Articles by Herschel Smith

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.

All Outdoor.

Ideal twist rates produce a gyroscopic factor between 1.5 and 2.0.

Factors between 1.0 and 1.3 are marginally stable, but they’re generally considered too slow. Factors between 2.1 and 2.9 are fast, but stable and accurate. Factors above 3.0 are suitable, but not ideal. Climbing above 4.0 may cause over-stabilization of the round being fired, which can harm accuracy. The optimal twist rates for 5.56 and .223 loads are:

• 45-gr Varminter: 1:12 twist
• 55-gr (M193): 1:9 twist
• 62-gr (M855): 1:8 twist
• 77-gr (Mk262): 1:8 twist
• 80-gr Sierra Match: 1:7 twist
• 90-gr Sierra Match: 1:7 twist

The way I read the table, 1:9 twist rate is good for just about anything up to 77 grains.  I wouldn’t shoot anything above that in 5.56mm anyway.  Heavier bullets than that need to be .224 Valkyrie, 6mm ARC or 6.5 Grendel.  I once thought that .224 Valkyrie was a flash in the pan, but occasionally I do see it at Academy and Cabella’s.  It’s also possible to pick it up via Ammoseek.

I don’t have anything in that caliber and would not.  I like the 6mm ARC too much to switch to something less effective and versatile.

Via David Codrea, this piece from Bearing Arms.

I am an immigrant and a Second Amendment advocate myself, and two, I have also written about long-term threats posed to our right to keep and bear arms (shameless plug ahead!) in a book co-authored with Greg Camp: “Each One, Teach One: Preserving and protecting the Second Amendment in the 21st century and beyond.”

In the above work, I touched upon how immigration plays into the various threats to the Second Amendment, not because immigration per se is dangerous, but as a factor that compounds the mass ignorance which is the real threat. Most immigrants, unless they’re naturalized citizens, cannot vote. So, the unrelenting attacks on the Second Amendment cannot be attributed to immigrants because the mass ignorance lies in the body politic of natural-born American citizens, who are the absolute majority of voters in this country.

As expected, the comments in reaction to Smith’s video have their fair share of people who think that immigration itself is a problem. From my vantage point, I find it totally ironic because every single vocal gun control activist that I know is a white progressive and an umpteenth-generation American, some even being descendants of American revolutionaries. On the flip side, some of the most ardent supporters of the Second Amendment are immigrants, who have taken it upon themselves to do a job that many natural-born American citizens refuse to do: unapologetically defending the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

My religious roots, cultural background, and upbringing are all contrary to gun ownership. I grew up in India and was raised vegetarian in a religious Hindu family. People from my caste background historically have been academics and priests who don’t wield weapons. My grandfather is a Gandhian who was part of the nonviolent independence struggle against the British. Yet not only do I own guns, but I am also an evangelist for gun rights. How did that come to pass?

The gist of what I wrote in my book is that immigration, along with other factors, is a threat only if you let it be a threat. The core of my prescription for preserving and protecting the Second Amendment is outreach to groups that have historically not been associated with gun ownership, and included prominently in that are immigrants and new Americans.

This commentary has the unfortunate feel of something that would be published at Bearing Arms.

To begin with, he exaggerates the case when he implies that immigrants constitute some of the most ardent 2A supporters.  I’ve pointed out many times before that immigrants from south of the border – which comprises most of our immigration, both legal and illegal – oppose gun rights by some 75%, and vote that way when they have the chance.

Second, he exaggerates the case that it’s even possible to conduct the outreach he claims is our responsibility.  How?  Media?  Church?  Pamphlets?  Books?  Someone else owns the media.  Churches have gone to the dogs.  Pamphlets and books are for people who will take the time to read them.

Next, he misses the point (and exaggerates again) when he insinuates that any of the above is a good remedy for a world and life view contrary to the Christian world and life view.  Only an understanding of being designed in God’s image supports the notion of firearms ownership and covenant responsibility, blessings and curses.  Seeing the relationship between people and their government as a covenant that can be nullified is broken is unique and solely a Christian belief and doctrine.  No other world and life view has such a concept.  Not … a … single … one.  And I’ve studied them.  If the writer believes in the RKBA, he does so in spite of his Hindu upbringing, not because of it.

Finally, he implies that it’s my responsibility to educate and indoctrinate new immigrants in the virtues of firearms ownership, when in fact it’s safer, tidier, and has a much better chance of success to carefully husband our borders and allow only those in who already believe in the American system.

