Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

Source:

The president of Ecuador, Guillermo Lasso, announced an authorization this weekend that allows civilians to carry and use guns amid surging crime in the country.

Reuters noted that crime has reached a point where it is hard to curtail, and Lasso hopes to find some degree of respite in allowing citizens to be armed for self-defense.

Lasso—a political conservative—announced the new policy, saying, “We have a common enemy: petty crime, drug trafficking, and organized crime.”

“We’ve modified the decree that allows the possession and carrying of guns,” he continued. “In other words, in general terms … the possession and carrying of guns for civilian use in personal defense is authorized, in accordance with the requirements of law and regulations.”

We’re obviously not against this. And you might say that America needs or even has something similar to this. But that’s not the direction I wanted to take. I was thinking about this the other day, and others have mentioned it. What if the government news outlets in America, let’s not even say breathlessly but matter-of-factly, reported the thousands of self-defense gun uses in America every month?

Yes, thousands of times every month, somebody uses a firearm for self-defense in the United States. This includes everything from showing a firearm to a would-be assailant to brandishing or muzzling and, least often but sadly, actually having to shoot an assailant.

We applaud the move by Mr. Lasso in Ecuador, but the president there should also direct the daily and weekly stats to be aggressively released to the public and broadcast along with any footage of justified self-defense. Once criminals see the effective use of guns in self-defense, crime will plummet.

America’s problem isn’t so much of a crime problem in most states. The U.S. problem is the government narrative that denies guns’ utility and constantly promotes restrictions and confiscations despite the majority of states requiring nothing but the attainment of age to carry and use a handgun in self-defense. If the U.S. government wanted to actually lower crime, they would broadcast every self-defense use and encourage people to report self-defense uses to be included in official releases and broadcasts.

This article provides some good tips. I’ll quote a few of the points but read the short list for yourself.

I see a red flag when an instructor is more interested in selling their background and less interested in selling the quality of their classes. If someone is stuck talking about how awesome they are and not what their courses will teach you, they are likely more invested in their reputation than their instruction.

If your instructor believes that the specific way they do something is the only way to do something, then that’s a huge red flag.

Speaking of standards, does your instructor have any? Do they use a measurable, objective standard that allows you to see your improvement and track your progress? However, you should see some form of improvement from the beginning of the class to the end. Clearly defined standards also allow instructors to measure the progress of growth of their students and themselves. Are their students successfully improving in accordance with standards?

I had completely missed this significant case coming from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division.  It had to do with Mr. John Holden who, upon completion of his Form 4473 as it turns out, was under indictment at the time.  Being under indictment is not the same thing as being found guilty of a crime.  Furthermore, recall that the Fifth Circuit has dealt with a situation somewhat similar to this one.

Anyway, the judge makes this startling statement in the conclusion of the decision.

This opinion was drafted with an earnest hope that its author has misunderstood New York State Rifle v . Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111. If not, most of the body of law Congress has developed to protect both public safety and the right to bear arms might well be unconstitutional . For one constitutional reason or another, a similar fate has befallen several other laws that Congress adopted with beneficent purposes . But unlike those instances , the decimation of the nation’s gun laws would arise from an assumption that our leaders and ratifying legislators in the late 1700s didn’t foresee that their descendants might need a different relationship than the founders had between the federal government and the right to bear arms. Yet a glance at the Constitution they were amending shows that they could foresee the growth in population that would change the number of representatives to be elected ,that future members of Congress might need higher pay, and that future states might aspire to join the union.

The United States Constitution, as amended and as imperfect as itwas ,is the legacy ofthose eighteenth-century Americans ; it insults both that legacy and their memory to assume they were so short-sighted as to forbid the people, through their elected representatives, from regulatingguns in new ways.

The role ofa United States District Court is to apply the law as understood by the United States Supreme Court; today’s rulingrecognizes that role. But the author of this opinion retains hope that he hasn’t accurately grasped the Supreme Court’s understanding of the Second Amendment.

The court GRANTS Mr. Holden’s motion to withdraw guilty plea and GRANTS Mr. Holden’s motion to dismiss the indictment . Mr. Holden’s plea of guilty is WITHDRAWN and the indictment DISMISSED.

The Firth Circuit was unapologetic in their decision, whereas Judge Miller seems to be begging and pleading for his interpretation of Bruen to be shown incorrect.

I think his interpretation is correct, as much as he hates it.  On a positive note, it’s nice that he was honest in his stated loathing of the Bruen decision, while still coming to a constitutional decision.

Before you say you know it all and skip this article, there’s more here than a simple explanation. This will be a helpful start toward intermediate knowledge for those trying to learn more. It turns out there are many types of reticles. This article, in classic Widener’s fashion, provides a brief overview of 8 or so. One good thing about this format that they use is it provides a basis for further research into the areas within an aspect of firearms you need to know or have an interest in. You’ll learn something here.

Intro:

Many shooters select a rifle scope by researching its magnification, lens system, and physical specs. But it’s also important to consider the scope’s reticle in the decision-making process. Admittedly, it can be the most confusing part of choosing a scope. There are many types of reticles available on the market. Unless you’re a seasoned professional shooter, the subtle differences might be difficult to navigate.

At the very least, you should have a general understanding of reticle types. Once you know the different types, you’ll be able to easily match the rifle scope options to your hunting or shooting activity. Here’s what you need to know:

What Is A Reticle?

