Uncategorized

Fruit Pickin’

April 4, 2017 by

Smart gardeners know that when they see low hanging fruit, it’s time to be picking the fruit. The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation have found that low hanging fruit in cities like Philadelphia, Tacoma, and Wilmington (Delaware). The low hanging fruit is those cities’ ban on stun guns and other electronic self-defense weapons.

It is low hanging fruit due to the US Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Caetano v. Massachusetts which found such weapons are protected by the Second Amendment. Justice Alito’s concurring decision in the case decimated the argument of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court holding that stun guns were outside the Second Amendment. Among the many excellent points he made was this one regarding the argument that stun guns are dangerous:

If
Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be
categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.
554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s
own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr.
27, cannot be banned on that basis.

 So far, the Firearm Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation has filed suit against the state of New York and has successfully persuaded the City of Annapolis, MD to change their ordinance banning stun guns. In this latest round of action, they have sent demand letters to Philadelphia, Tacoma, Wilmington, and Westminster (MD) saying their bans have to go and legal action would commence.

More on their “fruit pickin'” below:

SACRAMENTO, CA (April 3, 2017) — Today, attorneys for civil rights advocacy organizations Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) sent legal letters to the cities of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Tacoma, Washington; and Wilmington, Delaware demanding that they repeal their respective bans on electronic arms or face federal Second Amendment litigation. Last week, a demand was sent to the City of Westminster, Maryland, regarding its ban.

The Philadelphia Code § 10-825 states that no “person shall own, use, possess, sell or otherwise transfer any ‘stun gun’,” making a violation of the law subject to a fine of up to $300 “and/or imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days.”

“The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms, not only the right to keep and bear firearms,” explained attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh in the letters.

“We hope that these cities will simply choose to comply with the Second Amendment and respect the people’s fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Coalition and chairman of the Foundation, “but if they don’t repeal their unconstitutional bans, we won’t hesitate to sue them in federal court if that’s what it takes to protect the rights of law-abiding people.”

In its March 2016 Caetano v. Massachusetts decision, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Massachusetts high court, which had upheld the State’s ban on electronic arms and stun guns. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote separately to say that if “the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.” After Caetano was remanded back to the state court system, a trial judge found her not guilty and sealed her record, quickly ending the case before it could proceed.

On February 28, the City Council of Annapolis, Maryland, responded to a Second Amendment civil rights lawsuit brought by FPC, FPC, and a local resident by passing an ordinance repealing its total ban on the possession and carry of electronic arms, like Tasers and ‘stun guns’, in a special meeting.

FPC and FPF filed a Second Amendment challenge to the State of New York’s ban on electronic self-defense weapons in federal district court last December. That case is currently pending the trial court’s decision on two motions that were argued on March 24. The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction in that case and the State has indicated that it would defend its total ban on electronic arms and Tasers up to the Supreme Court.

Uncategorized

New Product From A Vortex-Hornady Collaboration

April 1, 2017 by 1 Comment

Vortex Optics and Hornady have collaborated on a new cartridge that is being released just for today. It has many features but the most important one in my estimation is that it saves you the trip down the range to examine your target. You don’t have to wait for the range to be called “cold” before checking where your bullet has struck the target. Moreover, you don’t have to invest in expensive spotting scopes either.

Microtechnology just never ceases to amaze me.

Is there anything technology can’t do on April First

Uncategorized

Ideologues Versus Science

March 31, 2017 by 2 Comments

There is currently a battle going on between anti-science ideologues and those committed to a health-related change in the laws based upon science. You have doctors, public health advocates, and civil rights advocates on one side and you have the New York Times and anti-health prohibitionists on the other side. I am talking about the battle between those for and opposed to the Hearing Protection Act of 2017.

The New York Times weighed in the battle with an absurd editorial entitled “Echoes of Gunfire Hurt Tender N.R.A. Ears”. As per their usual, they conflated the number of deaths attributed to the use of a firearm to include intentional deaths (suicides), they misrepresented the intent of Congress for adding suppressors to the National Firearms Act, and they created a strawman by insisting the public would be at risk because “ShotSpotters” would not be able to hear gunfire.

The annual tally of 30,000-plus gun deaths accounts for just a tiny fraction of the total shots fired, most of which miss their targets but terrorize neighborhoods. Amid the lethal cacophony, the police in more than 90 cities here and abroad seek to reach the scene of the latest gun troubles more quickly by using an audio detection system called ShotSpotter, which triangulates the sound of gunfire onto computer maps. Police officers in major cities hail these precise early alarms of where the latest shooting is.

