Interesting history of the O.K. Corral gunfight, by Dave Spaulding: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. Includes photos and historical artifacts. Check it out and remember, the core issue is gun control.

Wyatt Earp, his brothers Virgil and Morgan, and Doc Holliday had a date with destiny October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, Arizona. Attempting to disarm local cowboys at the O.K. Corral, the ensuing gunfight on Fremont Street gained legendary status in Old West lore. Here we examine how it all began.

Welcome to Tombstone. Interestingly, this sign appears to be misdated. The accepted date for the O.K. Corral gunfight is Oct. 26, 1881. (Library of Congress photo, c. 1937)

I hate all federal gun laws. the Anti-federalists were right. Even this seemingly friendly law is nonetheless federal gun control and should be roundly rejected. If the federal government wanted to buy every man 16 to 46 an AR15 and pay for proper equipping and training that would be the only constitutional federal gun law acceptable under the 2A.

The Feds should stay out of state business. I promise you, they will make things worse with qualifiers, and limits because that’s what government does. All federal laws oppose individual, local, and state liberties. Even if the law is sound, once it’s done, they can later restrict self-defense by modifying it. It’s for that same reason among others that I’m against national reciprocity.

We told you last month about how the Washington Post was trying to resurrect the debate over “Stand Your Ground” (SYG) laws even when the example the newspaper focused on wasn’t even a case involving SYG. What those anti-gun “journalists” at the Post didn’t realize was that their resurrection of the “debate” topic has fueled a fire on the other side of the gun-control movement, with two strongly pro-freedom federal lawmakers now planning to introduce a national Stand Your Ground measure in Congress.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Oklahoma, and Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Florida, plan to introduce the measure soon. If passed, it would allow the use of deadly force to prevent “death or great bodily harm” without the duty to retreat that is still on the books in some states.

“States like Oklahoma and Florida recognize that in some cases, the use of lethal force is justified to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm,” Sen. Mullin said in a news release announcing the measure. “Every American should have the right to defend himself or herself against imminent threats to personal safety without the duty to retreat.

“I’m proud to introduce the Stand Your Ground Act in the Senate to codify these common-sense self-defense protections for all law-abiding Americans.”

The legislation specifically states: “A person is justified in using, threatening, or attempting to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using, threatening, or attempting to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses, threatens, or attempts to use deadly force in accordance with this paragraph does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using, threatening, or attempting to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.”

It will probably fail which is fine. More at the link.

This case has wider implications than just in Illinois. The SCOTUS is showing itself to be emphatic, insisting that its rulings be applied.

On May 1, Justice Amy Coney Barrett directed the State of Illinois and the City of Naperville to respond to the emergency application for injunction pending appellate review filed by the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR).  As I explained in “An Opening Judicial Salvo in Defense of Illinois’ New Rifle Ban,” the U.S. district court (N.D. Ill.) denied a motion for preliminary injunction against the State’s ban on semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines, greatly departing from  Supreme Court precedent on the Second Amendment.

While that denial was being appealed to the 7th Circuit, Judge Stephen McGlynn (S.D. Ill.) found that plaintiffs in another challenge were likely to succeed on the merits that the law violates the Second Amendment, and he issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement.  See my post. The 7th Circuit immediately granted the State’s motion for a stay against the injunction in a one-sentence order without giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to respond.

So now the challengers have filed amicus briefs supporting NAGR in the Supreme Court, and we await a decision there.

While granting the emergency application in an interlocutory appeal of this type would be unusual, there are compelling reasons to do so here, as perhaps explained best in the amicus brief filed by Paul Clement and Erin Murphy on behalf of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).  As they note, there were only six states with bans last year when New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen was decided, and now there are ten.  “Instead of treating Bruen as an occasion to reconsider existing restrictions on constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, they have enacted new ‘assault weapon’ and/or ‘large-capacity magazine’ bans, with more still on the way.”  Quoting phrases from Bruen, they argue:

Rifles, pistols, and shotguns plainly “constitute bearable arms”—i.e., “instruments that facilitate armed self-defense,” …—no matter what kind of grip, stock, ammunition feeding device, or other features they may have. The right to keep and bear them is thus “presumptively protect[ed]” by the Constitution.  In breezily concluding that the firearms Illinois has banned are not even “Arms” covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, the district court in this case inexplicably ignored the test that Bruen articulated, and instead simply declared that “[t]he text of the Second Amendment is limited to only certain arms.”

The particulars of the Illinois case and some further history are at the link.

ATF making up laws and threatening citizens by “just doing my job.”

Found on social, here is the initial question:

I have a question about 45 ACP ammunition.

