David Codrea:

In spite of that, one “A-rated” Democrat, Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, joined with confirmed anti-gunners Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin and others.

This is Tester’s second vote for administration interests over those of his gun owner constituents in a little over a month.

I just renewed my NRA membership for another year because I figure it seals and ensures my right to complain to them.  David is right to complain, and I do my fair share.  But it’s really a shame, this degree to which NRA rating has fallen in stature.

I pay little to no attention to it for just the reasons David laments.  There is also the issue that politicians will make claims concerning NRA ratings that are outdated and old, when new ratings have been issued, or when no ratings have been issued at all.  I’ve discussed this with NRA folks by phone.  If the NRA wants its ratings to be taken seriously, it will begin to husband them with diligence.  Otherwise, it’s an irrelevant feature of what could otherwise be a powerful lobby for our interests.

Kurt Hofmann:

In other words, to refer to his earlier opposition as “an act” is perhaps giving him too much credit–perhaps “a lie” would be a more accurate assessment.

Hey, they’re politicians.  It’s what they do.  Sort of like pictures of  Lindsey Graham holding an AR-15 while he secretly conspires with Senator Cornyn to infringe on gun rights, right?

What do cartoons, guns and Obama have to do with each other?  No, it’s not that our president is a cartoon and is scared of guns.  Uncle tells us.  And yes, I know what you’re thinking.  What a dumb ass!  No, not Uncle.  The other guy(s).

Mike told us about the idiot cop who wanted to donate his left nut to the cause of gun control.  He will probably lose a lot more than his left nut.  And if I’m not mistaken, there is further action on this front.

David Codrea:

Voters chose to allow authorities to seize firearms at domestic investigations (Yes: 5,579 / No: 2,066), ban firearms from establishments that serve liquor (Yes: 5,194 / No: 2,517), and require firearms in the home to be locked up (Yes: 4,351 / No: 2,971) …

Remember when I said this?  “In order to prevent local hicks, ne’er-do-wells and criminals from acting out their Napoleon fantasies upon other men, association with the state means that – assuming robust gun rights laws already exist – local municipalities and townships shouldn’t be able to preempt state laws.”

David’s article is first of all about preemption.  It’s an odious thing when local yokels (who are usually elected in elections that aren’t well attended and who are usually unknown until they act out their Napoleon fantasies upon others) presume to tell their townships what to do about everything under the sun.  Totalitarianism doesn’t just happen inside the beltway.  The second thing I’ll observe is that if you have a gun and keep it locked up, it is nothing more than a locked up paperweight.  You certainly don’t have it for protection.

Kurt Hofmann:

“I’m not sure why people need body armor unless they are planning something untoward,” Anderson said. “And I’m not sure why an individual citizen would require a .50-caliber rifle.

And I’m not sure why someone would presume to legislate anything at all about body armor unless they were planning something untoward.  What do you have in mind, buddy?  Making sure we are defenseless against SWAT raids?

So someone is calling Mike Vanderboegh an insurrectionist.  I’ve been called far worse than that, but the really bad thing is that he didn’t link Mike and send traffic his direction.  Bad, bad form.  Sebastian has panned my stuff without linking me before.  Again, bad form.

See Mike on S&W.  It’s also because they make great stuff.  I mean really, really great stuff.  I just wished they lived down South.  Because, you know, of the North and everything.  And what they believe up there in those parts.

Pray for Mike and his health.  I have.  Mike’s got to stay healthy.  God has too much work for him to do.

Finally, Uncle links someone who is unimpressed with 1911s.  Meh.  I’m unimpressed and I would indeed choose to carry a 1911 for self defense.  I just put 150 rounds through my new S&W 1911 with no failures at all.  And Uncle is right.  I can shoot this one better than my polymer frame pistols because of its slim profile.

David Codrea:

The attack, “one of the deadliest … in China in recent years,” resulted in several attackers, reportedly wearing uniforms, being shot by police, but not until after they’d managed to kill and injure so many defenseless people at the station.

I know someone who was once a member of the Hong Kong symphony, and he told me that when a violent crime is committed in the far east, more often than not they use something like knives, or at other times acid.  People who are disfigured in their face are usually a victim of acid attacks on the streets.  Bullets, acid, machete, whatever.  It’s all the same.  It kills, and self defense is God’s expectation.