Yet despite these advances, the National Rifle Association argues, self-servingly, that noisy guns are a public health hazard. With the help of supporters like President Trump’s son Donald Jr., a gun hobbyist, it wants to roll back an 80-year-old federal law that tightly controls the sale of firearm silencers. Immune to irony, the N.R.A.’s congressional friends have introduced a measure called the Hearing Protection Act, which contends that the sound of gunfire is hard on the ears of gun owners.

“What about the rest of us?” the nation’s unarmed majority might well ask. When it comes to public health, the noisier a gun is, the better the chances for innocent bystanders to hit the ground and for police officers to apprehend the shooter.

I guess reading the Washington Post is beneath the editorial board of the New York Times. The Post reported only four days earlier that the CEO of ShotSpotter said their devices had detected suppressed gunfire in the past and would be able to detect it in the future with some fine-tuning.

Then there is Mark Kelly aka Mr. Gabby Giffords of Americans for Responsible Solutions (sic) who has been leading the charge against suppressors.

From a fundraising email:

One of those bills would lift restrictions on the sale of firearm silencers.

Now, I don’t want to give the impression that firearm silencers work like you see them in the movies — where someone fires a gun and it wouldn’t wake a person sleeping in the same room.

But silencers do suppress sound and light when a weapon is discharged, and that makes them attractive accessories for criminals who want to conceal their crimes.

Attractive accessories for criminals? Really? Actually, criminals want to scare the shit out of you with the noise of a firearm report because it tends to make victims more compliant.

You would think someone who had been around jet engines like Kelly would have an appreciation for the damage that loud noises do to hearing. I know I do because every day for me is like a hot summer night in Mississippi where the crickets, cicadas, and tree frogs keep up an incessant noise. That is what tinnitus sounds like to sufferers like me.

On the rational, scientific side of this debate are groups like Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership. They have just released a position paper in favor of suppressors to prevent hearing loss. The four primary authors of the paper are all board-certified physicians specializing in otolaryngology or ear, nose, and throat issues. The following is from their executive summary of the paper:

Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) is a real public health problem:

The causal relationship between loud noise exposure and irreversible hearing loss has long been
recognized by medicine and the U.S. government.

NIHL is permanent and untreatable. Prevention is the only possible intervention.


Demonstrable need:

NIHL is the most prevalent service-connected disability among Veterans.

Per the CDC, 15% of adults aged 18 and over (or nearly 38 million American) have hearing problems.

Over 100 million Americans who own guns are at risk for gunshot-induced NIHL. Auditory injuries are
sustained by bystanders the same as by shooters.

Nearly all gunshots exceed the noise threshold for instant damage to the hearing cells of the inner ear.
And their explosive blast generates 1,000 times the force on the eardrum than the noise itself.


Benefit of suppressors:

Muzzle blast sound levels from most firearms range from 140 to over 170 decibels. 120 decibels is
considered the maximum safe level for short exposures (the intensity of a car horn 3 feet away). Ear
plugs and/or ear muffs only reduce noise by 20-30 decibels.

Evidence supporting the need for greater use of firearms suppressors comes from the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communicative Disorders, the
Centers for Disease Control, as well as academic and military research.

Muzzle-mounted suppressors are vastly superior to ear protectors, providing 50% greater noise reduction.
Only suppressors can make most modern firearms safe for hearing, as noise at gun ranges routinely
reaches 160 decibels.

I would urge readers to study the position paper issued by Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership. It provides great graphics and is extensively sourced. Moreover, unlike most doctor’s handwriting, it is both readable and understandable!

Our first suppressor arrived this week after a wait of over three-fourths of a year. As I said in that post, can you think of any other consumer product for the health and safety of both the purchaser and the general public for which you have to ask the government for permission to take possession of it on top of paying $200 for the privilege? It is time for Congress to act on the established science of hearing loss and pass the Hearing Protection Act.

Uncategorized

Chicago May Finally Be Listening

March 31, 2017 by 1 Comment

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has told the City of Chicago that a) they must allow shooting ranges, b)that they can’t so limit their locations as to be prohibitive, and c)that those under the age of 18 should be allowed at ranges so as to get proper firearm training. These rulings stem from cases brought the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association in  Ezell v. City of Chicago and what is called Ezell II.

