I dislike that the judge relied on the fact that no psychiatrist needs to be involved in the current New York law in order to seize firearms.  The mere word of another person can do it.  This law should have been overthrown because it’s clearly unconstitutional.  But turning to the neighborhood witch doctors for the infallible word on your state of mind is a bad idea for too many reasons to list, not the least of which is the fact that only God knows the heart of man.  Another problem is that one can trust due process only if they trust the process (this sounds like a tautology but it’s not).  The ‘due’ part of due process relies on the truthfulness and viability of the justice system to administer justice.  More often than not, justice is whatever wicked men want it to be.

But this is better than the alternative, which is that the law could have been found constitutional.

This video provides good basic instruction to those who would show friends and family how to start out. The entry questions are excellent for a very basic start in understanding somebody’s background. Too bad he didn’t film the initial interview. Perhaps in a later video, he’ll provide some tips on interviewing prospective shooters to get a feel for their experience and desires. I’ve done that too. Having a great first-time experience for new shooters is critical to wooing converts to the, um, shooting sports. Confidence is key for a new shooter to become a lifelong self-defense firearms carrier.

I recommend exactly what Mrgunsngear says, spend a couple of weekends renting everything. Also, go with an experienced and knowledgeable associate to help with understanding different firearm types, handling, and critical safety procedures. The goal in your home defense and carry gun purchase(s) is the ability to hit what you’re aiming at; that’s the gun for you.

The restriction of men in God’s dominion by subordinating us to animals is the work of an evil enterprise.

Another classic gun type. Ruger is doing well with the Marlin line of rifles and has now offered a new wheel gun to its lineup. There’s just something agreeable about the old classics. Ruger Super Wrangler line, including MSRP. Pretty neat! The Bronze Cerakote option looks a lot better in the video than the picture on the Ruger page.

Video Review:

Source (appears to be a copy-paste of Ruger press info):

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. is pleased to introduce the Super Wrangler family of single-action revolvers. Building on the success of the affordably-priced Wrangler line introduced in 2019, the Super Wrangler features a robust steel cylinder frame and ships with two cylinders, allowing you to convert between inexpensive .22 LR ammunition and powerful .22 WMR ammunition.

Built on the legacy of the popular Ruger Single-Six, the Super Wrangler complements Ruger‘s rich history of producing quality, rugged, reliable single-action revolvers. The attractive price, combined with the affordability of rimfire ammunition, make this revolver ideal for learning to shoot, introducing friends or family to the sport, or just experiencing the fun of single-action shooting.

With the introduction of the Single-Six in 1953, Bill Ruger pioneered the use of modern investment casting in firearms manufacturing to usher in a new level of affordability in single-action revolvers. Through the use of modern CNC-machining methods and lean manufacturing techniques, the Super Wrangler continues this tradition and sets a new bar for affordability while maintaining the rugged reliability that is the hallmark of Ruger firearms.

Initially offered in three attractive Cerakote models – black, silver and bronze – the Super Wrangler features an adjustable target sight and 5.5-inch barrel. The standard checkered black grip panels can be swapped for Single-Six panels, allowing for a variety of customized options. The Super Wrangler will fit in Single-Six holsters that accommodate 5.5-inch barrels. Cylinders are unique to the Super Wrangler, and are not interchangeable with standard aluminum-frame Wrangler or Single-Six Convertible cylinders.

Gov. DeSantis just signed a bill that allows people to carry concealed weapons without a permit, making Florida the 26th state to allow permitless carry. We spoke to Florida @SheriffMina who said this won’t make his state safer — in fact, just the opposite. https://t.co/ZfmG8sXOCm pic.twitter.com/fW0Ap7eqrF

— The Problem With Jon Stewart (@TheProblem) April 3, 2023

I won’t ask a copy what he thinks because it doesn’t matter what he thinks.  He doesn’t determine my rights.

As for Jon Stewart (do you see the look of unction on his face?), he’s just a court jester wearing funny hats.  He’s not the serious person he wants to be.  It’s amusing, though, how easily alleged progressives flip to become totalitarians.  That’s because in fact they are totalitarians.

