Even after judge Reed O’Conner issued a preliminary injunction in the case of the Polymer80, the ATF is bowing their back up and demanding that their rule be enforced.  They literally don’t care what the court says.  They are in love with the courts when they side with the controllers, and ignore them when they don’t.

They are among the most lawless people on the planet. ATF doesn’t need laws – they make ’em.

Tenth Amendment Center.

On Friday, the West Virginia House gave final approval to a bill that would prohibit government entities from accessing information about firearm and ammunition purchases generated by a credit card merchant code without a warrant in most situations.

Del. Chris Phillips and a coalition of 10 fellow Republicans introduced House Bill 2004 (HB2004) on Jan. 12. The legislation would prohibit any West Virginia governmental entity from accessing or obtaining a record of a transaction involving a credit card that is retrieved, characterized, generated, labeled, sorted, or grouped based on the assignment of a firearms code without a warrant or a subpoena in most situations.

Financial institutions would also be barred from disclosing such information with the same exceptions. Financial institutions could also disclose such information if the customer provides written authorization for disclosure.

HB2004 includes specific requirements for a subpoena requesting such information.

On Feb. 3, the House passed HB2004 by a 95-0 vote. The Senate approved the measure with amendments by a 32-0 vote on March 9. The following day, the House concurred with the Senate amendments. The bill now goes to Gov. Jim Justice’s desk for his consideration.

The battle never stops between us and the controllers, and this is a good move.  It would have been a better move to exclude the provision that a warrant is needed, and just prohibit supplying such information to anyone under any circumstances.

Mark analyzes the decision, which can be found here.  Mark feels that he used an unnecessary approach, but ended up with the right decision.

Found this Handgun Drill through Active Response Training. This drill is designed to increase the shooter’s accuracy and speed with a simple pass-or-fail score. A nice thing about this drill is that it requires no extra equipment. Depending on the legality in your area, it can be practiced in the backyard.

There are a lot of good drills out there. Some are designed to develop a skill, some are designed to test a skill. “Finding Your Level” I am pretty convinced as more of a test than a skill builder drill, at least if you shoot it as written. Essentially it test a shooter’s ability to get quick hits on small targets, and their ability to control recoil over a longer string of fire. It has become one of my favorite benchmark drills for basic fundamental shooting processes at speed.

Finding Your Level is not a very widely known drill despite being a really good one in my opinion. The drill originates from a user at pistol-forum.com, and I have not seen the drill used or mentioned outside of p-f.com. There are a lot of really solid shooters on p-f, so if you aren’t a member, you should at least troll the place for info, if not join up. Just don’t be “that guy”.

Photo: Priority Performance

You can find the target to use at the source, which has a table for each level. Included are specific instructions for running the drill. I’ve not tried it. Looks challenging.

I thought readers might find some interest in this.

As a bullet is fired, the rifling in the barrel forces the bullet to spin. So, in a 1:8” twist, rate the bullet rotates one full turn every eight inches. In a 1:7” twist, the bullet rotates one turn in seven inches. The smaller the number, the faster the twist; you need to remember this.

[…]

If a bullet spins too slowly, it cannot stabilize and won’t achieve either optimum velocity or accuracy. What occurs is called yaw. The bullet is unstable and does not hit the target with the tip of the bullet, but perhaps the side of the bullet.

I built a retro AR-15 with a 20” barrel and 1:12” twist and fired 77-gr. bullets that perfectly keyholed the target because the rifling couldn’t stabilize the longer, heavier bullet. So, the bullet hit the target sideways. Accuracy is horrible with heavy bullets in that rifle. With 55-gr. bullets, however, that retro rifle with a 1:12 twist shoots the black out of the target. Rifling can also be too fast and over-stabilize the bullet causing the bullet to fragment in flight and lose all effectiveness.

When Eugene Stoner developed the AR-15, the idea was to use lightweight bullets in the 45- to 55-gr. range through a 20” barrel. Barrels were rifled in a slow 1:12” twist rate, capable of stabilizing lightweight bullets but not heavier bullets. Fast forward a few decades, and .223 bullets have evolved in bullet style, bullet material and weight. Today 75- and 77-gr. .223 bullets are just as common as 55- to 62-gr. bullets. Twist rate is your clue on what weight bullets will perform optimally in your gun. Some shooters might not think twice about the twist rate in their barrel, but if they knew that could fine-tune their bullet performance they might pay closer attention.