It appears to me that there are two weight classes of ammo: 230 and 185 grain. Why is this and what’s the correct weight to pick for a self defense and training? I will be shooting using a 5″ barrel 1911.

Thanks for your comments.

The answers were shallow, so the asker rephrased them in a way you might find interesting to discuss:

I think the question I have is two part (1) defensive ballistics and (2) training.

Defensive Ballistics:
Are the heavier or lighter rounds better with regards to hollow point bullets? Do people pick light bullets because they travel faster allowing better expansion? Does this matter, i.e., do both weights expand the same? I kind of like the idea of a heavier round that may impart higher energy to the target. What is the trade off between weight, velocity, energy, and expansion? Because there seem to be either heavy or light bullets, is the decision already clearly made?

Training:
When I purchase my 9mm ammo, I picked an carry round and training round that were identical weight and rated velocity. My assumption was that I would train using the cheaper ammo and carry the expensive ammo, but the feel of the shot would be the same. I was told by someone that carries 1911 that, “I train with 230 grain and carry 185 grain.” This makes no sense to me since I imagine that the two will have very different feel. Am I wrong?

Thanks,

Well, I train with 230 and carry 185, so maybe I’m wrong. I’m interested in feedback as well. Frankly, 230 JHP is expensive and often difficult to find because, I think, police departments are always buying it. His questions are excellent.

See this depressing video in full.  This idiot gets annoyed with people walking through the airport, yanks the dog around on its collar, and teaches the dog nothing in the process.

Let’s go over that again.  The collar is around the dog’s neck.  You can do neck damage by slinging the dog around by the collar.  It’s a stupid and doltish thing to do.  This agent is completely untrained and inexperienced in how to handle animals.

Next, there is no instruction going on with the dog.  The dog doesn’t know what the handler wants him to do.  He (or she) has no idea how to make the handler happy with his performance because there is no teaching going on.  This is frustrating for the dog because dogs are bred to make us happy.  That’s all he wants in life, in addition to basic sustenance.

There is no instruction going on because the handler doesn’t know how to instruct the dog.  He is a dolt.  Not only is he untrained, he hasn’t self trained either.  He has read no books (perhaps he doesn’t know how to read), he has spent no time in obedience training with his own dog (if he has one), or else he abuses his own dog, and he has never spent time around farm animals.

Punitive punishment for dogs must be very quick, very short, and basically used only once so the dog knows what’s not acceptable.  Everything after that must be positive reinforcement.  Everything.  That’s why I congratulate my dog every time he let’s me know he needs to go outside to defecate.  Every …single … time.  And I will do this until he passes away.

If you do not know how to give positive reinforcement to a dog, find a good, loving home for the dog and go back to washing cars, bagging groceries and being alone in the world.  You’re no good for man nor beast.

And by the way, here is a recapitulation of my counsel to cops who reflexively shoot dogs.  Go work on a farm.  Although it must be observed that this guy is a TSA agent, and therefore is probably more of an idiot that most cops.

Few things piss me off more than seeing cops abuse dogs.

Via WiscoDave.

This TSA agent is unfit to handle a dog. pic.twitter.com/WaQ6mt6FR9

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) May 8, 2023

David Codrea.

The complaint, embedded below is a treasure trove of examples from even before the Second Amendment was written, presenting photographic examples including:

• 1720 Flintlock Pistol with Stock
• 1750 Flintlock Pistols with Stocks
• 1760 Flintlock Grenade Launcher
• 1780 Flintlock Pistol w Stock
• 1760-1820 Flintlock Pistol Carbine with detachable stock
• 1790 Flintlock Blunderbuss Pistols – w detachable stocks (and bayonets)
• 1795 Flintlock Blunderbuss – 15” barrel

“Such weapons continued after the ratification era, through the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the complaint continues, presenting further examples from 1820 through to the 1940s …

He uses the complaint brought by GOA attorney Stephen Stamboulieh, which we’ve linked before.

So if the Heller test is the law of the land, according to the Supreme Court, then “in common use” should completely disqualify SBRs from the NFA list, and the Bruen test for laws in place at the founding would certainly exclude SBRs (and pistol braces) from the NFA.

Source.  To secure the Southern border from invasion?  No such thing.

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. (WNCN) — Two North Carolina battalion-sized units are deploying to the U.S. southwest border in the coming days, the U.S. Northern Command said.

On Friday, the command announced that 1,500 active duty military service members under their command and control will deploy to the border at the request of the Department of Homeland Security with approval from the Secretary of Defense.

The mission includes the following battalion-sized units:

• 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
• Combat Logistics Battalion 2, 2nd Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
• 93rd Military Police Battalion, 89th Military Police Brigade, Fort Bliss, Texas

The U.S. Northern Command said the majority of active duty personnel will come from the U.S. Army and U.S. Marines, along with a small number from U.S. Air Force.