Why would someone claim anything different?  This is analogous to someone claiming that it’s our duty to marry unbelievers and then try to convert them.  But then there’s that whole issue of being “unequally yoked.”

This is a bad commentary from a very questionable source, and I remain disappointed in the quality of analysis coming out of Bearing Arms, from their disdain for open carry to [apparent] support for unfettered immigration.

In short, “is immigration bad for the second amendment?”  Short answer: yes.

Surprisingly, PJM has a piece on J. Gresham Machen’s “Christianity and Liberalism.”  It’s a quick read but a good piece to start the day.  Thie gem appears.

Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite the convictions of their parents, under the intimate control of experts appointed by the state, force them to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist.

A public-school system, if it means the providing of free education for those who desire it, is a noteworthy and beneficent achievement of modern times; but when once it becomes monopolistic it is the most perfect instrument for tyranny which has yet been devised. Freedom of thought in the middle ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective.

True, all of that.  I’m proud and pleased to say that I own a copy of Machen’s “The Origin of Paul’s Religion.”  At the time Machen taught, the liberal school of theology was promulgating the idiotic notion that Paul’s theology was at odds with, or an addition to, Christ’s theology.  Red Letter Christians, they are called.  You get to accept the words of Christ, but ignore everything else, especially all of Paul’s difficult teachings.

It makes a mockery of the unity of the Holy Writ, and Machen addresses the issue in the book.

By the way, Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism can be found in PDF version without even having to purchase it, if you don’t happen to have the small bit of money to get a hard back copy.  Nearing the conclusion of this brief book, he observes the following.

“The present is a time not for ease or pleasure, but for earnest and prayerful work. A terrible crisis unquestionably has arisen in the Church. In the ministry of evangelical churches are to be found hosts of those who reject the gospel of Christ. By the equivocal use of traditional phrases, by the representation of differences of opinion as though they were only differences about the interpretation of the Bible, entrance into the Church was secured for those who are hostile to the very foundations of the faith. And now there are some indications that the fiction of conformity to the past is to be thrown off, and the real meaning of what has been taking place is to be allowed to appear. The Church, it is now apparently supposed, has almost been educated up to the point where the shackles of the Bible can openly be cast away and the doctrine of the Cross of Christ can be relegated to the limbo of discarded subtleties.”

Maybe so (via David Codrea).

“In passing Senate Bill 41, today was a great victory for the Second Amendment. GRNC wishes to thank Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore, as well as sponsors and “main movers” of the bill including Sens. Danny Britt; Warren Daniel; and Jim Perry; and Reps. Destin Hall; Jay Adams; Hugh Blackwell; Allen Chesser; Kyle Hall; Bobby Hanig; Kelly Hastings; Neal Jackson; Keith Kidwell; Jeff, McNeely; Ben Moss; Mark Pless; Jason Saine; Carson Smith; plus Democrats who stood courageously: Marvin Lucas, Michael Wray, and Shelly Willingham, and finally the many others whose co-sponsorship and votes who made the victory possible. GRNC particularly thanks our members and supporters, whose thousands of emails and phone calls made this victory inevitable. We are confident that we will over-ride the inevitable veto by anti-freedom Governor Roy Cooper. Very soon, we will release more details of the vicious floor fight waged by Democrats to stop the bill, and the well-managed efforts Republican leadership used to stop it.”

Here’s another report.

And veto it [s]he will.  Roy Cooper (to whom I customarily refer to as “Goober Cooper”) is this administration’s boy toy.  After all, what would it look like to follow in Biden’s footsteps, only to get clocked in the head with repeal of permits for pistol purchases?

If you’ll recall, we’ve followed this for a while now, and while it was always going to pass, there was a question whether it could pass with a veto-proof majority.  According to Paul Valone, we’ve got a veto-proof majority.  So there, goober.  I’m glad to see the end of this ridiculous scheme.

One pistol, the other shotgun.

The Defender CCW is made from 7075 aluminum. “We did a lot of different material selection tests to find the optimal material. We found 7075 has some better impact characteristics than 6061,” Morell says …

I immediately proceeded to bash the front of the optic against the bench a dozen times. I loaded the gun and rechecked zero—it held. At 500 rounds, I once again bashed the front of the optic a dozen times and checked zero. At 1,000 rounds, I went back to hitting the front of the optic, but I didn’t go straight to checking zero this time.