On Wednesday, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel proposed new zoning regulations that would bring the city into compliance with the court’s rulings.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday proposed allowing gun ranges in more areas of Chicago in response to a federal appellate court ruling that struck down the city’s zoning restrictions on the shooting facilities.

The new rules would allow gun ranges in business, commercial and industrial areas, provided the owners obtained a special-use permit — which requires officials to take into consideration any objections from people and businesses in the surrounding area…

The changes also would allow people younger than 18 to shoot at a range, provided they are supervised by a parent, guardian or trained instructor.

The earlier regulations had limited shooting ranges to industrial areas and required that the ranges be located more the 500 feet away from “homes, schools, day care operations, houses of worship, liquor stores, parks, libraries, museums and hospitals.” This effectively limited shooting ranges to about a 2% area within the city limits. The early regulations also banned anyone under the age of 18 from going to a range.

While I don’t have the final details of Emanuel’s proposal, this seems to be a start in the right direction. When the minutes from the March 29th City Council meeting are published, I will publish the relevant portions.

Congratulations again to the Second Amendment Foundation, the Illinois State Rifle Association, plaintiff Rhonda Ezell, and attorney Alan Gura for their efforts to bring a basic civil right to the City of Chicago.

Uncategorized

272 Days

March 29, 2017 by 6 Comments

It took the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives a total of 272 days to approve the Form 4 for our new suppressor. I say our because it is in the name of the trust that the Complementary Spouse and I set up for this purpose.

It took a total of 279 day or nine months, six days to be notified that we had been approved.

Regardless of whether it was 279 days or 272 days, it took over three-fourths of a year to be approved to take possession of a product that we had already for paid in full.

Think about that for a minute. Can you think of any other consumer product for the health and safety of both the purchaser and the general public for which you have to ask the government for permission to take possession of it on top of paying $200 for the privilege? I really can’t.

For enquiring minds, it is a SilencerCo Omega in .30 caliber with a .22 muzzle break  brake on order. The suppressor was purchased from Tar Heel State Firearms outside of Charlotte. They were very helpful throughout the whole process.

Uncategorized

Women Arm Yourselves Safely (WAYS) Program

March 26, 2017 by 2 Comments

If you are a woman who wants to learn to shoot a handgun and live in western North Carolina then the Asheville Practical Shooting Association has a program for you. The program is called “WAYS” or “Women Arm Yourselves Safely.” Formerly called “Women on Target”, the program seeks to introduce women with little or no experience shooting handguns to them in a safe and effective manner.

I met Mike Privette of the APSA this weekend when he assisted with the shooting portion of my NRA Basic Instructor Training class. He and his wife Beth are the coordinators of these classes being held in Brevard. They will be offering four opportunities to take the WAYS class this year. I have posted his flyer below.

For $35 this is a great bargain and a great way to learn more about shooting a handgun.

Women Arm Yourselves Safely (WAYS)
(formerly “Women on Target”)


Are you a woman who has ever been curious about shooting a handgun?


Do you have a handgun at home but don’t really know how to handle it safely and effectively?


If you’re a woman who has never shot a handgun or have very limited experience and want to learn more, then this course is for you!


Asheville Practical Shooting Association (APSA) offers an orientation and training class for women that is structured for those who have very little to no experience with handguns. The course consists of a one-day combination of classroom instruction and handgun firing at the Bear Arms indoor shooting range in Brevard, NC. Course focus is on firearm safety and proper shooting techniques. The staff is made up of highly qualified instructors who provide top notch training in a safe, nurturing environment. The association provides firearms, ammunition, targets, all safety gear, and lunch for only $35.


If you have been thinking about getting a concealed carry permit, want to learn how to safely handle and shoot that gun that you’ve had for a while but don’t know anything about, have just a little experience but want to learn more, or have no experience at all but are just curious about handguns, then contact us for more information or to reserve a spot in one of our four 2017 classes.


Where: Bear Arms, 1653 Rosman Highway, Brevard, NC 28712


When: April 1       June 3        August 5       October 7


How: Contact Mike or Beth Privette, APSA “WAYS” coordinators, 828-966-9611, to sign up or get your questions answered.

Uncategorized

Every Picture Tells A Story, Part VII

March 24, 2017 by 4 Comments

New Hampshire and North Dakota are the 12th and 13th states respectively to have passed constitutional carry. That means fully one-quarter of the US states now have permitless concealed carry. To see what this means in terms of the percentage of the US population now living in constitutional carry states, Rob Vance has updated the graphic we have presented since 2011.

