The Washington Times.

The federal government collected fewer than 1,000 bump stocks during the run-up to a new ban in March, despite estimates that hundreds of thousands of the devices that mimic machine gun fire are in circulation, according to federal data provided to The Washington Times by the Justice Department.

As the nation marked the second anniversary Oct. 1 of the Las Vegas massacre, which prodded the Trump administration to ban bump stocks, the numbers offer a cautionary tale on the scope and resources needed to enforce any sort of gun buyback program.

Between the issuance of the final rule banning the devices in December 2018 and April 4, 2019, shortly after the prohibition took effect in late March, 582 bump stocks were “abandoned” to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, according to Justice Department records, and 98 bump stocks were kept as evidence.

The Times obtained the records through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The administration cited estimates that 280,000 to 520,000 bump-stock-type devices were in circulation when it published the final rule in December.

I’ve seen estimates as high as 550,000 in circulation, but we’ll take their number of 520,000.  That computes to 0.1119%.

What do you think will happen when the FedGov demands that citizens turn over $1000 rifles which have been bought with the intent of bequeathing to their children for personal defense?

Via David Codrea, who posted this some time ago, this goes along nicely with our previous post. I have immense respect for the shop fellows who confronted the thugs. The cops are just swine to me.

WiscoDave sends this.

A Greenville County deputy who shot a Simpsonville homeowner through his front-door window has been cleared of criminal wrongdoing.

The State Law Enforcement Division investigated the shooting and submitted findings to the state Attorney General’s Office, which recommended that no criminal charges be filed against Deputy Kevin Azzara.

“It is my legal opinion that the officer used lawful force under the circumstances. As such, we are not recommending initiation of criminal charges against the officer,” Jerrod Fussnecker, an assistant attorney general, wrote in a disposition letter to SLED that was obtained by The Greenville News.

The man, Dick Tench, plans to file a lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Office, his lawyer told The News on Wednesday.

“He wants to seek justice and if it was up to Dick, this officer would no longer be on the force,” Ashmore said Wednesday. “Dick wants to tell his story and wants his story to get out, and one day that will happen in a jury trial setting.”

Yea, we talked about this, and we all knew nothing would come of it.  If it were up to me, this officer would be in prison awaiting charges on assault with a deadly weapon, intent to inflict bodily injury, trespassing, and attempted manslaughter.

But as you know, there are two sets of rules: one for us, and one for “the only ones.”  And they wonder why everyone hates them.

Recall that there were multiple bear attacks briefly discussed in this earlier report.  Bear spray was deployed, but there was another attack not fully discussed, where pistols were used.

In addition to their archery equipment, both men had 9 mm pistols. Chris Gregersen had a Glock 43. Donivan Campbell had a Sig Sauer P320. Both guns were loaded with full metal jacketed (FMJ) cartridges.

I like Dean’s detail – I always want to know what weapon was used and what caliber it was.

He took a snap sight picture and fired at the bear’s rear. It was probably 16 seconds into the attack.  The point of aim was the bear’s hind quarters. There was no other choice.  The bear and Donivan were up slope with brush on either side. There was no time to flank the bear, on a steep hill side, with considerable brush, when fractions of a second could make the difference between life and death.   Chris had a clear shot. He has considerable experience shooting under stress while hunting. He says he has “shot a lot.”  He had a brief worry about hitting his friend, so he had to do it right.

[ … ]

Chris emphasized bear spray would not have been sufficient. The spray would have been directed at the bear’s backside. If the spray had reached the bear’s head, it would have disabled Donivan as well. When the bear charged again, the bear spray would have been unlikely to reach the bear through the heavy cover.

There were multiple charges, each time repelled by yelling and gunfire.  The injuries were bad, and Dean has some good pictures of the area as well.

This further confirms that bear spray is simply not an effective deterrent against a determined, large predator.  But a gun is – I guess I would have chosen a larger bore handgun.  There is also this observation.