A reticle is a set of fine lines or fibers inside an optical device. The markings help you with aiming, measuring, or pointing. When you look through a rifle scope, the reticle is the cross, dot, or pattern that you see.

Originally, reticles were made from real hair or spiderweb, and the name “crosshair” stuck. Although optics can be traced back hundreds of years, the first practical rifle optic was invented between 1835 and 1840. After 1850, several U.S. manufacturers produced the sights that would become standard equipment for Civil War sharpshooters, basically the country’s first snipers.

Although the standard crosshair reticle was effective, shooters and equipment evolved to the point that they needed customizable reticles. The modern rifle optics industry was born, and mounted optics became more of a standard feature. While there are too many reticle models to provide an exhaustive list, we’ll look at several of the most popular types, beginning with the one that started it all.

The rest is an interesting primer on the various types.

Source.

Details about each method at the source. I would never have thought of welding a rod to the top of the screw so you could get a good grip to remove it. I’m sure readers have plenty of experience with stuck screws.

1. Use a torch
2. Use penetrating oil
3. Re-cut the screw slot
4. Drill the screw
5. Welding

If you work on firearms long enough, you will run into screws that refuse to budge. With the correct screwdriver and the proper force, a screw should move. If it doesn’t, stop. Go through this checklist: Is the screw a properly fitting screw? When was the last time this screw was moved? Has Loctite been applied? If you don’t know, is it a screw that is likely to be locked in place? (The most common places you will run into screws locking in place will be on scope mounts. People who don’t know how to properly tighten a screw will use Loctite when it’s not needed.)

I’ve met Representative Russel and heard him speak on other issues as well. The current Tennessee Constitutional Carry is not actual Constitution Carry. But, considering incrementalism TN is on its way. This bill would be very close to what many other states have. In TN open carry of long guns is restricted. This bill would remove that restriction, among others. The way things work in TN, the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee is a critical step in getting legislation to the full House floor.

The best part is when the witnesses all but admit they have no constitutional (TN) authority to oppose gun laws.

Via WoG, Video via TFA; both call for support action from Tennesseans.

Found on social. It looks like they tased him in a puddle of gasoline that they created when they attacked a man who had nothing to do with an initial call to the police about motorcyclists with guns. Reports indicate that he’s a 26-year-old FedEx employee. He’s not expected to live. There may be more details by now that readers can relate.

Opinion on South Carolina Stand Your Ground, Source:

As a martial artist, I am passionate about the right of people to defend themselves. And in my years of teaching the martial arts, I have had a number of students tell me about how they have had to use force to protect themselves and loved ones from harm. But they always tried to avoid using force, because martial artists know how precious life is — even the life of an aggressor.

Martial artists believe that one should always walk away from conflict, if possible. This is why we only use force reluctantly and only as a last resort.

Also, if force must be used, we know we should use only the amount of force necessary to end the threat and allow us to get to safety.

These principles are dear to me, which is why I oppose stand-your-ground laws.

These laws allow those who use deadly force to be exempt from criminal prosecution, even if they could have easily and safely retreated from what they perceived to be a threat.

Before Florida passed the first stand-your-ground law in 2005, the United States legal tradition already protected the right to self-defense, but only after a person had done all that he or she could to avoid conflict, including backing away from the aggressor and attempting to retreat to safety.

Using deadly force to defend oneself in a public space was only allowed after one first tried to retreat or if retreat was simply not possible.

Stand-your-ground laws differ from what is known as the castle doctrine, which applies to people dealing with an intruder in their home. I do not believe anyone has an obligation to retreat from a home intruder.

The author uses a lot of the word but after claiming to believe in armed self-defense. His argument is, in one way, correct. Avoidance is always the best choice; avoiding crowds is solid advice. But he goes on to wrongly claim a difference between Castle Doctrine and self-defense anywhere. If you have the right to defend yourself in your home, you carry that right anywhere. It’s your right and does not belong to a location. Locations don’t have rights people do. We acknowledge here that the home has a degree of expected sanctuary in the Bible, but men also have to defend their life right anywhere they may be, thus the right.

The object of self-defense is to get the assailant(s) to disengage. If not being where you shouldn’t solves a threat problem, don’t go. If leaving solves that, then leave. Nothing in the Stand Your Ground Doctrine allows the offensive use of weapons or tactics, which is the argument against Stand Your Ground that always shows the ignorance of the man making the case. His opinion, as stated in this piece, is no different.

And he makes the proportional use of force argument. There’s no way to know what would have happened if X or Y, or Z. Proportional use of force is an impossible standard that will get people killed. But the evidence of either murder or self-defense can be determined. Proof is required, not a would have-should have. Arguments against Stand Your Ground also wrongly assume that turning your back is wise. It’s not; never turn your back on a threat.

Again, getting the assailant to disengage is the proper self-defense training standard to teach.

This one looks like murder. She had the chance to leave and didn’t but stopped, opened the door, and shot.

We’re speculating but strongly suspect that she drew a handgun in the few moments when she first pulled away. Also, it appears that they may have known each other. Extracting yourself from a situation is preferable to what was done. The object of self-defense is to get the assailant to disengage; this was accomplished had she kept driving off.

Takes her time. Makes sure of a clean shot. Well done.

I don’t think this is the US, but it doesn’t matter; the lessons you can learn are what’s most important.