Archive for the 'AR-15s' Category

On September 13, 1994, the U.S. Congress passed the ridiculous, obscene, ill-conceived, and meddling assault weapons ban.  It had a sunset provision wherein it expired within ten years of passing the law (see also HR 3355).  Enjoy the day as one of the better, more memorable celebrations in America.

I intend to celebrate by enjoying the entertainment and studying the science of the shooting sports, which I have previously defined this way.

While ATF lawyers might disagree, for something to have a “sporting purpose” means nothing more than it can be taken to the range and operated by the owner to his or her entertainment or training.  The shooting skills – whether for official competitions such as IDPA or 3-Gun, or for unofficial activities such as regular range visits for the purpose of betterment at the science of firearms operation – are sports.  All of them.  Period.  This is non-negotiable.  If it is a firearm, it has a sporting purpose.

Here are some of the weapons we will enjoy and study this weekend.  These would all be considered “assault weapons” under the ban.

In the future, Congress is advised to stay out of our business.

Prior:

No One Needs ARs For Self Defense Or Hunting?

Do We Have A Constitutional Right To Own An AR?

There has been a recent proliferation of commentaries advocating the notion that no one needs an AR for self defense or hunting.  They are good for nothing except killing and maiming innocent human lives, and should be banned.  Some even go so far as to claim that we have no constitutional right to own an AR, which elicited my response in Do We Have A Constitutional Right To Own An AR?  While I do not believe that the government has a moral right to dictate my belongings, and we do in fact have a constitutional right to own weapons of all sorts, it’s always good to retrieve the conversation from the theoretical and ensconce it squarely in the practical.  A recent incident in South Carolina does exactly that for us.

The owner of the Guns and Ammo Gunsmith store in North Augusta, S.C. thought he was going to die tragically. Three men had driven a van into his store, executing what they hoped would be a quick “smash-and-grab” robbery.

Instead, they met owner Stephen Bayezes, who opened fire on the three intruders after the commotion set off an alarm, hitting each one at least once. He says he is not proud of what he was forced to do, but added sometimes “you’ve got to.” The incident occurred on Aug. 9, but the owner says a set of tire marks on the store’s floor and an unfinished wall are daily reminders of the night that he almost lost his life.

“It’s a haunting thought. It literally is a haunting thought when you see the tire tracks, you hear the tires,” Bayezes told WRDW-TV. “Everybody assures you that you just did what you had to do to protect your family. They say it’ll heal over time, but when does time go away? It’s something that nobody ever wants to do.”

But he says he had no choice after he heard one of the robbers shout, “Shoot the mother f**ker!,” followed by the sound of a gun cocking. “I mean, they would’ve shot me. In my mind, with no reservation. If that firearm had been loaded, I might’ve been a statistic.”

With his fight-or-flight reflexes in full gear, Bayezes started shooting, striking all three men, killing one while the surviving two escaped.

So, what happened to the two suspects? WRDW explains:

The Aiken County Sheriff’s Office says Eddie Stewart and Franklin Robinson will be charged with burglary 1st, grand larceny and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. Both suspects are still in the hospital and will be taken into custody once they are released.

The Aiken County coroner says the third suspect, 20-year-old K’Raven Goodwin of Eastover, S.C., died from multiple gunshot wounds on Thursday morning.

The whole altercation took but one minute, he said. The burglars escaped with roughly 50 guns that night, however all of them have been returned safely.

The scene below shows the carnage sustained by the business.

The report says that this is the same type of weapon Bayezes used to defend himself and his wife.

This report doesn’t clearly state the details of Bayezes’s reaction, but the Aiken Standard does.

A North Augusta gun store owner used a semi-automatic weapon when he opened fire on three men who broke into his business early Thursday, killing one and sending two others to the hospital with gunshot wounds, officials said.

The break-in occurred around 4 a.m. at the Guns and Ammo Gunsmith, located on Edgefield Road in North Augusta, said Aiken County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Jason Feemster, a spokesman for the agency.