The children of hippies believe in the state as god because their parents believed in nothing.

Cry all you want, it’s now the law in Florida.  And open carry will happen eventually, so cops won’t have to wonder if there’s a gun stuck in the waist band for open carriers.  For everybody else, they should assume people are carrying.

That’s easy enough.  I’m glad I could be of help.

This drill is better described as a Course of Fire and comes via Active Response Training. It’s (was?) used by Texas DPS in their handgun training program.

It’s intended to be shot on the giant B-27 target [full-size man silhouette], scored like the Texas License to Carry test (8-9-10 rings score 5, 7 ring scores 4, on target but outside the 7 ring scores 3). To make it harder I’ve been shooting it using a Shoot Steel target center, where the B zone (center circle) scores 5, the C zone (roughly same size as the 8-9-10 ring on a B-27) scores 4, and everything outside the C zone scores zero (unacceptable hit). The images below are NOT to scale, since the B27 is 24″x45″ and the Shoot Steel target is 18″x24″.

The course measures the quality of shot placement in multiple situations, including switching hands, more than one body position, and several distances up to 25 yards. I don’t like the scoring system. I prefer a tighter scoring system with less allowance for poor shot placement in the time allotted. I’ve not shot this course or the Texas Carry Qual. It looks like a better challenge with the more difficult target (pictured above) that the author uses. It would be fun to run against buddies as a friendly challenge. Go to the link for more background and full instructions.

This article provides some good tips. I’ll quote a few of the points but read the short list for yourself.

I see a red flag when an instructor is more interested in selling their background and less interested in selling the quality of their classes. If someone is stuck talking about how awesome they are and not what their courses will teach you, they are likely more invested in their reputation than their instruction.

If your instructor believes that the specific way they do something is the only way to do something, then that’s a huge red flag.

Speaking of standards, does your instructor have any? Do they use a measurable, objective standard that allows you to see your improvement and track your progress? However, you should see some form of improvement from the beginning of the class to the end. Clearly defined standards also allow instructors to measure the progress of growth of their students and themselves. Are their students successfully improving in accordance with standards?

I have several remarks about the events depicted and discussed below, but make sure to watch the entire video.

First, none of this would happen if the cops involved – FedGov and local/county/state – didn’t want to engage in it.  In other words, they like beating people up.  There is no other explanation for this.  This is sociopathic behavior.

Second, the problem is exacerbated when local/county/state LEOs are deputized as agents of the federal government, whether FBI or Marshals Office or whatever.  Far from being protectors of rights and peace officers, as would need to be the case if the notion of second amendment sanctuaries means anything, it’s apparently too tempting when a local LEO hears the words “Deputized as a Federal Marshal.”  They can’t turn it down under their own volition.  They are in need of a body of laws and regulations on the local and state level telling them they cannot do that without state penalties.

Third, they should not be armed.  They have all proven much to contemptuous of rights and liberties, and much too dangerous, to walk around armed.  In the case of most LEOs, they are “armed to the terror of the public,” as contrasted with open carriers who obey the law, and act in a peaceful manner.

Fourth, whatever body of law that supports the notion of qualified immunity must be turned back.  It essentially means that LEOs, especially federally empowered LEOs, can violate constitutional liberties and rights with no remedy by those they have offended.  This is prima facie ridiculous, and certainly wasn’t envisioned by the founders.  The founders fought a war to stop this sort of thing and then prevent its recurrence.

Fifth, the FedGov has no business in local and state matters.  Fusion centers and joint operations task forces should be banned by law.

Via Instapundit, Judge Don Willett knows what’s what with this doctrine.

Today’s decision upholding qualified immunity is compelled by our controlling precedent. I write separately only to highlight newly published scholarship that paints the qualified-immunity doctrine as flawed— foundationally—from its inception.

For more than half a century, the Supreme Court has claimed that (1) certain common-law immunities existed when § 1983 was enacted in 1871,2 and (2) “no evidence” suggests that Congress meant to abrogate these immunities rather than incorporate them.3 But what if there were such evidence? Indeed, what if the Reconstruction Congress had explicitly stated—right there in the original statutory text—that it was nullifying all common-law defenses against § 1983 actions? That is, what if Congress’s literal language unequivocally negated the original interpretive premise for qualified immunity? Professor Alexander Reinert argues precisely this in his new article, Qualified Immunity’s Flawed Foundation—that courts have been construing the wrong version of § 1983 for virtually its entire legal life.