To see how much the world has changed since 2011, see the original post here. I said at the time that shall-issue was the new norm. While shall-issue is still the norm, the number of states adopting constitutional carry may eventually change this statement. I certainly hope so!

Rob had this to say about his statistics in an email he sent me:

As of 3/24/2017

Percent of US population living under class of concealed carry law

No issue = 0.4% HI (de facto no issue)

May issue= 27.0% CA,DC,MD,MA,NJ,NY,RI
Shall issue = 62.9% all other states

Unrestricted = 9.7% AK,AR,AZ,ID,KS,ME,MO,MS,NH,ND,VT,WV,WY

Note MT is near unrestricted in terms of CCW law

Given the behavior of some counties in CA, 75+% of the US population now lives in shall issue or better territory.

My friend and podcasting colleague Rachel Malone has been fighting for constitutional carry in Texas. She has been working with Rep. Jonathan Strickland on his HB 375. It would bring constitutional carry to the Lone Star State. The good news on this is that it is scheduled for a hearing on March 28th before the House Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee. Moreover, Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) has promised to sign constitutional carry if it does pass the Texas Legislature.

Uncategorized

North Dakota Is Now Lucky 13

March 24, 2017 by

North Dakota became the 13th state to have constitutional concealed carry signed into law. Yesterday, Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND) signed House Bill 1169. As the excerpts from the governor’s press release below make clear, it only applies to North Dakota residents. Out-of-staters will still need a carry permit if they wish to carry concealed.

From Gov. Burgum’s press release:

BISMARCK, N.D. – Governor Doug Burgum today signed legislation allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed handgun if they have possessed a valid North Dakota driver’s license or state ID card for at least a year.

The “constitutional carry” authority provided under House Bill 1169 applies only within North Dakota’s borders. Those wanting concealed carry reciprocity with other states must apply for a Class 1 or Class 2 North Dakota concealed weapon license, for which the requirements remain unchanged.

Current law only requires an applicant for a Class 2 license to complete an open-book test, at a cost of up to $50, and undergo a criminal history records check. Class 1 licenses require firearms training and additional requirements. Both licenses carry a $60 application fee.

Under HB 1169, anyone who is eligible to possess a Class 2 firearm license and has had a valid driver’s license or state ID card for at least a year may carry a concealed firearm. Law enforcement officials recommended the state ID language, as well as the bill’s requirement that anyone carrying a concealed weapon inform law enforcement of the weapon during a traffic stop or other contact.

Someone who has been convicted of a felony or crime of violence will still be precluded from carrying a handgun under this new law. Individuals who initiate the purchase of a handgun from a federally licensed dealer are still required to undergo a federal background check, which runs their name and descriptive information through three national databases.

“North Dakota has a rich heritage of hunting and a culture of deep respect for firearm safety. As a hunter and gun owner myself, I strongly support gun rights for law-abiding citizens,” Burgum said. “House Bill 1169 allows citizens to exercise their Second Amendment right under the U.S. Constitution. It also is consistent with the North Dakota Constitution, which declares in Article I that all individuals have the inalienable right ‘to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.’ ”

At the same time, Burgum – who has a Class 1 concealed weapons license that requires applicants to demonstrate firearms proficiency – noted that neither the existing Class 2 requirements nor HB 1169 have a firearms training component. He encouraged anyone considering carrying a concealed weapon to enroll in one of North Dakota’s many certified gun safety courses.

“Gun ownership is both a right and a responsibility, and that responsibility begins with individuals and families,” Burgum said.

House Bill 1169 passed the State House with a vote of 83 yeas to 9 nays and the State Senate by a vote of 34 yeas to 13 nays. No law enforcement organization or group opposed the law when it came before the legislature. The bill itself may be seen here.

According to the Bismarck Tribune, the number of carry permits in the state more than doubled in the past five years to over 48,000 permits.

A similar bill passed the South Dakota legislature but it has been or will be vetoed by Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R-SD). Unfortunately, it does not appear that the majorities that passed the bill are not high enough to override the governor’s veto. Gov. Daugaard has said he thinks the present process is sufficient and that “the inconvenience to the law-abiding citizen is so minimal.”