Stephen Bayazes Jr., 57, who lives in an attached apartment in the rear of the business with his wife, said he awoke to a loud bang and the silent store alarm going off.

Police said he got out of bed, grabbed his AR-15 weapon and found three men inside the store.

The men crashed a vehicle into the business and were smashing display cases and taking guns when he said he heard one of the men shout, “kill that (expletive deleted ).”

He told investigators he emptied a .223-caliber 30-round magazine and then retreated to his room to reload.

When he returned, he said he saw the vehicle pulling out from the business.

He used one of those evil “high capacity magazines” to defend his home, one of those features on so-called assault weapons that no living man is supposed to need.  He emptied his magazine.  I would have too.

But on to hunting.  Discovery Channel viewers may have taken note of a new series called Yukon Men.  It’s an interesting show on the hardships of living in the Yukon, but more to the point, take note of what happens in this video.

The young man uses an AR to take down the Caribou, and it’s a good size animal.  I also know someone who has taken down a large deer with the same caliber round (5.56 mm, or .223, and my friend was using “pointed soft point” ammunition for the deer).  The young man smartly remarks that the caliber he is using is good because it doesn’t destroy the meat.  This is meat he needs to eat in order to live.

It’s preposterous to assert that a high capacity magazine isn’t useful for self defense.  Clearly it is, and just as clearly, use of an AR (or similar modern sporting rifle) is useful and in common use for hunting.

The AR is in the news lately, much maligned, and much misunderstood.  We have already discussed the notion of the AR (most Americans purchase) being an assault rifle, explaining that it is no such thing since for a weapon to be an assault rifle it must have selective fire capability.  “Assault weapon” is a political phrase that is meant to convey the idea of weapons being scary.

But the hatred of the things that characteristize the politically-defined assault weapon (high capacity magazines, forend grips, etc.) pours from the editorial pages in newspapers all across the country today.  For a few examples consider Robert in New York:

In Colonial times, weapons for individuals were limited to flintlock rifles and pistols. These had utility for food-gathering and home defense. These weapons were powder-and-ball, single-shot, and slow to reload laboriously by hand, and of limited range and accuracy.

Nowadays we have graduated to semiautomatic assault weapons, intended for military use and the killing or maiming of as many enemies as possible in battle. They can fire hundreds of rounds per minute. There was a ban on them for private sale and use in recent years, but it has since been struck down.

Does anyone think they are critical for home defense, bringing down a rabbit, a deer, or for target practice?

Next, consider Joan in Vero Beach:

I am struck that the killer once again had an assault weapon and was able to legally purchase it and the magazines in local stores and off the Internet because of the bullying tactics of Wayne LaPierre and his gutless minions in Congress.

I have spent many a happy time with my dogs at hunt tests safely using a gun. I am not against responsible gun ownership but assault weapons have no place in the possession of anyone but law enforcement or the military and certainly not legally accessible on the Internet.

LaPierre and his minions will wait for the storm of their refusal to agree to the need of rational gun laws to settle down and then they will raise their usual baseless arguments against any laws that prohibit people from freely purchasing assault weapons even as the families of victims in Aurora, Tucson and Columbine daily grieve the loss of their loved ones, who were only doing the things that we all do every day.

Finally, consider Roland Martin, CNN contributor:

To all of you gun lovers, feel free to go buy your Glock, shotgun, hunting rifle, .22 pistol, .357 Magnum or any of the other guns at your disposal.

But you do not need an AK-47.

For some, it’s too soon to discuss gun reform, a little more than one week after the mass killings in Aurora, Colorado. I disagree. Too many Americans are being killed by guns every day; this most recent heinous tragedy should not keep us from having a rational debate.

[ … ]

Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn’t a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

Well, since Mr. Martin demanded, let’s engage that debate with him.  As I have pointed out, it simply isn’t true that America is refusing to engage in debate over guns.  That’s all we’ve been doing for more than a week now.  It’s just that anti-firearms folks are losing the argument, so it gets louder with each day and for each new commentary.

