Articles by Herschel Smith

This is a sickening video.  For heaven’s sake – it’s a golden retriever.  It’s a golden!  How is that guy in any danger?  Have you ever been around goldens before?  That dog was desperate to make a new friend, that’s all.

That idiot cop deserved all of the opprobrium he got, and much more.

*WARNING* – a dog gets shot in this video

Ohio cop shoots harmless golden retriever with its tail waging then continues shooting the dog as it flees the violent officer and Dixie (the dog) ultimately dies.

The neighbors instantly react the way they do because it's so obvious… pic.twitter.com/TL9Iw8a2oZ

— Mrgunsngear (@Mrgunsngear) July 7, 2023

I just don’t know what to say any more.  Perhaps people will start to wise up rather than the usual, silly, mistaken “back the blue” mantra we hear everywhere.  Heroes of the community.

I have tried so hard to explain to those who would listen that you simply cannot keep up the same things and have any community respect at all.  Universal hatred of you and what you do will be dangerous for you, making you even more paranoid and mentally unstable than you currently are.

I’ve given suggestions to the police before and then even again.  Work as a hired hand on a farm or ranch, or even better, be a volunteer to some farmer or rancher who needs the help.  Learn to bale hay; lean to be a Farrier; learn to doctor animals; learn to train dogs; learn to care for animals.

But it seems that they hire the lowest IQ, least mentally stable, and most dangerous to mankind and beasts they can find.  As long as this is the case, they will only increase community hatred for themselves.

Again I say, you’re never in more danger than when the police are around.  Get away from them as quickly as possible – you, your family and your beasts.  There is never a situation so bad and so dire that it cannot be made worse by the presence of the police.

As for me, I know how to handle dogs, and I would have been buddies with that dog in less than a second.  I’m not a dog handler (although I could be), I’m just a normal American male.  Cops apparently are not.

Really.  This video is what it seems.  Someone is feeding a black bear a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.  I would surmise that the bear has a higher IQ than the folks at the event.

In related news, a black bear attacks hikers and dogs near the Blue Ridge Parkway.

I didn’t know that seals surf!

I didn’t know that Armadillos could swim!

That’s quite a handoff!

One bird is not like the other!

She gave food to a hungry fox, and next time he brought his buddies.

I think the leopard chose the wrong snack.

I think the leopard chose the wrong snack again.  This seems to be a recurring problem for them.

The Buffaloes didn’t like the lions any more than the infant elephant.

Yes, moose really are that big!

Never realized how massive meese are 😳 pic.twitter.com/vDifUQ7qjm

— OddIy Terrifying (@OTerrifying) July 4, 2023

Via WoG, Idaho Dispatch.

The Independence Day parade is back in the city of Boise.

The parade was gone for a few years. This year, a new group has come together to host the event.

The information about the event can be found on the new website, Idaho 4th of July Parade from Boise (boise4th.com)

Participants have been preparing their floats and entries for the event, which is now just a few days away. Dated June 27, but sent out June 28, just 6 days ahead of the festivities, an email landed in their inboxes that caused some to pause.

The organizers of the parade have decided to add an addendum to the rules that were originally sent to entrants. The text of the addendum reads,

“Additionally, in consultation with local public safety officials, the parade organizers add the following parade entry requirement which all entries must follow:

No open carry of weapons or firearms will be permitted. The only exception to this is sworn law enforcement officers, uniformed military Honor Guard personnel or those participating in an authorized armed Color Guard.

This additional parade entry requirement ensures the focus on the parade’s intent to safely celebrate our Nation’s founding. The parade organizers greatly appreciate your adherence to this amended entry requirement.”

Greg Pruett of the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance responded to the addendum email sent to parade participants by saying,

“Just as we anticipated, the Supreme Court’s decision to undermine the right to keep and bear arms on public property in Idaho has already begun. Of all the days for the organizers of the parade to put restrictions on the second amendment, it has to be on “Independence Day.” These restrictions by private organizations on public property is only going to get worse. How long before Mayor McLean decides that all Boise city parks will be ran by a nonprofit organization who will then ban firearms throughout the city. It’s coming, unless the legislature acts and fixes the problem.”

Pruett is referencing the Idaho Supreme Court decision that came out just days ago. Idaho Dispatch reported on that here: Breaking: ISAA Loses in Idaho Supreme Court, Calls For Special Session of the Idaho Legislature – Idaho Dispatch

Maybe the Idaho supreme court should read state law too.  Idaho is a preemption state.  Cities, town, townships, etc., cannot be more restrictive than state law.