Wait, what?

[ … ]

In arguing that qualified immunity is flawed from the ground up, Professor Reinert poses a provocative question: “If a legislature enacts a statute, but no one bothers to read it, does it still have interpretive force?”9 It seems a tall order to square the modern qualified-immunity regime with Congress’s originally enacted language. But however seismic the implications of this lost-text research, “‘[a]s middle-management circuit judges,’ we cannot overrule the Supreme Court.”10 Only that Court can definitively grapple with § 1983’s enacted text and decide whether it means what it says—and what, if anything, that means for § 1983 immunity jurisprudence.

If was a gambler, I would lay all of my money down on the SCOTUS not turning back such awful, wicked doctrine and qualified immunity.  Thus, the LEOs dispatched by the FedGov will become ever more hated, performing ever more cruel deeds as they see that they have no check on their behavior.

I had completely missed this significant case coming from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division.  It had to do with Mr. John Holden who, upon completion of his Form 4473 as it turns out, was under indictment at the time.  Being under indictment is not the same thing as being found guilty of a crime.  Furthermore, recall that the Fifth Circuit has dealt with a situation somewhat similar to this one.

Anyway, the judge makes this startling statement in the conclusion of the decision.

This opinion was drafted with an earnest hope that its author has misunderstood New York State Rifle v . Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111. If not, most of the body of law Congress has developed to protect both public safety and the right to bear arms might well be unconstitutional . For one constitutional reason or another, a similar fate has befallen several other laws that Congress adopted with beneficent purposes . But unlike those instances , the decimation of the nation’s gun laws would arise from an assumption that our leaders and ratifying legislators in the late 1700s didn’t foresee that their descendants might need a different relationship than the founders had between the federal government and the right to bear arms. Yet a glance at the Constitution they were amending shows that they could foresee the growth in population that would change the number of representatives to be elected ,that future members of Congress might need higher pay, and that future states might aspire to join the union.

The United States Constitution, as amended and as imperfect as itwas ,is the legacy ofthose eighteenth-century Americans ; it insults both that legacy and their memory to assume they were so short-sighted as to forbid the people, through their elected representatives, from regulatingguns in new ways.

The role ofa United States District Court is to apply the law as understood by the United States Supreme Court; today’s rulingrecognizes that role. But the author of this opinion retains hope that he hasn’t accurately grasped the Supreme Court’s understanding of the Second Amendment.

The court GRANTS Mr. Holden’s motion to withdraw guilty plea and GRANTS Mr. Holden’s motion to dismiss the indictment . Mr. Holden’s plea of guilty is WITHDRAWN and the indictment DISMISSED.

The Firth Circuit was unapologetic in their decision, whereas Judge Miller seems to be begging and pleading for his interpretation of Bruen to be shown incorrect.

I think his interpretation is correct, as much as he hates it.  On a positive note, it’s nice that he was honest in his stated loathing of the Bruen decision, while still coming to a constitutional decision.

Let’s say that, hypothetically, you have two rifles, a Marlin 45-70 and a Marlin 30-30.  I think both rifles are close enough in ballistics (even with the massive weight difference) that they can be considered together.  Neither rifle is considered a 400 yard rifle – they’re both effective at 0 – 200 yards or so, with the 45-70 drop more significant further out than the 30-30.  But let’s go ahead and lump the two cartridges together for the sake of argument.

You obviously don’t need a 4X24 scope, and besides, a good one with that power would cost too much for the rifle it would be mounted on to be worth it.

What power would you recommend?  What brand would you recommend?  Obviously, the stipulation is not breaking the bank (no Steiner, no Schmidt and Bender, etc.).  Also quite obviously, this would be best in a SFP scope.  Any shot requiring use of high magnification and subtensions is probably too far for those rifles.  Assume that the scope is for use within and zeroed at 100 yards, but used by folks with failing eyes.