Regarding defense of my person and my home and family, what happens if Robert, or Joan or Roland restrict me to a muzzle loading weapon and I miss my assailant?  After all, shooting your weapon is a perishable skill and I only get to the range once a week or every two weeks.  What happens if I neglect to practice my “fail to stop” drills or my first or second or third shot miss my assailant?  What happens if I am using my AR and neglect to compensate my aim for sight “height over bore” and miss my assailant badly enough to wound him but not kill him, and he keeps coming after me?

What happens if the threat is from a multiple-assailant home invasion and I must produce a large volume of fire very rapidly in order to effect proper self defense?  Consider this five-man home invasion in Tulsa.

A second suspect in the attack on a Tulsa minister was arrested Tuesday night, Tulsa police said.

Markedrik Delmar Wilson, 26, was arrested about 8:40 p.m. after a witness identified him as one of five men who forced their way into the Rev. Kenneth Brooks’ home in the 2700 block of North Denver Avenue shortly before 2 a.m. Tuesday, according to police and reports.

One of the men shot Brooks point-blank in the chest and then the group fled, police said.

Or perhaps consider this home invasion in Wareham, Massachusetts.

Five men accused of a home invasion in Wareham where two women say they were raped are now facing Superior Court charges.

All five are charged with four counts of masked armed robbery and one count of armed home invasion. Santiago and Gomes are charged with aggravated rape and Williams is being charged with unlawful possession of a firearm without an FID card.

Is this enough to demonstrate the point?  Perhaps not.  Then consider yet another five-man home invasion in Glenolden, Pennsylvania.

A group of men – at least one armed with a gun – invaded a borough home early Wednesday and terrorized several people inside, including one who was pistol-whipped, according to NBC-10.

The violence incident unfolded about 1:45 a.m., when a group of four or five men broke into a at near the intersection of Elmwood and Ashland avenues, police said. At least one of the intruders was armed with a handgun.

Four people were inside the home at the time and one of the residents was pistol-whipped, police said.

Have you considered this four-man home invasion in Philadelphia?  Or how about this three-man home invasion in Charlotte, North Carolina?  Or this three-man home invasion in Franklin Country, Alabama?  Or this three-man home invasion in Pawtucket?

Shaun Connell defends the right to own an AR under the constitution, and I think rightly so under the rubric of self defense.  I may in fact have to produce a large volume of fire very quickly and effectively.  But there is more.  Ownership of weapons is the surest defense against tyranny.  This doctrine is so well rehearsed in American history that it should have been given its due consideration in Supreme Court rulings (Heller and McDonald).  It surely is well rehearsed in lower courts.  Ken Klukowski, a research fellow at Liberty University School of Law, observes:

This right has two purposes. One is so Americans can defend themselves from criminals. Another — talked up by the Tea Party but ridiculed by the liberal elite — is that the Second Amendment protects citizens against our own government.

The Supreme Court declared in its landmark 2008 D.C. v. Heller decision — a decision praised by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz. — that the Second Amendment was enshrined in the Constitution because when vast numbers of citizens have guns and know how to use them, “they are better able to resist tyranny.”

When serving on the California Supreme Court, now-D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown observed, “political writings of the [Founding Fathers] repeatedly expressed a dual concern: facilitating the natural right of self-defense and assuring an armed citizenry capable of repelling foreign invaders and quelling tyrannical leaders.”

Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain explained the Second Amendment “right contains both a political component — it is a means to protect the public from tyranny — and a personal component — it is a means to protect the individual from threats to life or limb.”

The most sobering words come from Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit, who wrote, “the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.”

The son of Holocaust survivors, Kozinski continued, “The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

Scalia has made his views known on weapons that are “affrighting.”  He hasn’t given any public acknowledgement of the point I made concerning tyranny, but this view isn’t that odd.  David Codrea makes similar points to Klukowski.

For someone represented by the establishment as an “originalist,” Scalia’s views are anything but. In “A View of the Constitution,” which colleague Brian Puckett writes “was the standard constitutional law text at Harvard until 1845 and at Dartmouth until 1860,” William Rawle, “a contemporary of the Founders and the man to whom George Washington offered an appointment as the first U.S. Attorney General,” offered a vastly different opinion.

