Articles by Herschel Smith

First of all, I don’t think 18″ of penetration for .22 magnum is as “one-off” as he’s saying.  I think it’s fairly typical.

Second, nothing that I saw dissuades me from believing that .22 magnum is a viable and legitimate personal defense round.

Third, I’d carry (and have carried) both 9mm and .22 magnum for PD before, and will do so again.

Finally, I’d like to see the same test in Gold Dot ammunition.

I don’t usually link to NRA articles anymore, mainly just their firearms news.  However, this was interesting and informative.

First, at the Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show, ATF confirmed that braces that are removed from firearms do not necessarily have to be destroyed or altered in a way that prevents them from being reattached to a firearm. While the rule claims that destruction or alteration is required for owners who choose the option of simply removing the brace from their firearm, that requirement would be contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.

Under Thompson/Center, possession of a firearm and parts that can only be assembled into an NFA “firearm” constitutes possession of an NFA firearm. But, if the parts can be assembled into multiple lawful configurations, then the parts are not considered an NFA firearm (unless an unlawful configuration is actually assembled).

This should mean that a person who possesses an AR-15 pistol with a stabilizing brace and also possesses a 16-inch barreled upper receiver and/or a registered NFA lower should be able to keep the brace without destroying it or altering it. But, a person who only possesses a pistol with a stabilizing brace may have to dispose of or alter the brace to avoid creating an NFA firearm (in ATF’s view).

Other than making remarks to its own readership, I don’t know what – if anything – the NRA is doing about all of this except buying Wayne new suits.

In what may be one of the earliest in many complaints filed, Firearms Policy Coalition legal action in the pistol brace rulemaking.

It can be found here: Mock v. Garland.

The Milwaukee-based Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty also filed a federal lawsuit in Texas.

Perhaps some enterprising reader/contributor would locate this PDF for us and drop it in the comments.

Source.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said in the new assessment that other government reports that millions of gun owners will be impacted are wrong by huge margins.

What’s more, the agency said in a 95-page impact analysis of its 293-page rule regulating AR-style pistols that most owners will give in and register their guns despite online campaigns calling for a mass boycott of the new rules and threats from Congress and Second Amendment groups to immediately file suits to stop implementation of the changes.

[ … ]

Opponents, citing industry data and even the bipartisan Congressional Research Service, have claimed that the rule will impact millions of gun owners and up to 40 million firearms.

But in the impact statement, ATF said those figures are inflated. It estimated that just three million people might be impacted.

It estimated that of those with the firearms, 826,000 will decide to register their 1.6 million weapons with the rest turning them into ATF or destroying or altering them.

Oh my.  The only really bad thing about this report is that it’s out there for public consumption.

I think that information is way, way off.  It doesn’t account for the numbers of ARs with < 16″ barrels that have been sold, the number that have been built, and the number of existing ARs that have been modified by replacing a 16″ barrel with a 12.5″ barrel (by a simple order and shipment from a machine shop).

Moreover, the notion that half of them will register their guns while the other half turns them in to the ATF or destroys them is simply ridiculous.

But I don’t really think the ATF believes this analysis, do you?

Source.

Florida is set to become the 26th state to allow citizens to carry firearms without a permit under legislation outlined Monday by Republican House Speaker Paul Renner.

[ … ]

Renner spearheaded the press conference, a signal it’s a clear top priority for the speaker, but the bill is being sponsored by state Rep.Chuck Brannan (R-Lake City) and state Sen. Jay Collins (R-Tampa). Lawmakers did not formally file a bill at the time of the news conference but are expected to by Monday afternoon.

[ … ]

The proposal does not address whether people will be allowed to openly carry firearms in public. Under current Florida law, gun owners are not allowed to carry guns in the open.

In 2021, Texas approved a similar “open carry” law that allows most gun owners 21 and over to carry a handgun in a holster without a permit. The Texas law allows citizens to carry the gun in the open or concealed.

Well, they may as well go back to the drawing board if “the only ones” are the only ones who can carry openly.  This is a huge touchstone for me.

Do you want to hear why this whole effort is likely to fail?  Via David Codrea.

But word in the halls of the Capitol in Tallahassee is that Republican lawmakers don’t want to advance Constitutional Carry to the Governor. They’d rather advance a watered-down bill that would keep the permit requirements in place. Why? Because a number of these so-called Republicans are anti-gun, or to more bluntly put it, they’re anti-civil rights. Very recently, Gun Owners of America worked hard with the chairman of a county level Republican Executive Committee in the panhandle of Florida to advance a Constitutional Carry resolution. The resolution passed with one vote. The Republican members of that REC who voted against it did so because they were against the idea of “criminals” carrying firearms. And by “criminals,” they meant people of color.