Really folks.  This is Idaho.  Idaho.

Let me address the Louisville case second in reverse order from the appearance of the videos.  The second video is about a man being told what to do and how he can behave on his own property.  Vermont is a communist state, in case you were unaware.

Now to the Louisville case.  The ban was ruled unconstitutional under state law, but that’s not what I wanted to observe here.  He goes to great lengths to expose this individual as an idiot for shooting warning shot into the air, and then again a second time, explaining that no one should ever do that and certainly no one who watches his channel.

Well, whatever.  I wasn’t there so I don’t know.  I would discourage random shooting into the air too, but would point out that a bullet will reach terminal velocity with no more increase after that.  I wonder what his viewers think happens when an object is thrown into the air?

Anyway, look at it from his perspective.  If he had been required to take a shot at a person to defend his life, he would have gotten a visit from the police, been handcuffed, spent some time in prison, and had to spend perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars on a good defense attorney, and then still perhaps lost the case and spent the rest of his life in prison.  And no, being a member of USCCA doesn’t guarantee anything, even if you’re innocent.

As it is now, he is not in prison, no one was shot, no one is dead, and the court found in his favor over the charge of discharging a firearm within the city limits (preemption was the issue).

So who’s the idiot, again?

It would be nice if the justices saw Garland’s ploy for what it is, i.e., to amend the protocol in the NYSRPA v. Bruen case (analogue laws at the time of the founding as the only justification for a gun control law today).  Garland and the rest of the communists in NY, Illinois, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and elsewhere utterly hate the Bruen decision. You see, they know the Bruen test should force them to lose the case, but they are going for the sympathy vote, and if they get it, the SCOTUS will have violated its on standard, thus modifying the Bruen protocol.

It would be nice if the SCOTUS didn’t just ignore the fact that Rahimi is a fairy bad actor and celebrate it as an example of constitutional protections for everyone, not just those whom the communists feel have good moral character.  That standard is malleable and will go to serve no one’s interests except for the communists.

But I doubt that all of the justices who voted in the affirmative for Bruen will find the same way in Rahimi.  I doubt that Roberts, Barrett and Cavanaugh will be on our side.

Mark Smith breaks the case down.

American Hunter.

Anything that .22 LR can do, .22 WMR can do better, in a bolt gun, at least. While the magnum rimfire shines in manually operated actions, getting it to run reliably in a semi-auto is a rather large ask. The problem lies in the cartridge’s power factor, as it is too high for an unmodified blowback action yet not strong enough to operate a conventional gas-operated feeding system. Of the two, delaying a blowback system seems to yield the best results, but getting it there through simple means can be challenging. Challenges become motivation to a team of German engineers, and motivation becomes a product. Clear evidence of this concept can be found in the WMP, or Walther Magnum Pistol, a semi-automatic handgun chambered to fire classic .22 Magnum.

That seems to be the issue requiring the engineering, yes?  Cartridges that are too powerful (with powder that burns too long like a rimfire cartridge) for the slide to be opened prematurely lest the shooter get injured and/or the bullet lose velocity, versus the opposite concern of running a full size gas operated gun.  Walther solved that problem.

So the big question, what makes it run? Surprisingly, not much. While most German products are overengineered to a fault, the WMP simply utilizes the hammer mechanism to provide the delay needed to hold the pistol together while firing. All it took was getting the weight of the hammer and spring tensions just right. This leaves us with fewer failure points that ultimately add production costs to the firearm, resulting in a win for everybody.

Like most rimfires, this pistol has ammo that it’s going to like and ammo that it isn’t going to like. Much respect goes to Walther for not shying away from this fact but instead embracing it by listing a large cross-sample of what works and doesn’t work right on the website. While I am not too proud to take advice from a manufacturer, I couldn’t stick strictly to the list. However, I was confident that my choices would function well enough for paper punching. After rounding up three different ammunition weights, I slapped a Primary Arms SLx RS-10 mini reflex sight to the gun and headed out to the range.

It’s set up with an RMR footprint, which amusingly makes the optic cost as much as the gun.