Kurt Hofmann:

“Americans for Responsible Solutions,” the anti-gun group headlined by former U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and her husband Mark Kelly, is in a tizzy …

They are part of the offended and entitled class.  Why shouldn’t they be in a tizzy?  They’re better than everyone else, they have a right to have guns, and we don’t.

Chris Muir picks up Mike’s list of senator’s names and addresses.  Mike has done an outstanding job with this, and this is a huge feather in his cap.  He has inspired me to take on communist Senator Larry Martin from Pickens, S.C., although I suspect I will be far less successful than Mike.  Mike spent some time shooting.  So did I.  I’ll show you.  Finally, look at the results of Mike’s handiwork!

David Codrea:

The major problem with Wilkinson’s snottiness is that’s all he’s got. GOA refers people to data compiled by the Pew Research Center, which shows overwhelming preference among “unauthorized immigrants” for the Democrat party.

Yep.  I’ve discussed this myself, and there could be no greater threat to gun rights than to put people in charge who want to take them away.

Kurt Hofmann:

Oh–about that “Only Ones” exemption. When this technology, and mandates for its use, were first being pushed, much of the rationale was based on the notion that it would protect police officers from having their guns grabbed by a suspect, and being shot with their own guns. Apparently, though, New Jersey police were strangely unappreciative of this concern for their safety, forcing the exemption as a condition for their support for (and lack of active opposition against) the requirement.

There’s Kurt again, destroying their arguments by pointing out inconsistencies.  The argument is a ruse, and the fact that LEOs don’t want those stupid guns shows just how stupid they are.

Some smart ass named Teret says “They thought the air bag would kill them,” said Teret, who did early work on air-bag technology. “They thought it would shove them out the back window, that it would explode. It takes awhile to dispel these mythologies.”

Uh huh.  Well, I guess air bags can actually kill you.  And so can a gun that doesn’t function when you need it to.  And the cost of this ridiculous machine?

The cost is high. Amatrix’s iP1, a .22-caliber pistol, is priced at $1,399 — plus $399 for the watch. A .40-caliber Glock handgun can be had for about $600.

Like I’ve said before.  Put it on the market and see how it does.  See also my coverage on smart guns.

Mike Vanderboegh has an absolutely must see graphic on ammunition.  It is so true that it’s scary that someone reads my mind like this.  And pray for Mike.

And finally, no, I don’t think I bear a single bit of responsibility for reducing gun violence, any more than I bear responsibility for drug problems in the ghetto or providing medical care to people who don’t work.

David Codrea:

Regardless, the outcome of one case hardly justifies unfounded allegations of a Jim Crow-based trend, and what’s quickly obvious is a clumsily transparent agenda to equate defensive gun use with white racism against blacks.

Well, we’ve seen how the progressives like to hurl insults rather than debate rationally.  I see “stand your ground” laws as fairly simple, actually.  Anyone who understands self defense, whether by hand, knife, gun or any other weapon, would tell you that you cannot assume that you have time to escape.  My philosophy has always been evasion, escape and egress.  But there are times when that will not work to ameliorate the threat.  During those times, immediate reaction should be your plan.  Turning and running is sure to get you killed.  That has nothing whatsoever to do with race.  You will also get killed if you try to run from very bad white guys.

Kurt Hofmann:

The Department of Justice will inevitably claim that the nullification section of the law is unconstitutional, pushing the issue to the courts. Who can say what will happen there, but few would argue that it will be easy to get the courts to back the states in breaking the federal government’s grip on the power it has usurped over a period of well over a century.

This is more necessary reading by Kurt.  As I’ve argued as well, “although if it goes to federal court and is overturned (as it would certainly be in federal court), then it was never really a nullification law at all.  Federal court rulings would have to be ignored in order to meet the definition of a nullification law.”  We must be willing to throw federal agents into State Penitentiaries with the general prison population and throw away the key.

Mike Vanderboegh is discussing his work against Communist Mike Lawlor and how remarks by Robert Farago don’t quite measure up.  Look, I have nothing against Robert, but I find him to be a rather strange bird.  The  e-mails I have exchanged with him eventually found Robert offering to let me write for TTAG as long as they got exclusive rights to the content for the first 48 hours (or some time), while he also seemed very reluctant to link and comment on anything I write on my own web site.  I cannot possibly answer why he took this position.  As I said, it seems rather odd to me.

