Source:

Terreton, Idaho — An Idaho resident shot and killed an adult male moose after it charged him, making him fear for his safety, according to reports.

According to Idaho Fish and Game, the moose had been making himself known in residential areas around Terreton and Mud Lake for better than a week, and had apparently become “increasingly agitated.”

Before the man was forced to shoot this moose, he reportedly attempted to “haze” the moose out of the yard. This behavior is not unheard-of, according to New York State’s amusingly-named Moose Response Manual.

Though specific to New York, this manual has some interesting items.

The moose reportedly charged the unnamed man, and the man tried to stop the attack by shooting the moose, and he succeeded. According to Idaho Fish and Game, the moose was “only a few yards away” from the man when he killed it. The man managed to avoid injury.

No word on the caliber or type of firearm. Moose are very dangerous animals.

Source: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Moose Response Manual

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.

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.

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 source also has information about how to comply with the new rule.

Also, see: Rep. Andrew Clyde to Use Congressional Review Act to Override ATF Stabilizer Brace Rule.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) announced Monday he will use the Congressional Review Act against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF’s) pistol/stabilizer brace rule.

Breitbart News reported that the ATF’s pistol/stabilizer brace rule was finalized January 13, 2023, and that the agency is giving owners of pistols with said braces 120 days to register the firearms, once the rule appears in the Federal Registry.

On January 14, 2023, Breitbart News noted that the Congressional Review Act offered an avenue by which Congress could block the ATF’s rule.

Rep. Clyde and his colleagues are ready to use the Congressional Review Act and other means to stop the rule from turning millions of law-abiding gun owners into criminals.

Clyde spoke on the House floor Monday, saying:

Next week, I will reintroduce the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today Act, or the SHORT Act, to repeal elements of the National Firearms Act, thereby prohibiting the ATF from registering and banning pistols with stabilizing braces. Additionally, as soon as the ATF’s unlawful rule is published to the Federal Register, I will introduce a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, to override the Biden administration’s unlawful overreach.

That’s a typically lame move for Republicans, knowing it’ll go nowhere.

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.

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.