Month: February 2014

Uncategorized

White House – Target Shooting Is OK But Self-Defense Is Not

February 7, 2014 by 5 Comments

HR 3590 – the Sportsmen’s Heritage And Recreational Enhancement Act of 2013 – passed the House of Representatives yesterday on a vote of 268 in favor with 154 opposed. The bill passed in a somewhat bipartisan manner with 41 Democrats and 227 Republican voting in favor of the bill.

The bill, if acted upon and passed by the Senate, does a number of things including setting aside Pittman-Robertson monies for range construction, removes the authority of the EPA to regulate lead for ammunition and fishing tackle, and allows electronic duck stamps. The bill would also prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from banning firearm possession on Corps recreational and water resource development projects. The US District Court for the District of Idaho issued a preliminary injunction preventing the US Army Corps of Engineers from doing just that in the case of Morris et al v. Army Corps of Engineers.

A summary of Title VI states:

Title VI: Access to Water Resources Development Projects Act – Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act of 2013 – Prohibits
the Secretary of the Army from promulgating or enforcing any regulation
that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm at a water
resources development project administered by the Chief of Engineers if:
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing
the firearm, and (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with
the law of the state in which the project is located.

On Monday, the White House issued a statement on the SHARE Act stating what they supported, what they opposed, and what they didn’t care about one way or another. The White House said it supported the use of Pittman-Robertson monies for range development (Title II), it supported allowing the importation of a handful of legally killed polar bear trophies from Canada which have been stuck in limbo (Title IV), and it supported the electronic sales of duck stamps (Title V).

The White House said that it didn’t oppose Title I which, in its words, “excludes certain sport fishing equipment from the classification of toxic substances.” They ignored mention of that part of the bill that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 to “exclude from the definition of “chemical substance” for purposes of such
Act: (1) any component of any pistol, revolver, firearm, shell, or
cartridge the sale of which is subject to federal excise tax, including
shot, bullets and other projectiles, propellants, and primers”.  I guess I should be thankful that they didn’t oppose it.

Among the things the White House opposed was Title VI. They said:

The Administration also opposes Title VI, which prohibits the Secretary of the Army from enforcing any regulations that would prohibit the possession of firearms at water resources development projects with limited exceptions.

In other words, they are opposed to the right of visitors to any Corps-administered lands to be able to be armed for the purposes of self-defense. A tent or camper has been found to be a temporary residence many times
by the courts and, as such, is the place which the Supreme Court found
in the Heller case that the need for self-defense is “most acute”.  Thus, while the Obama Administration is somewhat OK with gun owners and hunters doing target shooting at some backwoods, out-of-the-way location, they don’t believe you have the right to self-defense while in a tent or camper in a campground on Corps-administered lands.

Go figure.

Uncategorized

NSSF Training Tip: Holdover And Offset

February 6, 2014 by 1 Comment

Adam Painchaud of the Sig Sauer Academy talks about holdover and offset in the latest training tips video from the National Shooting Sports Foundation. A red dot sight or a scope is zeroed for a specific distance. If shooting a distance that is either greater or less than the zeroed distance, you need to compensate for it in order to get an accurate hit.

Adam discusses ways to determine the holdover and offset for your rifle. This becomes important in a defensive situation when you are using a rifle at close range. It is also important if you are in a competitive match such as a 3-Gun competition.

Uncategorized

Shew V. Malloy Will Be Appealed

February 5, 2014 by 2 Comments

On Thursday, Senior US District Court Judge Albert V. Covello ruled that despite being “in common use” the State of Connecticut could impose an assault weapons (sic) and magazine ban. This ban had been challenged by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League in the case of Shew et al v. Malloy et al. Today the CCDL announced that a formal notice of an intention to appeal had been filed.

From their release:

HARTFORD – Just one day after receiving an adverse ruling from the lower federal court on their
Second Amendment challenge to Connecticut’s new firearms law,
the plaintiff-firearms owners and organizations filed a formal notice of their intention to appeal the ruling. In addition to following the U.S. Supreme Court precedents in the renowned cases of
Heller
and
MacDonald,
the lower federal court deciding the case was bound to follow recent precedents of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. To date, the Second Circuit has upheld laws that place greater restrictions on the right to bear arms than have courts in federal circuits in other parts of the country. It is these diverging views of the Second Amendment on issues that were not resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Heller
and
MacDonald
that make it likely that the Supreme Court will decide to hear one or more Second Amendment cases in the next few years.


Although the legal conclusions did not go their way at this initial stage of the litigation, the lower court did make factual findings that gun owners view as favorable. For example, the court found that certain of the newly banned firearms, such as the popular AR-15, are in
“
common use
”
for lawful purposes throughout the nation. The AR-15 type modern sporting rifle, which is newly classified as an
“
assault weapon
”
under the legislation, is the leading type of firearm used in national shooting matches and in other competitions sponsored by the congressionally established Civilian Marksmanship Program. The court also
found that banning such commonly used firearms places a “substantial burden” on fundamental Second
Amendment rights.

 The photo below was posted on their blog announcing that they planned to appeal the decision. I think they have it right.

Uncategorized

Quote Of The Day

February 4, 2014 by

The quote of the day comes from US National Rifle Team member and gun blogger Anette Wachter who is also known as 30CalGal. She was one of the people who had testified before a Washington State legislative committee about Initiatives 591 and 594. Initiative 594 is the gun prohibitionists’ “background check” initiative which would criminalize transfers without a state background check while Initiative 591 is the Protect Our Gun Rights Act.