A warden suggested more power, and a large magazine capacity gave a better chance of hitting the central nervous system. He recommended the Glock 20 in 10mm

I have a better solution: A 1911 shooting 450 SMC, with higher muzzle velocity and a heavier bullet.  I’m accurate with it, I just can’t shoot 50 rounds without ceasing to have fun.  It’s not a plinker.

It’s an odd case, but interesting.

Dawsonville attorney John Monroe—a founder, board member and corporate officer of GeorgiaCarry who represents Evans—said he is confident that a careful review of the garden’s lease with the city will make it clear that the garden is prohibited by state law from banning guns on its premises.

“We never argued it as a Second-Amendment issue,” said Monroe, who said he helped to write the 2014 amendment that forms the basis for the high court’s reversal. “It was really about an interpretation of state law. … The idea was, if you are going to lease public property, you should not have the same right that private property owners have to exclude firearms.”

Monroe said the 2014 amendment is in keeping with a separate state law barring cities and counties from introducing or enforcing their own gun regulations.

GeorgiaCarry sued the botanical garden five years ago after one of its members twice visited the venue in 2014 while openly carrying a gun in a holster on his waistband. On his second visit, police escorted member Phillip Evans from the premises. GeorgiaCarry subsequently filed suit challenging the garden’s gun ban. A Fulton County judge dismissed the case, but the high court reversed, claiming the dismissal was improper.

I’d never thought about this before, but it makes perfect sense.  Someone who leases property doesn’t own the property, and therefore doesn’t have the right to forbid perfectly constitutional and legal activities on that property.  Only the owner does.

This is our buddy Len Savage having a little fun.  And by the way, Len also had some fun noting the irony of the ATF managing to creep out their own attorney.  It’s more than a little amusing – in a sad sort of way – when even the controllers become repulsed at their own kind.

This is well worth the time it takes to watch it.  If you still have a mushy head on these issues, John will fix that.

A.A.J. DeVille.

If God had granted such a right, one would expect it to show up in, say, Scripture or in the broader Christian tradition. But in fact the entire language of rights is a modern novelty. None of the biblical writers knew such rights, nor the Fathers of the Church, nor the late medieval and early modern philosophers and theologians. Knowing this history, the great Catholic moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre wrote, “there are no such rights, and belief in them is one with belief in witches and in unicorns.”

In the modern period, for theological rather than historical reasons, the Church was initially reluctant to embrace the language of rights because it was thought to marginalize God. After the Second World War, however, Catholics played a significant role in drafting the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Since then Catholics have embraced the language of rights even more fulsomely. But a review of magisterial statements since 1948 reveals no such thing as a right to bear arms, God-given or otherwise.

In his 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris, Pope John XXIII denounces the abundance of arms: “We are deeply distressed to see the enormous stocks of armaments that have been, and continue to be, manufactured in the economically more developed countries.” What would the saintly pontiff say today of a country that, according to the Congressional Research Service, has more than 300 million firearms — more, per capita, than any other nation? 

The Second Vatican Council’s decree Gaudium et Spes discusses human rights extensively, but makes no mention of gun ownership as a right. Likewise, Pope Paul VI spoke in defence of human rights before the UN in 1965 but neither there nor elsewhere did he ever once mention a so-called right to bear arms. In fact, in New York he said that “a person cannot love with offensive weapons in his hands.”

Similarly, when Pope John Paul II addressed the UN in 1979, he made nearly 60 references to human rights, but never once mentioned a so-called right to bear arms. In 1991 in Centesimus Annus he makes dozens of references to human rights, but his encyclical lacks even a hint of a right to bear arms. It is the same in the 2004 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

Likewise, the writings of Popes Benedict XVI or Francis contain nothing close to a right to bear arms. In fact, Pope Francis has been vocal in denouncing  guns and weapons manufacturing. 

Why, then, do some Americans claim such God-given rights?

One commenter replies that ” I find it interesting that Deville is taking a sola scriptura approach to guns. That’s a Protestant view of things.”