“No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people,” Rawle wrote in Chapter X, “OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.”

“Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature,” Rawle continued. “But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

The only thing that even approaches forcing me to rethink my position on so-called assault weapons is a tradeoff where I never, ever have to look again at a picture of Dianne Feinstein holding an AR.

But I said approaches – I’m not there.  Like David Condrea, I wasn’t surprised at Scalia’s comments and have always held that Heller was a weak ruling.  A better picture to show the silliness of the assault weapons ban (that Feinstein wants to reintroduce) is of me getting back from walking my dog, a 74 pound Doberman named Heidi.

Just like I always do when walking my dog, I’m carrying a weapon, in this case my S&W M&P .40, Flat Dark Earth finish, Viking Tactics sights.  Because the magazine holds 15 rounds it is considered an “assault weapon” under the expired rule.  Yes, the assault weapons ban is just that stupid because Feinstein and others consider this to be an affrighting weapon.

Considering the issue of self defense, it is clear that a so-called assault weapon suits the need of the moment in many circumstances.  Evan Nappen gives us 101 more reasons to own an assault weapon.  But I want to return to the issue of tyranny for a moment.

Gone are the days when only the lawyers are able to get access to court proceedings and opinions.  They are publicly available and we all read them.  If Scalia is right and there is much more to come on weapons in the courts, we’ll be watching and listening.  We’ll pour over each and every word of the opinion(s).  We’ll examine them for coherence and consistency, and the degree to which they honestly address the historical issues.

If the court wants to avoid the issue of suppression of tyranny – so-called “second amendment remedy” – in its rulings, then so be it.  Judges and Justices are advised, however, to be completely transparent about it.  Say that you no longer believe in such a thing, and explain why.  Explain why it was acceptable to use arms against British tyranny but that they serve no such purpose today, or better, explain why they cannot possibly serve any such purpose anywhere or at any time in the future.

If you ignore the issue we’ll consider you to be cowards.  When the recent ruling on health care was issued, the workplace discussion focused on ridicule and mockery over the duplicity and mental contortions necessary to come up with a ruling like that one.  It badly affected the reputation and legitimacy of the court.

Does the Supreme Court really want to add to the problem of legitimacy by avoiding a frank and open discussion of the role of arms in the prevention of state tyranny?  Does the court really want to appear cowardly?  We’re watching.  I concur with our liberal friends: it’s time for an open discussion.

UPDATE: #1: Linked to reddit/r/guns

Commenter Montysaurus says:

Continuing with the things we are progressively learning about the shooting in Aurora, Colorado, the shooter’s weapon jammed.

The semiautomatic assault rifle used by the gunman in a mass shooting at a midnight showing of the latest Batman movie jammed during the attack, a federal law enforcement official told The Associated Press, which forced the shooter to switch to another gun with less fire power.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to in order to discuss the investigation, said the disabled weapon had a high-capacity ammunition magazine. Police have said that a 100-round drum magazine was recovered at the scene and that such a device would be able to fire 50 to 60 rounds a minute.

As I have pointed out, the rifle wasn’t an “assault rifle” (since it didn’t have selective fire capability) and the phrase “semiautomatic assault rifle” is nonsensical.  It is a contradiction, since a semiautomatic rifle cannot be an assault rifle.  The police and media are both to blame for sloppy work.

But note also what I said about mass shootings.

“… the most frequent choice for such shooters in order to achieve effectiveness seems not to rely on magazine capacity, but having multiple weapons and magazines.”

Unlike me, he had a crappy rifle and his jammed.  He also had a high capacity magazine.  It didn’t matter.  He reverted to use of multiple weapons.  It also won’t matter to the anti-gun lobby.  They will continue to use this as yet another example of why high capacity magazines should be banned.

My readers know better, and you’re among the first to learn the right definitions, in the right context, the right way.