Criminals will always carry firearms if they want to, moron.

Yes, you read that right, there are Republicans who voted against advancing a resolution that supports Constitutional Carry because they don’t want people of color to be able to exercise their inalienable rights. They defended the Jim Crow era gun control and specifically brought up the killing of an ex-confederate town marshal as a reason why gun control needs to be kept in place. Yes, they used the example of a former confederate being killed over a century ago as a reason why we need to have restrictions on the carrying of arms.

They didn’t want Constitutional Carry nor Open Carry to pass because the idea of their minority neighbors being armed scared them. They claimed that the laws on the books, the very laws that bar people from carrying without a permit, keeps criminals from being criminals. Yet one of those who voted against it is a retired judge who proudly stated to the room that he currently carries without a permit and openly violates state law. But, he is against Constitutional Carry. This is the fight that Gun Owners of America and Florida’s gun owners are facing across Florida. Republicans who campaign on being pro-gun, are anti-gun; and they’re anti-gun because they’re anti-liberty. This was the fight that Gun Owners of America and Florida’s gun owners faced back in June 2022 to get the Republican Party of Florida to pass the following resolution to support Constitutional Carry.

It was a hard fight to get that resolution passed. But pass it did. And now, you have Republican lawmakers wanting to make the Governor look bad by scuttling the passage of true Constitutional Carry. Gov. DeSantis pledged that he would enact Constitutional Carry in Florida before he leaves office—whether that means 2024 or 2026. The Governor pledged to Floridians that he would make sure our rights would be properly restored and that the stain of Jim Crow bigotry would be removed from the fabric that is our state.

We’ve heard this story before.  Recall why the South Carolina senators and house members “low state” around the Charleston area were always opposed to open carry?  Near the tourist city of Charleston!  No, they always voted against it, and did so when open carry recently passed.  I listened to the debate and watched the votes online that day so I could report on it.

And Charleston is still a tourist city today.

Give me a break from the stupid please.  Please.  I can’t take any more stupid.

Tenth Amendment Center.

Two bills filed in the South Carolina House would legalize permitless carry in the state. The enactment of a so-called “constitutional carry” bill would also foster an environment more hostile to federal gun control.

Rep. Bobby Cox (R) and 61 Republican cosponsors prefiled House Bill 3594 (H3594) on Dec. 15. Rep. Thomas Beach (R) filed House Bill 3612 (H3612) on Jan. 11.

The bills differ in language, but essentially allow anyone who is legally allowed to own a gun to carry it without a state-issued license, while providing restrictions on carrying a firearm, concealed or not, in certain public places. South Carolina would continue issuing concealed carry permits for those who want them in order to take advantage of CCDW reciprocity in other states.

Currently, South Carolina gun owners must first attend training through a certified South Carolina CWP instructor before they can get a permit.

The bill seeks to repeal numerous sections of state law relating to the carrying of firearms. At the same time, it imposes restrictions on where a person can carry a firearm, concealed or not. That includes police stations, courthouses, polling locations, daycares, and preschools.

As I previously mentioned in a previous post, I watched the entirety of the debate in the S.C. Senate as South Carolina passed open carry.  At that time, constitutional carry was narrowly defeated.

I knew at that time constitutional carry wasn’t dead in S.C. and that the bills would be recapitulated this year.

Incrementalism.  It’s a good thing for us.  The progs know how to do it, we should have learned long ago.

The House will pass is fairly easily, I predict.  It will be tougher slogging in the S.C. senate.

This is a massively confused rant from a massively confused politician, a very incoherent rant indeed.

She begins by asserting that her cop husband puts on a uniform each and every day to protect and serve, and then posing the rhetorical question she doesn’t very much like, “If the police don’t arrive in time, what is a person supposed to do?”

She then goes on to rehearse a crime in her neighborhood where children perished, saying that the police arrived within two minutes and that didn’t save the children’s lives.

You heard that right.  The police are there to “protect and serve.”  I would remark that they only protect and serve to the extent that they follow the constitution, but that as I have remarked so many times before, cases like Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, Warren v. D.C., and DeShaney v. Winnebago County prove without question or caveat that it’s not the job of police to protect anyone.

It’s your job to protect yourself and your family.  This politician demonstrates again why that must be the case.  Police cannot arrive in time to prevent crime from being committed.  The time frame is too compressed.

And then after asserting that it’s the job of police to protect, against evidence to the contrary, she then asserts that it can’t ultimately be successful.

She goes on with this incoherence.  “Why should anyone be allowed to have a higher caliber, more powerful weapon, than my husband …”

So according to her, (1) police are there to protect.  (2) Police can’t protect you, therefore:  (3) You shouldn’t be allowed to have weapons that match his (I suppose for example a .40S&W, .45ACP, or .44 Magnum, assuming he carries a 9mm like most cops do these days).