Robert says of the Connecticut situation, “No matter how you look at it, this will not end well.”  Oh, I’m not so sure about that.  Perhaps I will begin praying imprecatory prayers against Mike Lawlor.  Perhaps the collectivists in Connecticut will back down.  Perhaps this will become a toothless law.  Perhaps the first shooting or imprisonment of a gun owner will bring the house down on law enforcement in Connecticut.  I can think of a number of good outcomes.

David Codrea:

A response from ATF implied that ATF had no intention of posting comments it felt did not meet all of its criteria, including those not accompanied by a complete mailing address. Even so, comment suppression appears to extend beyond that.

I wish I could say that this surprises me, but it doesn’t.  My experience is that the federal regulators can be treated as a monolith.  From the ATF to the EPA, DOE, DoJ and so on, not a single agency really cares about your comments.  They find you to be a nuisance.

Kurt Hofmann:

Illegal drug activity or not, though, Magee has a fundamental human right to protect himself and his pregnant girlfriend from violent, armed home invaders, and Magee’s claim that that is precisely what he thought was happening apparently convinced the grand jury.

Oddly, in another recent story, we are told that the purpose of “no-knock” raids is “officer safety,” after a SWAT team raided an Ankeny, Iowa house (on suspicion of credit card fraud, of all things …

The police aren’t interested in the safety of citizens.  If they were they would achieve their ends by doing good detective work and arresting perpetrators when there is no danger to themselves or the citizens.  They want to be Soldier-boys who dress up and go shooting and wear cool gear and stuff.  And the only thing I have to prove to a jury is that in an age of home invaders dressing in LEO uniforms and yelling “Police,” I have no way to ascertain who the invaders are.  The only way I have to keep my family safe is to assume that they are criminals.  And LEOs who do this are in fact criminals, even if Judges approve of their actions.

Take a look at Mike Vanderboegh’s recent entry on Mike Lawless (um, excuse me, Mike Lawlor).  Do you think the KGB will show an interest?  With Mike’s relentless attention to this ne’er do well, perhaps it will begin to make a dent in the armor of the collectivists.  After all, light scatters the darkness.

From Uncle, this piece on whether there is a 9mm that matches the ballistics of a .45.  Um, sorry, but I’m a registered professional engineer.  Give me the data, and I’ll apply Newton to the information.  And it will fail the test.  I am not invoking a 9mm versus .45 debate here, but don’t tell me that they’re the same thing (not that Uncle is trying to do that).  They’re not.

David Codrea:

“Has the NSA Wiretapping Violated Attorney-Client Privilege? … has anyone considered that DOJ may be actively getting attorney client and defense strategy from these spying programs?

David is investigating whether the NSA spying programs are using surreptitious and underhanded interpretations of the Sixth Amendment to do an end run around the constitution.  It wouldn’t surprise me one bit, and as I’ve said before, the NSA is full of traitors.  I do not believe for even a single second that an al Qaeda attack or Tehrik-i-Taliban attack in the states has been prevented with these methods.  If so, prove it.  And even if so, you cannot convince me that it’s necessary to violate the rights of U.S. citizens in order to effect these ends.

Kurt Hofmann:

The Children’s Rights Amendment, or the CRA, would allow a more solid legal foundation to so-called [sic] counterbalance the interpretation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kurt is doing some forensic work to track down the roots of some traitorous behavior.

Speaking of traitorous behavior, Mike Vanderboegh is absolutely wearing out traitor Mike Lawlor, the henchman in Connecticut who is threatening citizens with forcible disarmament and prison over the recent gun laws.  See Mike’s posts here and here.  Reading these articles made me chuckle a bit.  I’m glad I’m not on Mike’s bad side.

Speaking of chuckling a bit, take note of the proposed changes to Massachusetts gun laws to make them look even more like Connecticut gun laws – as if more needs to be done.

Finally, see Uncle’s dumb quote of the day.  And his response?  “You’re right! Tomorrow, you might be on the street corner giving knob jobs for a few bucks. So, we should preemptively ban use of your mouth since you might do something illegal with it. And because you use it to say dumb shit.”

David Codrea:

A federal judge has upheld the State of Connecticut’s sweeping gun control laws enacted last year in response to the Sandy Hook “gun-free zone” shootings …  leaving the Constitutional mandate “shall not be infringed” unacknowledged.

