Articles by Herschel Smith

Stephen Halbrook at Reason.

“Not wanting to itself cherry pick the history,” Judge Reeves concludes, “the Court now asks the parties whether it should appoint a historian to serve as a consulting expert in this matter. … This Court is acquainted with the historical record only as it is filtered through decisions of the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals.” Those decisions would be a good start, except that he seems to think that the Supreme Court got it wrong.

[ … ]

Judge Roger Benitez expressed skepticism about “experts” in a hearing on December 12 in Duncan v. Bonta, the California magazine ban case that Bruen remanded for reconsideration. The historical documents that matter are enacted laws, ordinances, regulations, and the like. He ordered the State to prepare an Excel spreadsheet of the laws they consider to be historical analogues to present-day magazine bans, including dates of enactment and repeal and any judicial decisions on their constitutionality. The plaintiffs could then file a rebuttal.

[ … ]

Perhaps we need a reminder from Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803): “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” Judges may not defer to “experts” to advise what the law is. “Do your job,” as New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick famously said.

Yea, I read that dummy’s statements when he made them.  He sounded like a second grader trying to write coherent sentences.  By contrast, Judge Roger Benitez is both a scholar and historian, but the thing that makes his decisions on the second amendment right is that they are right.

Do we appoint historians as experts in second amendment cases?  No.  Historians are biased too, and many reach the wrong conclusions.  Everyone takes his pre-theoretical commitments to his work, or his axiomatic irreducibles.  I don’t trust historians in general any more than I trust judges, especially as “educated” by modern universities.

We decide second amendment cases per the words of the second amendment, noting the milieu in which it was written, and remembering how idiotic it would have been for them to have just gotten finished fighting a revolution against King George with weapons they owned – risking their lives, families and fortunes – and then turned around and inflicted their own people with gun control laws.

Seen at All Outdoors.

See the source for the rest of the story.

Well, it’s certainly different and might be an interesting addition to a lever action collection, but at an MSRP of $2000, why would anyone do this?

I had never really thought about this.  It makes perfect sense, although if you hunt in the South, the temperatures just don’t get as cold as they do where he is shooting.

Nonetheless, it makes sense to sight your right in with ambient temperature about the same as when you expect to be hunting.  Carrying ammunition close to your body as he suggests would also be an option.

On another note, I like that shooting range with the CCTV monitor there so he could turn around to view his target.  I’d like to shoot there.

Very nice and informative video.

I love it too.  They also bring up what we’ve discussed so many times before, i.e., the virtue of having a handgun and carbine in the same caliber, getting higher muzzle velocity out of the carbine than the handgun.

And by the way, I’m still waiting on that invitation to a hunting trip with Ryan.

Frankly I think I’d rather just stick to a rifle.  But this is useful information if you live in a north midwestern state.

I see someone in the comments posed the question I thought of: what if this test had been done using different wadding, such as Federal Flitecontrol?  Someone ought to send him some ammo to test this question.

I really don’t know much about this whole issue, except that GWACS is an anti-gun organization which serves as a funnel for lawsuits against gun manufacturers.  They apparently paid for some of the information owned by K E Arms some number of years ago, no longer exist, and K E Arms (who didn’t sign a non-compete) is making their polymer lowers as they always have.

Enter the lawyers.  GWACS sued K E Arms, and this source and this source provides some background.

Now, for perhaps the nail in the coffin for GWACS, Ian explains what crowd-sourcing can do to things like this.

Source.

Alabama on Jan. 1 will become the latest state to allow people to carry a concealed handgun without a state permit that requires a background check.

The new state law ends the requirement for a person to get a permit to legally carry a concealed handgun in public. A person can still choose to get a permit if they want to do so.

The proposal had been introduced unsuccessfully for years in Montgomery, before winning approval this year. The legislation was championed by gun rights advocates who call it “constitutional carry,” in reference to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Opponents, including state sheriffs and others in law enforcement, argued the permits help combat crime and enhance public safety.

[ … ]

The Alabama Sheriffs Association had opposed the legislation. “Alabama sheriffs are clear on the law taking effect Jan. 1 and have adjusted accordingly,” said Lee County Sheriff Jay Jones, president of the Alabama Sheriffs’ Association

Jones and Stringer said there are still reasons a person might consider getting a permit. Jones said, “maintaining an Alabama concealed carry permit is wise when traveling out of state; reciprocity applies — other states may require non-residents to have a permit from their state of residence.”

Boss Hogg won’t be happy with the loss of control or the loss of revenue from the permitting scheme.  But there is this dark language in the law.

Lawmakers included language in the new law reiterating an officer’s ability to temporarily take a handgun during a traffic stop or other investigation. An officer with a reasonable suspicion that a person was about to engage in criminal conduct can temporarily take a handgun and run it through databases to see if the gun was stolen.

An officer could also temporarily take a weapon if it is necessary for the safety of the officer or others. The weapon must be returned unless there is an arrest, or the person is posing a safety threat.

If I’m not mistaken, South Carolina also had to include that language to get open carry passed (constitutional carry still awaits further legislative action).

