectors to get to their workplaces.That wouldn’t have stopped a determined shooter like this guy either.He shot people in the parking lot on the way in,as he would have shot the security guard running a metal detector.By the way,an employee who had a gun in his car in the parking lot would have faced disciplinary action.Gun free zone,you understand.Clearly,the anti-self defense,anti-gun crowd got these people killed,and now they want more of the same.”

News from Colorado.

About half of the state’s county sheriffs this week joined the battle against Colorado’s ban on gun magazines that hold more than 15 rounds, arguing that the law hinders peoples’ ability to defend themselves.

Although law enforcement are exempt from the ban, the sheriffs argued in their brief to the Colorado Supreme Court that civilians should have the same access to magazines as typical officers and deputies. If law enforcement agencies believe a magazine that holds 20 or 30 rounds is best for defense, then those magazines are the best option for regular people who want to defend themselves, the sheriffs argued.

“Citizens do and should copy sheriffs’ firearm and magazine selections so they will have reliable, sturdy arms for defense of self and others,” the brief stated. “These arms will be powerful enough for defense against violent criminals, and these arms will be appropriate for use in civil society, because sheriffs’ arms are not mass-killing military arms. Instead, sheriffs’ arms are best for defense of self and others, including against multiple attackers.”

Thirty county sheriffs, the Colorado Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association and the Independence Institute filed the brief on Monday in support of a group of gun rights advocates challenging the law’s constitutionality.

[ … ]

Sheriffs from three Denver-area counties — Denver, Boulder and Arapahoe — were absent from the list.

The sheriffs and others in the brief argued that magazines that hold 20 or 30 rounds should be categorized as standard magazines because they are commonly included in the sale of firearms by default. Sheriff’s deputies often carry magazines of those sizes with them on patrol.

The brief offered an alternative to the ban. The state could instead require that a person have a state concealed handgun permit in order to own a magazine that holds more than 15 rounds, the sheriffs argued.

Okay, I see how this works.  An outright ban is unconstitutional, but seeking approval for the object from the controllers isn’t because we say so.  The brief looked good up until that point.

Actually, I have one other nit.  I would argue that rather than “citizens copy[ing] Sheriffs’ firearm and magazine selections,” Sheriffs and the military alike copy our firearm selections.  The best, most difficult, most grueling test for any firearm is on the open market among the working man.

The military buys from the low bidder.  The working man tells others about what doesn’t work and that becomes common knowledge.

I lied.  I have one other nit.  I would argue that Sheriffs are citizens too.