That’s not all the judge did or said.  But the Hartford-based judge said Connecticut’s law does not “amount to a complete prohibition on firearms for self-defense in the home.”  Of course as readers know, the Second Amendment has to do with more than self defense.  It has to do with ameliorating tyranny.  I think clarity is needed on this issue.  I’ve said before than the Second Amendment frames in the federal government in its latitude to enact gun control laws, and I still support that view.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that the doctrine codified in the Second Amendment doesn’t give us a road to follow at the state and local level.  It certainly does.

All federal laws concerning firearms are unconstitutional because of the Second Amendment.  This is special case because it is a federal case concerning a state law.  These are becoming more frequent.  Purely as a matter of practicality and workability, I do not see the federal court system as a legitimate protection of our God-given right to bear arms for both personal protection and amelioration of tyranny.  They just won’t oblige this role or duty, and neither will the executive or legislature branches of the federal government.  What this means is varied and far reaching, but one obvious result of all of this is that the real fight is at the local and state level.  If this makes its way to the Supreme Court (and I doubt that it will), don’t expect them to overturn this abomination.  Patriots will have to decide when it is time to move to freer states, and states will have to decide when it is time to remove the shackles of burden welded on by the federal government.

David is also covering the threat of immigration to gun rights.  David and I have both covered this as well, where the bonanza of voters for the democratic party would be overwhelming and determinative.  In a related issue, David is pointing out yet another good reason to guard the Southern border.  Gun control, having largely failed in the U.S., is being prepared as an invasion from the South.

Here are some of Saldias’ examples of increasing restrictions Latin American gun owners have recently experienced:

-Peru has limited gun ownership to only four firearms, 2 handguns and two long guns—period.

-Bolivia passed a “temporary” ban on importing firearms and ammunition, and Ecuador then followed suit. Bolivia’s ban is in its third year, but Ecuador dropped the ban.

-In Argentina the government publishes gun owners’ names and addresses on a public access website.

-In Chile, citizens can buy and possess firearms, but all firearms are legally the property of the government, which can recall them at any time by Presidential decree.

-According to the Venezuelan Hunting Federation, before Chavez came to power they used to sell over 20,000 hunting licenses per year; now, that number is less than 1,000.

-Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic have totally banned all hunting.

-Paraguay narrowly missed passing legislation to ban lead hunting ammo and now the same proposal is in front of Argentine legislators. Such a ban would be disastrous. “There are no alternatives to lead ammunition in Latin America,” Saldias said. “A ban would effectively end all hunting.”

Folks, this is easy.  We close the borders, inspect every vehicle that comes across from the South, reduce the number of checkpoints through which traffic can flow, shoot invaders, implement E-Verify on a national basis, and prohibit the hiring of any illegal immigrant.  The corporate interests won’t allow it.

Kurt Hofmann is covering microstamping and the silliness behind the new California law.  He also points out, once again, the dual standard with which law enforcement and citizens are treated.  I’ve covered this, but on the other side of the equation (i.e., by Smith & Wesson, from whom I haven’t heard back on my questions to them).  The new California law strips rights from the citizens, but exempts LE.

Kurt Hofmann: ““These pro-gun guys say they have rights that can’t be interfered with, but I think we should get rid of the Second Amendment …”  Has Kurt gone anti-gun, or is he quoting someone else?  You’ll have to drop by and see.  Besides, although late to the game, the Illinois constitution also recognizes the right to bear arms.  Did we forget about that little document?  States matter, folks.

John Jay discusses what it means to have milspec parts.  I think John may not have included enough of the idea of rapid target reacquisition during maneuvers in which fighters have engaged selective fire in his discussion of intermediate cartridge.  But this post is about as good as it gets in understanding what it means to get parts that are “milspec,” what it does not mean, and what it might mean.  As for my Rock River Arms AR-15, with its Wylde chamber, can shoot 5.56 mm and 0.223 with equal (very good) accuracy, and I love the way it shoots.  But the Wylde chamber isn’t milspec.  It’s something RRA does for their rifles that isn’t included in the Stoner design, per se.  John’s post is long but well worth the time to study it.

Uncle wants to know why the anti-gunners are so violent?  I have wondered the same thing before.