Describing how one opponent of gun rights had said she was afraid of guns, Anette said we must work on those in the middle.

But as I listened to Wa St. Senator Jeannie Darneille from Tacoma state she is deathly afraid of guns period, I knew that there was to be no convincing people like her to back off of gun control measures. They hate guns period. Our work to be done is to make those on the fence see the light. Those on the fence are the ones that only hunt, or only have a pistol, or only go to the range once in a while or who’s dad used to shoot, that all aspects of the 2nd Amendment need to be protected. Just because you don’t shoot an AR and it does not affect you does not mean you should vote against the right to own them. Do you want me to vote against one side of your First Amendment because I don’t like your choice of social media but as long as my social media choice is not affected that is it ok? It is all or nothing.

She is dead on with that observation and that is where we need to concentrate our efforts. It is what military strategists call the concentration of force.

Uncategorized

About The Super Bowl Ad You Won’t Be Seeing Tonight

February 2, 2014 by 3 Comments

The NFL is insisting that they never saw the ad that Daniel Defense wanted to run during the Super Bowl. However, they said if they had seen it would not have met their standards and that the controversy is just an attempt by Daniel Defense to get publicity.

The argument over why this ad won’t make it to the airwaves goes like this: Daniel Defense attempted to buy Super Bowl ad time in several local media markets in November. Most of the markets did not accept it and the response from one station in Little Rock, Ark., is still pending.

A Fox Station in their home state Atlanta, Ga., told Daniel Defense in an email, “Unfortunately we cannot accept your commercial spots in Football / Super Bowl due to the rules the NFL itself has set into place for your companies [sic] category.”

The NFL says that it never saw the ad and never heard of it before it blew up in conservative media circles last month.

The NFL’s Vice President for Communications Brian McCarthy told ABC News that the controversy is being ginned up by the company who was “looking to gain exposure for this ad.”

This policy has not set well with many people. The dismissive response of Mr. McCarthy to me is just as troubling. It speaks of a disdain for the firearms industry, those who work in it, and those of use who would patronize Daniel Defense.

Ginny Simone of NRA News has done a special report on the controversy. The report was released earlier this week.

Uncategorized

If It Saves Only One Life

February 1, 2014 by 2 Comments

“If it saves only one life” is a frequent refrain from those who would control and/or prohibit guns. What if we applied this logic to other things in our lives. Jack Spirko who hosts the wildly popular The Surivival Podcast did just that recently. He applied it to stairs and staircases.

Since the gun prohibitionists and their media allies like Diane Sawyer of ABC News love to use and misuse statistics, let’s look at the stats that Jack has compiled.

First some statistics, falling down stairs on average

  • Kills over 1,300 people per year – (source)
  • Over 1 million people are injured per year in stairway falls – (source)
  • Nearly 100,000 children a year are injured enough by stairway falls to require hospitalization – (source)
  • Young children and the elderly are the most victimized by falls – (source)

Let’s take those numbers over a decade we get…

  • 13,000 deaths that never had to happen
  • 10,000,000 plus hospital visits that never had to happen
  • 1,000,000 children hospitalized for serious injury that never had to happen
  • An unfair and disproportionate group of victims who are small kids or older adults that need protection

I am one of those 1 million victims of stairway falls. I broke not just one but two bones in my leg due to a stairway fall. It has not only been painful but it has been costly in terms of lost economic productivity as my broken leg has hindered me in meeting with clients in their homes. If my hosts had only installed an elevator instead of a staircase, I wouldn’t have broken my leg. Or so the logic goes since it was their fault because they owned a staircase and not my responsibility to pay attention when using that staircase.

So what does Jack propose?

Let’s start with what we can all agree on, the madness must stop. So, at a minimum, we have to ban the building of any new stairs for general use. All new constructions will have stairs only for emergency evacuations, there will be licensed trained professionals that can use them for other needs and who will direct us untrained types down them if necessary. That is right, if you need to use your stairs dial 911 and professionals will come to your aid.

Jack’s logic is impeccable if you buy into the argument that saving just one life is worth it. And while we are at it, let’s not forget buckets, kiddie pools, and scissors. They have all caused the death of children one way or another.

Jack has also produced a video in which he makes his argument for stairway prohibition.

Uncategorized

I Like This City Administrator

February 1, 2014 by 1 Comment

Hamilton is a small town in the northwest part of Missouri. Its chief claim to fame is that it is the birthplace of J. C. Penney and that the high school named after Penney traditionally has had a very good football team.

It is also now getting a lot of attention in quilting circles for being the home of Jenny Doan and her Missouri Star Quilt Company. This 5-year old company is now the second largest employer in town and gets 30,000 orders monthly for quilt kits and other quilting supplies. It was the focus of a feature story in today’s Wall Street Journal.

Because of the popularity of Mrs. Doan’s YouTube tutorials and her quilt supplies, the town is now getting 50-100 visitors daily seeking to meet her and shop in the Missouri Star Quilt Co. store. Many of these quilters are women who arrive with their non-quilting spouses. The city administrator says they love all these tourist but really need to do something for the bored husbands.

City Administrator Dale Wallace says the tourism is great, and that maybe the town just needs to patch up its array of amenities. “For example, we really need to find something for the men to do,” he said of the husbands who sometimes come in tow with their quilting spouses. “Maybe we’ll put in a gun shop.”

Now that is a right-thinking city administrator!