While there, the command said the units will provide support to the DHS with duties including data entry, warehousing support and additional detection and monitoring support efforts.

“This military support increases the availability of Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) law enforcement personnel to conduct law enforcement specific duties,” the U.S. Northern Command explained in a news release.

U.S. troops are heading to the border — again.  So they can be clerks, maids, janitors, and in-processing specialists filling out paperwork.

That’s how much your betters care about you, your food and medical bills, and the invasion of the Southern border.

And they wonder why they can’t meet recruiting goals!

I disagree with starting from the low ready. A total change in training and practice needs to take place in the shooter training sphere; always train from drawing. Ranges need to work on this; it requires all of us, trainers, facilities, YouTubers, political activists, and others, to make this switch. Drawing from low ready is a legacy training approach that needs to be abolished. If the IDPA and others want to run competitions from low ready, that’s one thing, self-defense carry needs to be practiced from the draw. This will force competence not just in drawing, time to muzzle on target, and shooting but will force less experienced shooters to consider more seriously the very limited window in which a self-defense encounter can present itself and the best carry option for them, not the easiest, but best.

There are several drills at this link; the two most basic entries are mentioned below.

Do the 5×5 from the holstered position, not low-ready. Attaining 5 seconds may not be doable for the 5×5 drill, but taking longer than five seconds, if realistic for real life, is what better training should simulate and prepare you to face.

Know Your Basics: 5×5

The 5×5 (or 5^5) drill is a true test of your foundational skills. If you do well, it’s a good reassurance that you have your basics covered, and a sign that pursuing intermediate to advanced drills may be a good idea. If you struggle with this drill, it can help you realize where improvement is needed. Remember, as nice as it is to see perfect drills, it’s also good to find out where you need to improve.

It’s simple: starting from a low-ready position, stand 5 yards from your target and fire 5 rounds within 5 seconds. Simple, right? The target usually has a five-inch diameter circle, but not always. The overall goal is to make all shots within the said circle.

If you want an added challenge, draw from the holster or try it four times in a row (passing would be 25 shots without missing).

Don’t Flinch: The Coin/Brass Drill

This drill is super simple and great for beginners. To do this drill you need an unloaded gun and a penny (or, alternatively, you can use spent brass). Rest the penny on [or near] your front sight so it’s balanced. Your goal is to aim and pull the trigger without letting the penny fall. This can be a great way to weed out flinching in beginners and help commit to squeezing the trigger properly. Trigger control is vital to hone, and you’ll find the further you are from a target during live fire, the more trigger control problems will become clear. Say it with us: dry fire is your friend.

I know some folks that carry a .380 pocket pistol as their primary weapon. I never thought much of this idea, although in testing this method some years ago, it is simple and comfortable but it was easy to see that it would not be the best option for me. If you are properly prepared and practice how to be safe with it, you can easily carry it concealed without drawing attention, which is the biggest plus. The main concern is the weapon falling out of your pocket, depending on the type of pants you wear. I hate those little in-pocket holsters. Drawing rapidly from those is awkward and slow.

I will say this without equivocation, I do not recommend off-body carry in a bag or purse, or fanny pack. Don’t do this! Learn to carry on your person.

Here are some other thoughts on IWB and Pocket carry.

Carrying a gun can be complicated. Not always, and not even most of the time, but sometimes life gets in the way. Sometimes that means changing how you dress, which can often cause issues when it comes to concealed carry. Deep concealment exists because certain clothes aren’t carry-friendly. When you find yourself in a less-than-stellar means of dress, you aren’t left with many options, and the two most consider are pocket carry or a tuckable IWB rig.

Today we are going to compare and contrast the two methods of concealed carry and try to dig into the advantages and disadvantages of both. This isn’t a contest where we declare option A is better than option B. Instead, we want to deliver the truth about both carry styles so you can make a more informed decision.

Upon a promotion at the day job, I found myself in a new style of dress, and that style wasn’t carry-friendly. This led me down the road to figuring out what best worked for me.

Deep Concealment Carry Methods

There are more than two ways to dive into deep concealment. We have options like ankle carry, the Phlster Enigma, belly bands, and more. In the future, we plan to explore more options, but to maintain focus, we are going to keep this conversation at pocket carry and tuckable IWB rigs.

Pocket Carry

Pocket carry has been around for about as long as guns have been. Back in the day, guns like the original Philadelphia Derringer were designed for the coat pocket. In the early 1900s, the idea of pocket carry was common enough that it made its way into the names of weapons. The Colt 1903 Pocket Hammerless, for example, emphasized pocket carry.

More at the link.