He really doesn’t, he leans toward the multiple leaky buckets approach to logic, and he’s so unfamiliar with the Holy Writ that he doesn’t interact with even the most basic passages.  Furthermore, as a Protestant I can honestly say that I couldn’t care less what any pope has to say about anything.

Calvin was clear on the “right” to restrain the willfulness of kings (Institutes, 4.20.31).  We’ve already addressed the continental and English Calvinist underpinnings of the American war of independence.  We’ve also seen that believers have an unmitigated right to self defense and defense of home and hearth.  But also take note that I’ve been careful to couch this more in terms of commands, or God’s Holy ordinances, rather than rights.

Rights do have a rather Hobbesian or Lockean ring, as opposed to fallen mankind, redeemed by the blood of His only Son, expected by the Father to engage in creative and redemptive work in mimic of our Holy Father.  So in that vein, I have said this before.

God has laid the expectations at the feet of heads of families that they protect, provide for and defend their families and protect and defend their countries.  Little ones cannot do so, and rely solely on those who bore them.  God no more loves the willing neglect of their safety than He loves child abuse.  He no more appreciates the willingness to ignore the sanctity of our own lives than He approves of the abuse of our own bodies and souls.  God hasn’t called us to save the society by sacrificing our children or ourselves to robbers, home invaders, rapists or murderers. Self defense – and defense of the little ones – goes well beyond a right.  It is a duty based on the idea that man is made in God’s image.  It is His expectation that we do the utmost to preserve and defend ourselves when in danger, for it is He who is sovereign and who gives life, and He doesn’t expect us to be dismissive or cavalier about its loss.

…

If you believe that it is your Christian duty to allow your children to be harmed by evil-doers (and you actually allow it to happen) because you think Christ was a pacifist, you are no better than a child abuser or pedophile.

…

God demands violence as a response to threats on our person because of the fact that man is created in God’s image and life is to be preserved.  It is our solemn duty.

…

I am afraid there have been too many centuries of bad teaching endured by the church, but it makes sense to keep trying.  As I’ve explained before, the simplest and most compelling case for self defense lies in the decalogue.  Thou shall not murder means thou shall protect life.

…

If you’re willing to sacrifice the safety and health of your wife or children to the evils of abuse, kidnapping, sexual predation or death, God isn’t impressed with your fake morality.  Capable of stopping it and choosing not to, you’re no better than a child molester, and I wouldn’t allow you even to be around my grandchildren.

Indeed, all gun control is wicked.  The Bible does contain a few direct references to weapons control. There were many times throughout Israel’s history that it rebelled against God (in fact, it happened all the time). To mock His people back into submission to His Law, the Lord would often use wicked neighbors to punish Israel’s rebellion. Most notable were the Philistines and the Babylonians. 1 Samuel 13:19-22 relates the story: “Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!” So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plowshares, mattocks, axes, and sickles sharpened…So on the day of battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan had a sword or spear in this hand; only Saul and his son Jonathan had them.” Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon also removed all of the craftsmen from Israel during the Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 24:14). Both of these administrations were considered exceedingly wicked including their acts of weapons control.

John Calvin’s comments on this subject.  We do not need to prove that when a good thing is commanded, the evil thing that conflicts with it is forbidden.  There is no one who doesn’t concede this.  That the opposite duties are enjoined when evil things are forbidden will also be willingly admitted in common judgment.  Indeed, it is commonplace that when virtues are commended, their opposing vices are condemned.  But we demand something more than what these phrases commonly signify.  For by the virtue of contrary to the vice, men usually mean abstinence from that vice.  We say that the virtue goes beyond this to contrary duties and deeds.  Therefore in this commandment, “You shall not kill,” men’s common sense will see only that we must abstain from wronging anyone or desiring to do so.  Besides this, it contains, I say, the requirement that we give our neighbor’s life all the help we can … the purpose of the commandment always discloses to us whatever it there enjoins or forbids us to do” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, Book 2, Chapter viii, Part 9).