Uncategorized

The Only Proper Response To Schumer’s Threat

March 24, 2017 by

With the confirmation hearings of Judge Neil Gorsuch coming to a close, Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has announced that he will oppose the confirmation and will encourage his fellow Democrats to filibuster the vote.

In announcing his confrontational approach, Schumer said that Gorsuch “was unable to sufficiently convince me that he’d be an independent check” on Trump. Schumer said later that the judge is “not a neutral legal mind but someone with a deep-seated conservative ideology,” hand-picked for Trump by conservative legal groups.

Thomas C. Goldstein, a Supreme Court practitioner and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, said that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee did not present a compelling case that Gorsuch was either an illegitimate nominee or that he was outside the conservative mainstream.

“None of the Democrats set the table” for a filibuster, Goldstein said. He speculated that one option for some Democrats would be to allow an up-or-down vote, and then to vote against confirmation.

In addition to Schumer, Sens. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) announced Thursday that they would filibuster Gorsuch. Casey is one of 10 Democratic senators running next year in a state that Trump won.

While I have serious doubts about the spine of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), I think his only proper response to Schumer’s threat to filibuster the nomination of a supremely qualified candidate like Judge Gorsuch is this.

“Nuke’em back to the Stone Age!” or at least back to 1917 when cloture of filibusters was first introduced.

While it is a misquotation of Gen. Curtis LeMay, it still has a resonance to it. Those ten Democrats who represent states carried by President Trump may want to heed the warning implied by that threat.

Another threat those Democrats may want to pay attention to came from Chris Cox of the NRA-ILA. Cox sent a letter to McConnell and Schumer  on March 17th saying that Judge Gorsuch has the full backing of the NRA and that they will be scoring the vote on his confirmation. If senators such as Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) or Joe Donnelly (D-IN) don’t think the NRA won’t go full scorched earth on them if they vote against Judge Gorsuch, then they are living in a Beltway induced dreamworld.

Uncategorized

Shockingly, Gov. Hickenlooper Does The Right Thing

March 24, 2017 by 1 Comment

I have been very critical of Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) aka John Hickenstupid over the years when it comes to Second Amendment issues. Yesterday, he did something right when it comes to the Second Amendment if you bear in mind that the Second Amendment applies to not just firearms but all arms or weapons (in common use). He signed into law the bill that repealed the Colorado ban on switchblades and gravity knives.

The repeal of this ban was supported by not only groups like Knife Rights but the ACLU, the ACLU of Colorado, and the County Sheriffs of Colorado.

As the note from Knife Rights below makes clear, the effective date of the ban repeal will be on or about August 9, 2017. Up until that time, switchblades and gravity knives will still be illegal in the state of Colorado.

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper on Thursday signed SB 17-008, the bill to repeal Colorado’s switchblade and gravity knife ban. Congratulations to sponsors Sen. Owen Hill and Rep. Steve Lebsock for their effective leadership in moving this bipartisan bill thorough the legislature with overwhelming votes in both houses. Thanks to everyone who called or emailed the Governor urging him to sign the bill.

Knife Rights was pleased to be able to assist the sponsors in moving this bill through the legislature. Knife Rights’ Director of Legislative Affairs, Todd Rathner, traveled to Denver to lobby the bill at the invitation of the sponsors, overcoming objections raised by some legislators. We’d also like to thank Sen. Hill’s constituent, retired Air Force Master Sgt. John Bloodgood, whose request was the inspiration for this bill and who did a great job supporting the bill in testimony at the hearings.

We’d also like to thank the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Colorado and County Sheriffs of Colorado for supporting this important criminal justice reform bill.

Note that the repeal does not become effective until 90 days after the current legislative session ends. That would make enactment approximately August 9, 2017. We will let you know the actual enactment date once the session ends. Until enactment, possession of automatic and gravity knives remains illegal in Colorado. Also worth noting is that once enacted and the ban is repealed, automatic knives will be subject to Colorado’s concealed carry blade length limitation of 3.5 inches or less.

Colorado is the twelfth switchblade ban repeal passed since Knife Rights passed the nation’s first repeal of a switchblade (automatic) knife ban in 2010 in New Hampshire. Since then we have passed repeals of switchblade bans and repealed other knife restrictions in Alaska, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and now Colorado’s ban is repealed as well.

Now if only Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) would show similar intelligence when such a bill is presented to him again repealing New York’s ban on gravity knives. He vetoed the first attempt even though groups such as the NAACP and the ACLU were in full support of the bill.