David Codrea:

As is typical with such publications, it only looks at (less than) half of the equation, disregarding the substantial number of defensive gun uses that occur each year …

David is on the case of that presumed “study” that concluded you are at risk for suicide if you own weapons, with no increase in personal security.  I’m glad David had the patience to undo the silliness in the report, since I usually skip past reports like this in a few seconds.  Listen folks.  I work engineering and science for a living.  When someone tells you that “science proves …,” or “science demonstratrates …,” take it with a grain of salt (and usually ignore it).  Like I have said before.  If you want me to give a report on science or engineering the time of day, get a registered professional engineer to prepare the calculations, seal the work with his PE seal, and send it to me for review.  Otherwise you’re just wasting my time.

David:

There’s another consideration, a speculation really, as information is sketchy: While ATF is prohibited by law from creating a database of gun owners, it appears federal power can trump state safeguards on medical marijuana records …

Well, you know what I have to say about that!  Federal regulation should NEVER be able to trump state laws on anything.  And oh, by the way, get cancer, and you may lose your guns.  Kurt Hofmann is also covering this issue.

Kurt Hofmann:

That last sentence is where the entire counterargument falls apart. No one seriously asserts a right to “murder, rape, and thieve out of self-defense.” Murder, rape and theft are all intrinsically evil acts, which violate the rights of others, and there is therefore no “right” to commit them–for anyone.

Kurt is dealing with one of the classical objections to our objections to more gun laws.  Kurt’s thinking is my thinking exactly.  But there are already laws against murder rape and kidnapping.  Making more doesn’t change things.

Daniel Greenfield (via WRSA):

Mayor Bloomberg flubbed the snow challenge badly. Instead of preparing road salt, he banned salt in restaurants. Instead of having a snow strategy for the winter, he had a Global Warming strategy for the next fifty years. Instead of doing his job, he kept trying to transform the people.

And his successor is no better.

Bill de Blasio’s focus after his petty and mean-spirited inauguration was a ban on carriage horses in Central Park at the behest of a real estate developer who backed his campaign and has his eye on their stables, a tussle over who will get the credit for Pre-K with Governor Cuomo and the beating of Kang Wong, an 84-year-old man, over a jaywalking ticket.

I think it’s awesome.  New Yorkers elected him.  Now.  Live with the consequences.

Daily Caller reports on Castle Rock repealing their ban on open carry.  Good for them.

David Codrea:

While doing some internet searches to support Saturday’s column about Oregon Firearms Federation accusing anti-gun state senator Floyd Prozanski of lying when he promised his bill regarding private transfers would not accomplish registration, I by chance came across a bizarre “tweet” from an unlikely source.

“Oregon Firearms Federation are pigs” …

David also covered this same sort of hate-filled, violent, cruel reaction from the anti-gunners here.  Have you asked yourself why the anti-gunners are so violent?  I have, and I have my own views of the nature of progressives and totalitarians and why they do what they do.

Kurt Hofmann:

Last year, Missouri HB 436. the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” was passed by large, bipartisan majorities, in both chambers of the Missouri legislature, and then vetoed by Governor Jay Nixon (D). The House overrode Nixon’s veto, but the Senate fell one vote short–that failure aided and abetted by a stab in the back from Republican senate “leadership.” This year, Representative Doug Funderburk (R-103rd District) is trying again …

I hope it has better success, and for heaven’s sake, make it a serious effort as we’ve discussed before.

Mike Vanderboegh is covering the new ATF appropriations bill.  Their efforts are likely to be damaging.  You know my view on this.  The second amendment – while I do not believe that it has a limitation to applicability to states or citizens in all of their relationships with all of government – was primarily written as was the balance of the constitution.  It circumscribes the power of the federal government.  The upshot is that all federal laws concerning firearms – each and every one of them – are unconstitutional.  Now there’s a cost savings idea for the administration concerning ATF funding.

WRSA: A nice looking H&K AR-15 to be sure.  I’ll stick with my Rock River Arms AR-15 because I like it.  Very much.  Very much indeed.  And I will just never have an NFA weapon because I’ll never beg the ATF for permission to do or have anything.

Finally, Semper Fee, dude.  My son Josh says, “She’s such an idiot. What kind of person lives as long as she has and never hears those words pronounced?  A raging, tree hugging, urban-spawned progressive.”