I dropped the unloaded M&P 2.0 All Metal, weighing 30 ounces, optic down onto a concrete paver from chest height. I picked up the gun, checked for damage, and then checked zero at 15 yards. Not only did the CCW have no damage, it also held zero.

[ … ]

“I bet we have over 100,000 rounds of effective recoil testing on these. So, in addition to the drop durability, we have a lot of confidence in the entire electronics and mechanical design. We have some folks that we’ve given these out to for extended testing, and they have north of 40,000 rounds on them and they’re still running strong,” Morell says.

It appears to be rugged and it’s aesthetically relatively pleasing.

Here’s the catch.

The Defender CCW is made in China. Whether it’s American manufacturing pride, improved quality control, or avoiding supply chain issues, there are advantages to making a product on home soil. Of course, that would also come with a significant price increase.

It sells for $250.

Here’s an interesting idea for a shotgun optic if your gun isn’t designed for an optics attachment (most aren’t, although that’s changing).

If you’ve ever wanted to mount a red dot on your vent-ribbed shotgun but didn’t want to take the time to get it milled for a red dot, Burris has a new DIY solution for you. The new Burris SpeedBead Vent Rib Mount is an affordable solution for adapting your favorite shotgun for use with the Burris FastFire series of red dot sights without the need to permanently modify your shotgun.

It just attaches right to the rib.  The attachment device sells for $60 (no, not the Buris optic itself).  At Optics Planet that optic pictures sells for $380.

As one might expect, here’s another article on the destructiveness of feral hogs.  Homes, golf courses, farms, graveyards, you name it.  They destroy everything in their path.  Here’s the money quote for me.

Jamie Sugg, the Texas A&M Agrilife extension agent in Walker County told Houston Media last week: “It’s not a case of if you have a hog problem, but when. They are everywhere.”

I suspect this was referring to Texas, but it could just as well have been America.  It’s not a matter of if, but when you start suffering hog problems.

Okay we’ve covered this before.

So there is yet another post about magazine springs and whether they should be replaced, and if so, when.  This is in the same theme I wrote about several years ago when there was another little flurry of articles and posts about this.  I’m going to cover this ground one time for everyone.

Metal creep is caused from slippage of crystalline structures along boundary planes, whether FCC, BCC, or whatever.  One reader writes that “springs don’t wear out from compression.”  This is along the same lines as most of the [mistaken and incorrect] articles I linked the last time I addressed this issue that claimed that stainless steel doesn’t creep below the yield limit.

Do you know any piano tuners?  I do.  Yea, they have to go back a few days later and retune because of metal creep.  But most piano wires are carbon steel under high stress.  What about stainless steel?

Do not make the claim that stainless steel (like SS304) doesn’t suffer creep below the yield limit and at low temperatures.  Yes … it … does  (“In all tests at applied stress/yield strength ratios above 0.73 some plastic deformation was recorded”).

No offense, but don’t try to be an engineer if you’re not one. If you make the claim that SS304 (I presume the material of most magazine springs) doesn’t suffer from metal creep, you’d be wrong, and then you’d also be answering the question the wrong way.

The right way to look at the question is one of whether the creep is significant.  It usually isn’t, and it is less significant than for carbon steel.  It’s also not significant for applied stress/yield strength ratios lower than what the authors tested.  Where your specific magazine spring falls in this data set is best determined by the designer, not me (I don’t have drawings or any other design information).

Stop saying that it’s only the compression / decompression cycle that puts wear on springs.  Stop it.  Just stop.  That’s not true.

It … is … not … true.

It’s true enough that the compression / decompression cycle is fatigue wear, but it’s also true that this means slippage of the crystalline structures just like metal creep.

Again, the question is whether this creep is important under the specific design circumstances or not, whether the specifications are challenged or not.  It’s not about whether creep will occur.  It does, and it will, even if undetectable by you.

I’m not saying here that it’s a bad idea to leave your buffer spring compressed.  I’m not saying that it’s a bad idea to leave your magazines full of rounds.  Don’t misunderstand what I’m asserting.  I’m not even asserting that Brownells was wrong in their conclusions, even if they didn’t do all of the necessary analysis to properly arrive at their conclusions.

I am asserting that the justification for whether you do or don’t leave springs compressed has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the spring undergoes a compression / decompression cycle while it’s in the configuration it’s in.

It has to do with a materials and structural engineering analysis that most people don’t do (and probably don’t need to do), and which Brownells didn’t do for the video above.

This may sound like a nit, but not to an engineer.