The Phoenix New Times reports on “assault rifles” found by hikers in the desert of Arizona, and the three weapons – two SKS’s and an AK-47 – according to the news report, “could have come from almost anywhere, considering the hundreds of gun stores in Arizona that sell such weapons.”  The report is followed by another which again calls the guns “assault rifles.”

Northescambia.com reports that a man was charged with discharging an AK-47, later citing a witness who saw “what appeared to be a clip connected to an automatic weapon in a back passenger floorboard.”  Without knowing any better, one would be tempted to think that rogue New Yorkers were running around with machine guns given this news report about a recent shooting in the Springfield Gardens area of Queens.  It shows a picture of an AK-47 take from Wikipedia, with the following caption: “The AK-47 is a deadly assault rifle that can fire 10 rounds per second.”

Most main stream media reports concering “assault rifles” and “assault weapons” become badly confused, with terms conflated with other, and with competing (and oftentimes incorrect) terms.  Thus does the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 become important in our discussion.  Among other things, this act banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, inflating the cost of fully automatic weapons then in circulation to $10,000 or more (far beyond their actual worth).  For most people, it is cost prohibitive to own a fully automatic weapon, and purchase of one requires registration and approval with the ATF and local law enforcement (oftentimes not granted).

Why is this important?  The answer hinges on the technical, formal, official definition for “assault rifle.”  The correct definition comes from the U.S. Military.

Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges … Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters.

When understanding the phrase “assault rifle,” one needs to imagine U.S. Marine Corps squad rushes; the fire team member using the Squad Automatic Weapon fires area suppressing fire while the other three fire team members run forward.  After a certain distance has been covered, the three Marines carrying the M4s or M16s go prone and lay down suppressing fire with their rifles (capable of selective fire) while the SAW gunner runs forward, goes prone, and then the rush continues in like manner until the enemy position has been assaulted and overrun.

So assault rifles have at least three characteristics: (1) capable of selective fire (which includes fully automatic fire), (2) fire an intermediate cartridge,  and (3) mild recoil.  My Rock Rivers Arms rifle has two of the three characteristics, and so it is not an assault rifle.  The confused phrase “assault weapon” pertains to weapons that were banned and later allowed because of the sunset provision on September 13, 2004, and have to do with weapons that look scary because they have collapsible (or telescoping) stocks, forend grips, high capacity magazines, and so forth.  The expiration of the assault weapons ban doesn’t have any affect on the continued ban on fully automatic weapons in the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

The phrases “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” (now a defunct and outdated definition) are used interchangeably in the main stream media, and sloppiness is to blame, even if firearms owners refer to their weapons as ARs (AR is shorthand for ARmalite).  One humorous example refers to .50 caliber assault rifles, a contradiction in terms and an impossibility.

But not all media is as ignorant or reluctant to be precise as the dozens of examples I find daily.  For one such report headlined with the phrase assault rifle, I contacted the author, Jessica Schrader, with the following note.

Jessica,

I am a gun rights and second amendment blogger.  I strongly suspect that the use of an “assault rifle” is incorrect (to fully meet the definition of “assault rifle” it must be capable of select(ive) fire, which includes fully automatic fire).  The phrase “assault weapon” is purely a political definition, and went out when the federal “assault weapons” ban … because of the sunset provision on September 13, 2004.  It pertains mostly to weapons that look “scary,” not to fully automatic weapons.
 
I strongly suspect that the shooting was done with a semi-automatic rifle of some kind, of which there are 50 million plus in the U.S.  Can you confirm that a semi-automatic rifle was used, or was it in actual fact a machine gun capable of fully automatic fire?  The wording in the headline may have been a function of sloppy police department communications, so I am not attempting to place blame on anyone, just get to the facts.

To which she responded:

Thanks for your note. That is a good point- actually, in the follow up we published yesterday, police used the term semi-automatic. We will update the other one. Thanks again!

So even though the police are sometimes to blame for sloppy word usage, they occasionally get it right too.  We may not ever win the battle, but words mean something, and it’s important to be precise.  Jessica Schrader knows this and serves as an example for how the rest of the main stream media should cover the facts.