Twist Rate Sweet Spot

Most AR-15 rifles and carbines produced today use rifling with a 1:8 twist rate. In my opinion, a twist rate of 1:8 is perfect for a general-purpose, 16” barrel AR since this twist offers versatility and can easily stabilize both light and heavy bullets. In fact, the sweet spot for 1:8 bores are bullets weighing from 62 to 77 grains.

In the 1980s, when the U.S. military moved to the M16A2 rifle and the 62-gr. M855 cartridge, it chose a 1:7 twist rate that has become the de facto rifling in all U.S. military rifles and carbines chambered in 5.56 NATO. The change had to do with the 1:7 twist rate stabilizing heavier 70- to 77-gr. bullets and the rifling’s ability to stabilize tracer rounds. The 1:7 twist can stabilize bullets weighing up to 90 grains.

I had an engineering professor who was fond of saying, “Test them like you use them”. So, to prove out the thesis, I sat down at the range bench with a stock, off-the-shelf Springfield Armory ATC with its 1:7 twist rate for heavy bullets and mounted with a Leupold Patrol 6HD 1-6x24mm scope. I used Nosler cartridges since they provide a wide assortment of bullet weights, bullet material and bullet types — from lightweights like the Expansion Tip 55-gr. lead-free ET rounds and the Ballistic Tip 55-gr. BTV, to Match Grade 70-gr. RDF (Reduced Drag Factor), and the lunker in the bunch Match Grade 77-gr. HPBT.

More, including test results, at the link.

Ducks.org.

For airline travel, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) requires that guns be transported in hard-sided, lockable cases. One way to maximize luggage space is to buy one of the top-quality bulkier cases, like a Pelican or Explorer, then remove the foam interior and pack your hunting clothes in the case. The clothes serve as padding for your shotgun while freeing up room in your checked bag for waders and other items. Gun cases commonly come in one- and two-gun models. The best field repair kit is an extra gun, and if you’re going on a long-anticipated trip, consider packing two guns. To maximize luggage space, many traveling waterfowlers wear their hunting coats and use a field backpack or blind bag as a carry-on. That’s a practical idea, but make sure that you don’t have any loose shotgun shells in your pockets or bags before you pass through security.

Interesting tips.  The article is oriented towards water fowlers, but this could just as easily go for travelling to Kansas to shoot upland birds (in that case, Pheasants), or Minnesota (for Grouse).  I can carry a Beretta A400 in the truck to do Quail hunting in S.C. or N.C., but that brings up another point.

Reader xtphreak made these remarks not long ago on another article.

MrGunsandgear also made a statement about 6:04 re: a “rule” requiring FedEx & UPS to mark packages containing firearms for shipping.

I posted a comment there asking for specifics on this “Rule”.

Their “Rule” doesn’t override 18 U.S.C. § 922 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 922. Unlawful acts.

Specifically (e) which reads:

“…(e) It shall be unlawful for any person ….  No common or contract carrier shall require or cause any label, tag, or other written notice to be placed on the outside of any package, luggage, or other container that such package, luggage, or other container contains a firearm. …”.

Can you specify the Rules that require common carriers to mark packages that contain firearms?

I personally used this against airline policy (Piedmont Airlines) to tag luggage with a bright orange CONTAINS FIREARM tag prior to 911.

[ … ]

I listen to MrGunsandgear, but on this he is wrong.

I posted the following to his youtube under my previous comment:

the UPS site states: “The labeling and outer box markings on all Firearm Products shipments must not identify the contents as containing Firearm Products. Labeling, including the shipper’s and consignee’s abbreviated names on the shipping label or air shipping document, must be non-descriptive.”

https://www.ups.com/us/en/support/shipping-support/shipping-special-care-regulated-items/prohibited-items/firearms.page

FedEx site says: “Re-package the firearm case in an outer box with no identifying markers”

https://www.fedex.com/en-us/shipping/how-to-ship-firearms.html

I think this is important because I think we need to know if carriers, including airlines, can legally put labels on our firearms cases?

On a final note, say you are carrying a shotgun for upland bird hunting on an airline.  Let’s say that it’s a really nice one, like a Beretta DT11.  What do you do?  Purchase travel insurance for $12,000 to cover the gun?  Perhaps the answer to this is don’t carry a DT11 on an airline.  But then, how do the competition shooters do it?  Maybe we can carry a cheaper gun on the airlines (good upland bird guns go for > $2000 though), but a competition shooter will carry his expensive weapon.

Totally and completely out of control, second grader reasoning skills, away from the farm, and off the rails.  Trying to make things up as they go and feeling constrained by the SCOTUS.