Those presuppositions don’t support the conclusion.  There is no coherent syllogism there.  There isn’t even an immediate inference.

I’m surprised that the Virginia House Democrats have left this video on Twitter.  It should be embarrassing to them.

Delegate @CandiMundonKing: “Why should anyone be allowed to have a higher caliber, more powerful weapon than my husband who goes out every day in uniform who has trained and served his community with pride for years?” pic.twitter.com/dnH8AHmJlj

— VA House Democrats (@VAHouseDems) January 27, 2023

Outdoor Life.

Hunting wild hogs is great fun, and it’s a popular pursuit in many places around the country. But wild pigs themselves are a real problem for native flora and fauna. This is precisely why hogs have become a nationwide concern as they reproduce in astounding numbers and find ways to thrive in new environments.

According to a report from the Cowboy State Daily, Wyoming and Montana are currently free of wild swine. However, wildlife managers in these states are receiving reports of pigs in Colorado, North Dakota, and Utah. Landowners and hunters, meanwhile, are worried about hordes moving into Montana and Wyoming from Canada.

Alberta and Saskatchewan are already infested, which shows that cold weather and snow have little impact on the prolific pigs. If they can survive in Canada, so the thinking goes, wild hogs marching into Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming is entirely possible.

As wild hogs continue to spread throughout central Alberta, Ryan Brook, a University of Saskatchewan professor studying the pigs, says they could cause an “ecological train wreck” and bring “absolute destruction” to the native ecosystem.

We warned you and have commented before about this problem.

They reproduce faster than lethal removal can take them out, they’ll adapt to their surroundings, they’ll dig up the ecosystem to the point it looks like a rototiller came through, they’ll kill indigenous game, and they’ll come after humans too.

If you live up there, get your rifles ready.  Oh, Canada won’t let you have those.  Too bad.  If you live in the rest of the U.S., get your rifles ready.

That goes for Alaska too.  There aren’t enough bears to kill them all.

I’ve also commented on the hog problem in the South before they began to move North.

Woman Killed by Feral Hogs Outside Texas Home

Houston-Area Suburbs Now Suffering from Feral Hogs

Hog Apocalypse in Texas

Save the Planet – Buy an AR!

As I suspected, mostly, with military and LE getting the lion’s share of the ammunition and primers.  As for supply chain problems with Covid, I don’t buy that excuse any more.  That dog won’t hunt.  The ships are moving, they’re just moving into ports at Savannah and Charleston (rather than California), with the inland port being in Greenville, S.C., and the transport corridor being I-85 and connected roads (such as I-40).  The trucks are still moving too.  So I don’t buy the logistics excuse.

One commenter to the video makes this remark.

I work for one of the largest manufacturers of ammunition and primers and as far as I know we haven’t had big issues with getting supplies but have had challenges with getting them at a reasonable cost, our primer department has always been and still is the busiest department and runs full speed 24/7 I can buy directly from the plant at our company store and have trouble getting primers because they are still running behind for the very reasons mentioned in the video, and there is a labor problem, the primer department is the most dangerous department due to the highly explosive nature, its quite common for a charging table to blow, these people are under a constant stress not only for fear of explosion but the bosses are very hard on them because they are responsible for the explosions when they do occur, so this leads to high turnover rates in the department.

I have no evidence that this commenter actually works for an ammunition manufacturer, but let’s assume he does for the sake of argument.

Let’s tackle the first alleged problem.  If they’re having trouble with the charging tables, that’s a safety issue and they need safety engineers to come in and set things right, or OSHA will eventually shut them down and there will be no business to tend to.  No worker should be exposed to hazardous work conditions in industry today since there is a sufficient body of engineering practices and principles that can make things better.  It’s more expensive, but in the end, it will save your industry.

As for the second problem, worker morale and turnover, that’s a management problem.  Let me be more blunt.  I’ve worked in industry for 43 years.  Low morale is ALWAYS management’s fault.  If management cannot retain employees, the industry doesn’t deserve to exist.  These problems are fixable.

Via reddit/Firearms, the ATF has updated their guidelines on imported pistols with braces here.

The ATF is watching comments, remarks, complaints and questions on their upcoming rule making.  This is the result.  They probably saw that it was unworkable.  That’s why the final rule hasn’t been published yet.

Nonetheless, I don’t trust them.  They have changed their opinion so many times that nothing they say can be relied on tomorrow.  And this answer doesn’t seem to comport with the proposed rule.

I’d also have to review the proposed rule again, along with (and in light of) this answer.  I don’t have time to do that, and I have neither braced pistols nor imported braced pistols (a subset of braced pistols subject to 922r).

If you do, it behooves you to step carefully.