Articles by Herschel Smith

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.

“Consciousness of guilt.”

Well, whatever.  I don’t have to try to treat the one who just tried to kill me.  And the set of downsides to not carrying a trauma kit only has to have one member: you’re unable to stop bleeding of you or a loved one.  There.  That’s it.  Case closed for me.

Now all this took place so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son, and they shall name Him Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”

Merry Christmas from me and my family to yours.

He does a nice review of the gun, including reasons for owning one.  I consider the .22 magnum round to be a legitimate self defense round for bipeds, perhaps not for the bush.

There is another reason – in most states, you must dispatch deer with a .22 rimfire pistol, and nothing larger.  This meets the requirement.

Source.

New Jersey’s state Senate narrowly passed a new concealed carry gun control legislation Monday, with one Democratic lawmaker joining Republicans in saying it is unconstitutional, according to NJ.com.

The bill would require gun owners who seek a concealed carry permit to purchase liability insurance and take training courses, while also increasing permit fees and restricting guns in “sensitive places” like schools, public parks, courthouses, bars and private property, according to the legislation. The bill received bipartisan criticism, with Republican state Sen. Michael Testa calling the bill “absolutely wrong” and Democratic state Sen. Nicholas Sacco saying it is unconstitutional and will face legal challenges, according to NJ.com.

Litigated it certainly will be.  The liability insurance is simply a way of punishing gun owners.  How do we know that?

It’s simple.  If one is deemed innocent, he will be exonerated in court even if he has to pay for legal expenses.  The NJ senate doesn’t care about this expense and they aren’t demanding that gun owners be prepared to legally defend themselves.

If he’s guilty of a crime, insurance won’t pay anything.  Insurance doesn’t cover what’s termed “torts with intention,” or “intentional acts of liability,” which it will judged to be if the gun owner is found guilty of a crime.

So this is just a way to punish gun owners, while lining the pockets of insurance company executives.

Responding to Bruen, the jerks in New Jersey passed yet another gun control bill.

If you live in New Jersey – why?

I had never really thought of bolt throw in the practical terms he discusses it, i.e., interference with scopes and mounts.  That seems to be basically the only reason it really matters unless you’re really into the mechanics of bolt lugs and how they fit up.  Let me know in the comments if you disagree.

For the record, I could listen to Ryan Muckenhirn discuss tying his shoe for an hour and it would be interesting to me.  But even more interesting would be to get an invitation to a hunt with him.  Any kind of hunt – pronghorn, upland birds, anything.