We decided that the best distance to test this rimfire was 25 yards, as most squirrel and rabbit engagements happen right around this distance. However, for fun, I set up 8-inch AR-500 gongs at 50 and even 100 yards just to see how far I could push things. Starting with the Federal Game-Shok load, I snugged up a sandbag rest and sent my first round downrange. Expecting some sort of muzzle flip, I was delighted with how flat the gun shot. Typically when a bore axis sits that far above the hand, things get jumpy, but this just wasn’t the case. After firing my second shot, I had an accuracy concern, as I couldn’t spot an additional hit on paper. After clearing the pistol and walking downrange, I realized that the reason I couldn’t find it was because it was in the same hole as the first! Returning to my shooting point, I fired three more shots and turned in a group that measured just 1.10 inches. Things only got tighter from that point, with groups measuring as small as .81 inch, rivaling the accuracy of handguns that cost several times more. The other two types of ammunition also shot rather well, and all three made it through the test without a hiccup.

Stepping away from the bench, I decided to push out to the 50-yard target, which this gun had no trouble covering with a good two-handed shooting position. Even plopping rounds onto the 100-yard gong was relatively effortless, leaving more on the shooter than the firearm itself. Through it all, the muzzle stayed just about parallel to the ground, allowing me an unobstructed view of my impacts. That’s important in the field, as we need to be able to see if we struck that unassuming tree rat and he fell or if we whizzed one past his head and he ran up the back of the tree. As I digested magazine after magazine of ammo, I experimented with the Quad Release mag-catch system. I found the paddles to be a terrific option for gloved hands, while the button-style frame release provided a familiar feel. The best part is that no matter what you are used to already, there is zero learning curve in this department.

After exhausting more than 200 rounds of ammunition, my day on the range came to a close. I found the WMP to be accurate beyond words and reliable enough for the type of high-volume shooting that accompanies a good small-game hunt. It also makes an excellent pistol for bigger critters like opossums and raccoons, as it has the energy to dispatch them humanely with a single shot.

He also shot 30 grain bullets which runs counter to Walther advice, but he did it with no problems (except that I saw his groups opened up a bit with the lighter bullets, but of course his MV was higher too).  Otherwise, his accuracy was outstanding.

My goodness this summer is hot where I am (that smoke from all the fires Trudeau is starting doesn’t help either).  Fall and winter can’t get here fast enough.  I’m already day dreaming about being in the bush on a hunt.  Speaking of this, F&S has a useful image concerning what deer see.

Compared to humans, deer do not see reds and oranges well, but they do see greens and blues.  Of course, green and brown are colors in the bush, as well as red and orange during the change of leaves.  But the stark reminder is that you simply don’t wear blue.  Pretty much everything else looks pretty bland to a deer.

Keeping your orange hat on is probably okay, if you don’t mind the lack of pattern (I usually wear mine to the stand or wherever else I’m hunting and then shed it for a better one – DNR will cite you with a violation if they see you traipsing around the bush without orange on somewhere, but for upland bird hunting it simply doesn’t matter what you wear as long as your legs can stand briars).  This also means that little red strip attaching gaiters to your boots or other company logo they like to put there (red symbol on camo shirts) won’t be seen by deer.

This is a great discussion.

Source.

Fire threats and environmental concerns have prompted some US cities to forego traditional Fourth of July fireworks in favor of spectacular drone light shows this year.

Salt Lake City, Utah, tried out the alternative way of celebrating Independence Day on Saturday with its first-ever drone show.

The city’s mayor, Erin Mendenhall, said in a news release the new format marked an effort to minimize the area’s “high fire danger” and to lessen air quality problems caused by pyrotechnics.

“As temperatures rise and fire danger increases, we must be conscientious of both our air quality and the potential for wildfires,” Mendenhall said in the release.

Utah has an average of 800 to 1,000 wildfires each year, and the state is among the most wildfire-prone in the US, according to the Utah Department of Public Safety.

In neighboring Colorado, also in its wildfire season, the City of Boulder made a similar decision this year with its first-ever nighttime drone show next week.

Blah, blah, blah.  Nothing is ever good enough for these people.  Did they call up mother Gaia before making that decision?

On another front, there is a question when the celebration is really supposed to occur.

Sunday, July 2, is the 247th anniversary of the Continental Congress voting to secede from the British Crown. That’s right, July 2 is America’s actual Independence Day.

The Declaration of Independence was approved/signed on July 4. But two days earlier, on July 2, the Continental Congress passed the resolution submitted by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, declaring that we were independent of Britain. This simple resolution was a stirring call to throw off the bonds of tyranny …

In the meantime, Congress appointed a committee to write a formal declaration of independence. Its members were John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. Jefferson, the best writer in the group, was the document’s primary author. Jefferson’s document read like a mission statement for the revolution and set up how this nation would be different from others—the people’s rights don’t come from the government. They come from God. The document was first presented to Congress for review on June 28, 1776.