We’ve discussed this before.  It’s the height of stupidity to touch another man’s weapon.  Don’t do it.  Just don’t.

There is the risk of negligent discharge (and Lord knows there have been plenty of those where LEOs were the ones responsible).  There is the risk of dropping the weapon (which is a problem if someone tries to catch it).  And if no one tries to catch it, a weapon gets scratched and banged up, reducing the resale value of the firearm.  There are various and sundry types of handguns, from no safety, to pistols with trigger brush-guards, to 1911s with a classic safety, SA only, DA/SA pistols, pistols that may have been modified by their owner, etc., etc.

No one can know everything, and to assume that a weapon can exchange hands in all cases without unsafe things happening is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

That language is more likely to cause safety problems than make anyone safer.  There are exceptions of course, when all the rules of gun safety have been and are being followed, there isn’t a round in the chamber, no one muzzle flags anyone else, and so forth, as if you were at the range.  But in such a case, why does exchanging control of the weapon make anyone safer?

Do … not … touch … another … man’s … firearm.  Period.  If it’s being left alone, then continue to leave it alone.  That language in the law is idiotic.

Field & Stream has the details.

From my perspective, the new Bushnell scope fills a niche, i.e., a high power FFP scope with a large objective lens for taking in light, at a reasonable price.  The Crimson Trace scope does not.  Who needs a 1-10X28mm tactical scope for a price of $649?

I’m most interested in the German Precision Optics reflex pistol red dot sight.  It’s targeted towards pistols, but would be good for tactical or turkey hunting shotguns as well in my view.

F&S says it has a battery life of 25,000 hours, while GPO says it has 40,000 hours.  The price point is good at $379.  It’s a good competitor to the Trijicon RMR.

But when they says new, they mean new.  I haven’t found availability of this new optic anywhere.

One final question remains, and that is the footprint.  According to GPO it has the Leupold DeltaPoint interface.  This source says that Leupold DeltaPoint is compatible with the RMR footprint, while this site more assertively states that it has the RMR footprint.

If any knowledgeable reader has this optic or the Leupold DeltaPoint optic, and can confirm that it can be installed over the RMR footprint, that would be appreciated.

I like being confronted by things I’ve never thought about before – or in other words, I like to learn.  This is one of those many things.

My take: No glass is perfect, especially the less expensive glass used for fixed magnification sights (1X) and red dot optics.  There will be some parallax, refraction, and lack of clarity.

Think about how you want to set zero on your rifle for later use with only iron sights.  What Reid is saying is that you may not be able to co-witness the irons with the glass if both are to be correct.

Good point.  I’d like to take one of Reid’s classes.

NYT.

The Biden administration is closing a major loophole in a new federal rule intended to regulate the sale of pistol parts that can readily be turned into untraceable homemade firearms, in an aggressive expansion of its crackdown on so-called ghost guns.

On Tuesday, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives directed vendors who sell partially finished frames of Glock-style handguns — the pistol grip and firing mechanism — to treat them like fully completed firearms, which are subject to federal regulations. The move, outlined in an open letter to federally licensed gun dealers, requires sellers to mark the parts with serial numbers, and for buyers to undergo criminal background checks.

The guidance could severely restrict the sale of unregulated and untraceable “80 percent” frames and receivers that have been linked to thousands of crimes, a top goal of the gun control movement. Such parts only require simple alterations to become operational.

The move, should it survive likely legal challenges from gun rights groups, would be among the most significant executive actions President Biden has taken to fulfill his campaign promise to stem the scourge of handgun violence, an effort highlighted by the passage of a bipartisan gun deal in June.

But federal officials told The New York Times earlier this month that the leadership of A.T.F. had done little to stop retailers from continuing to sell the unfinished, unregulated frames, outside of the kits.

A.T.F. officials said that they had been simply weighing various legal approaches before issuing their guidance on handguns. But they were also clearly under pressure to toughen the policy, and have spent the past few weeks working on the new guidance in conjunction with senior lawyers at the Justice Department and White House officials, according to three administration officials familiar with the situation.

Under the new guidance, vendors and manufacturers who fail to comply with the technical requirements outlined in the letter would face penalties ranging from the possible loss of their federal licenses to criminal prosecution.

Yet the move, which the Justice Department described as a clarification of the regulation, is not without risk. Because the rule was created through executive action, rather than a statute validated by Congress, it has given companies confidence that they can keep selling individual gun parts.

Administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss possible litigation, said the new guidance would almost certainly be challenged in federal court on the grounds that it violates the Gun Control Act of 1968, which allows people to build firearms for their personal use without submitting to background checks or applying serial numbers.

Isn’t it a hoot how, when a regulation, law, or lack of regulation or law, doesn’t do exactly what some controller – rulemaker wants it to do, it’s considered a “loophole?”

Biden is just doing what Trump did in his precedent-setting move to ban bump stocks by rulemaking rather than forcing the Congress to do their job.

Biden’s plan may in fact suffer from an even further weakness, i.e., it explicitly contradicts another law.

How sweet.  Queue up the popcorn – the court cases will prove to be numerous and amusing.