Our writer had to look no further than the Decalogue, but stopped somewhere short of there.  Perhaps he needs more time in seminary.  Or simply just to believe on Jesus Christ and see men, women and children as made in God’s image, worthy of protection.  Perhaps his problem isn’t one of education, or lack thereof.  Perhaps it’s an ethical and moral problem.

Cheaper than Dirt.

If it’s not USGI-pattern (that has 20 “scallops” around its circumference), most provide a head to match their nut. But I’ve seen a few I just had to wing it with, which often meant resorting to a large adjustable wrench to fit the wrench flats on the nut.

To fit the drive, ask for a “crows-foot” attachment at an auto parts store.

If your barrel nut is USGI-pattern, get a wrench head that fits over and into as much of the nut circumference as you can. My favorites give 360-degree contact, but most are half that (or less). And make sure the doggone thing is securely fitting into those scallops!

I hold in against the wrench head when I work the wrench handle to keep the head from slipping.

Longer wrench handles are better than shorter ones. Longer makes it easier to make those often-necessary small-but-high-effort nudges easier to feel, and to initiate. I use both a torque wrench and a breaker bar, and the latter is because of the next important item.

Anti-seize! This auto-parts store item is a critical component.  It’s a copper-based lubricant intended exactly for what we’re doing here—it prevents galling.

Galling is abrasive wear from the friction that occurs when metals that are compressed against one another are put into motion.

If the compressive forces are high enough between the surfaces (and they sure can be), the friction can create heat sufficient to weld the materials together and that then removes material from one surface and places it onto the other. Not good!

To get the operation going, clean off all associated surfaces (inside of the upper and outside of the barrel extension). Slip the barrel extension into the upper (there’s a pin on the extension and a notch in the upper that line up).

Put an even coat of anti-seize around the circumference of the upper threads (I use a flat artist’s brush) and thread on the barrel nut. Using something other than a torque wrench, tighten the nut down firmly—give it a good pull—and back it off.

Repeat that three or four more times: tighten it to snug-plus and back it off.

Why?

Because that helps mate the surfaces by facing down any small imperfections (which will usually be on the upper). The anti-seize allows this tactic.

The tighten/loosen procedure is compressing tiny bits of metal, and the lube is preventing galling, as well as make it easier to loosen.

Now for more about that “alignment with the gas tube receptacle in the upper receiver. ” That is absolutely critical, or it is if you want your AR-15 to shoot as well as it can.

With a USGI-pattern nut, that means one of the scallops has to be dead center in the gas tube receptacle in the upper so the gas tube isn’t touching the nut—not even a little bit. With another style barrel nut, it might not mean a thing.

The point is that if there is an opening on the nut that should align with the gas tube receptacle, it has to align!

That is now when and how the gas tube alignment tool really helps. Remove the bolt from the bolt carrier group, insert the tool in the carrier key, and slip it into the upper. There should be a gap 360-degrees around the tube. It’s a tiny gap, but it’s a gap.

Ultimately, final check it with the gas tube itself, and the test then is that the gas tube should rattle—move freely all directions.

This isn’t an evolution I’ve performed.  I’d like to think I could watch before doing it.

News from Oklahoma.

Gun control advocates say they’ll spend October distributing “firearms prohibited” window stickers to Oklahoma business owners who don’t want untrained and unlicensed consumers carrying guns into their establishments.

The effort marks gun-control advocates’ next effort to thwart the new controversial gun law, which takes effect Nov. 1.

“We know that our businesses are allowed to prohibit guns on their property,” said Kay Malan, of Tulsa, who volunteers with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

In recent weeks, the gun-control group also participated in a citizen-led ballot initiative that sought give voters a say on whether to accept or reject the legislation. The effort failed to garner enough signatures to get the issue before voters.

The legislative measure allows anyone at least 21 years old without a felony conviction or other criminal records to carry with no permitting, licensing or training. The bill does not allow people to brandish firearms nor does it change where Oklahomans can legally carry. For instance, people would still be prohibited from carrying on college campuses.

So let’s make a prediction and see how accurate it was later on, say, a year from now.

There will be blood running in the streets because of this.  Or not.