J. Lee asks about "designation" of "sensitive places" and how to figure this out. J. Lynch notes that very few of these places existed in 1791. "Were there even zoos" J. Lynch asks. J. Lynch notes SCOTUS not "giving us much to work with here." #bruenresistance

— Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar (@fourboxesdiner) March 20, 2023

“SCOTUS not giving us much to work with here.”

Good Lord. And these people are judges.

I didn’t listen to the arguments, but I did read all of Mark’s Twitter entries. Here is what this apparently looked like today.

GM 🌞

It’s Monday!!! pic.twitter.com/WEqcgDO844

— EducatëdHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) March 20, 2023

And here is Mark’s more formal analysis of the arguments today.

Medical malpractice kills more people than all AR-15s combined. https://t.co/qhYdZVtR3G

— 🔫UR a Smart Ass, Carl🔫 (@Ur_a_Smartass_C) March 20, 2023

Here’s a puffy HufPo piece on how courts are impeding the efforts of the controllers.  Here’s the bit that captured my attention.

“It’s a completely crazy standard,” University of Chicago legal scholar Albert Alschuler said. “They have turned the interpretation of the Second Amendment completely upside down.”

[ … ]

The application of strict scrutiny allowed state governments to claim that gun laws served an important safety interest. This allowed some laws to remain standing despite Heller’s assertion of an individual right to own firearms.

The new historical test, however, provides sweeping power to judges to interpret history as they see fit to strike down gun laws they oppose.

“The revolution has been going on at least since Heller,” Alschuler said. “But it took an enormous step with this Bruen decision.”

I’ll agree with him insofar as he points out that Heller was a weak decision.  It left doubt in place as to the right to carry outside the home.  In spite of the fact that the founders of the nation literally carried rifles to school in order to shoot critters for meals or other reasons, and despite the fact that men were required to carry rifles to church on Sunday for protection of the congregation, the controllers began putting more and more burdensome regulations in place.

They know better because they’re lawyers and have been trained that Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, Warren v. DC, and DeShaney v. Winnebago County all demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that the police aren’t there to protect anyone.

They have all allowed their politics to interfere with being good historians and lawyers.  But Bruen did do what Heller and McDonald didn’t – it recognized the right to self defense outside the home.

It upended their cart.  Thus, the highly emotional and charged language coming from alleged scholars, who cannot fathom why there even exists such a right to begin with.

Oh, and that part about “sweeping power to judges to interpret history as they see fit to strike down gun laws they oppose” is just him making things up out of whole cloth.

Mark Smith has been very clear with his analysis of Bruen, and the SCOTUS was clear before that.  Laws that were in place at the time the 2A was written are fair game.  As are laws in place before that generation perished.  Laws subsequent to that are not, unless they confirm the laws in place at the time of the founding.  Subsequent (later in time) examples can NEVER deny the understanding of the 2A when it was penned.  Another way of saying it is that gun control laws that have burdened the public subsequent to the 2A don’t get to count in our understanding of the 2A, and that makes perfect sense to any reasonable man (and any good historian).

This test is simple.  There is no lack of clarity.  There is no sweeping power granted to judges, in fact, just the opposite.  Judges have been shackled, as they should have been, and as have legislators.

I’ll tell you what.  There is so much to say about this topic that I’ll write Prof. Albert Alschuler (facultysupport@law.uchicago.edu) and offer to debate him on the 2A.  We can use these pages to do that, and I’ll promise to publish his prose without editorializing, and then respond in separate posts.

How does that sound, professor?

Several remarks before you view the report.

First, there shouldn’t be any such thing as SWAT teams.  They aren’t constitutional – there is no basis whatsoever for busting in another man’s home, law enforcement or not.

Cops should not have machine guns.  Any need for machine guns implies a need to call out the local militia.

Cops should not have rifles.  Any need for a rifle should be reason to call out local militia.

Cops should not have semiautomatic pistols.  They should only be allowed to carry .38 special revolvers, and only when they have proven that they can be trusted with them.

Cops should always wear uniforms, including shirts, ties, slacks, and badges, along with name and rank.

Cops should NEVER be allowed to cover their faces for any reason whatsoever.

Cops should never even knock at doors at night time hours unless there is a clear and present danger inside the home from which the residents of that home need to be protected or for which they need to be warned (such as fire).

It should be a felony for a cop to interact with or engage with the population without a body camera.

All body camera video should be immediately made available to the public over web sites, virtually in real time.

Judges should not approve warrants for raids on homes.  Those who do should be removed from their post.

Yes, I’m an uncompromising constitutionalist.