After voting for independence on July 2, Congress turned its attention to finalizing the declaration. Over several days of debate, Congress made some alterations to the text, including adding the wording of Lee’s resolution of independence to the conclusion. The text of the declaration was approved by Congress on July 4 and sent off to be printed.

Then for me the case is clear.  July 4th is really the day of celebration.  They could have changed their minds in the mean time, but didn’t, and formally approved the declaration on July 4th.

As for the drone, eh, whatever.  Drones are cool, but they’re not fireworks.  I’ll stick with John Adams.

It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.

Whether it’s celebrated on July 2nd or July 4th, it should be celebrated with illuminations from one end of the continent to the other.

Boulder can keep its drones.

As you know the SCOTUS has granted certiorari to US versus Rahimi.  It’s interesting to see just how this debate is framed by the likes of Vox.

Last February, the far-right United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a federal law prohibiting individuals from “possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order” is unconstitutional. On Friday, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear this case.

It is fairly likely that the justices will reverse the Fifth Circuit’s extraordinary decision — as many as six current members of the Court have signaled that, while some of them support an expansive reading of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Rahimi goes too far. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has endorsed some prohibitions on gun possession by people who have not been convicted of a felony, including laws prohibiting people with serious mental illnesses from owning guns. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, wrote when she was still a lower court judge that “legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns.”

A more uncertain question is whether the Court will use the Rahimi case to impose some coherence on the incomprehensible approach to the Second Amendment that it announced just one year ago in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).

Bruen held that huge swaths of US gun laws must fall unless the government can prove that “the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” And it instructed judges to determine whether a particular challenged gun law is consistent with this tradition by searching for “historical analogies” in early American firearm regulations.

In practice, however, it is often impossible to draw precise analogies between today’s gun laws and those from two centuries ago, because both American society and firearms technology have changed so much since the Second Amendment was ratified.

[ … ]

Or consider, for that matter, the law at issue in Rahimi, which prohibits many individuals who are “subject to a court order” that restrains them from “harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner” from possessing a gun. Notably, this law applies to individuals who have not yet been convicted of a crime, but who have had a court proceeding that determined they are a danger to their partner or their partner’s children.

The dummy who wrote this tripe for Vox has framed the question the wrong way.  I don’t know the likely outcome of the decision at the supreme court when they write it, but this isn’t the way it works.  Leaving aside the issue of whether this was a criminal or civil case (it was a civil case), there is the issue of how the retraining orders are typically issued.

They don’t decide the case before it’s tried.  That would violate due process rights.  So courts don’t simply restrain the offending party (whomever that is – that is yet to be determined because the case hasn’t been adjudicated).  Restraining orders are issued for both parties.  The fifth circuit spoke directly to that issue.

But “[t]hese judicial assessments have often led to the issuance of unmerited mutual restraining orders, namely in situations where one party is the abuser and the other party is a victim.” Id. (emphasis added). As a result, “both parties are restrained even if only one is an abuser.” Id. at 1055 (emphasis added). See also Elizabeth Topliffe, Why Civil Protection Orders Are Effective Remedies for Domestic Violence but Mutual Protective Orders Are Not, 67 Ind. L.J. 1039, 1055–56 (1992) (“[J]udges often issue a mutual protection order without any request from the respondent or his lawyer. . . . [J]udges and lawyers . . . may be tempted to resort to mutual protective orders frequently. However, when they do this in cases where there truly is one victim and one batterer, they ignore some of the real difficulties of mutual protection orders.”). See generally David Hirschel, Nat’l Criminal Justice Reference Serv., Domestic Violence Cases: What Research Shows About Arrest and Dual Arrest Rates (2008).

The net result of all this is profoundly perverse, because it means that § 922(g)(8) effectively disarms victims of domestic violence. What’s worse, victims of domestic violence may even be put in greater danger than before. Abusers may know or assume that their victims are law-abiding citizens who will comply with their legal obligation not to arm themselves in self-defense due to § 922(g)(8). Abusers might even remind their victims of the existence of § 922(g)(8) and the entry of a mutual protective order to taunt and subdue their victims. Meanwhile, the abusers are criminals who have already demonstrated that they have zero propensity to obey the dictates of criminal statutes. As a result, § 922(g)(8) effectively empowers and enables abusers by guaranteeing that their victims will be unable to fight back.

Perverse indeed.  But the controller who wrote this silly commentary doesn’t care about a victim’s right to fight back and duty to self defense because controllers hate people, themselves included.

So if the supreme court falls for this and curtails 2A rights, they’ve fallen victim themselves to the treacherous behavior of the thug AG for this administration.