Aaron at Weapon Blog has just posted his list of gun, knife, ammo, and accessories giveaways.
Included in April are a trio of Glocks, a Caspian 1911, and a Savage Model 25 Walking Varminter. You can see the whole list here.
What could be better to welcome Spring than a new gun? It sure sounds better than the snow flurries I had this morning in North Carolina!
Rule No. 1 states that all guns are loaded.
The Evyl Robot Soapbox blog has a very good story about a relative’s negligent discharge. Fortunately, no one was injured.
The pictures illustrate why it is vital to know what is behind your target. Some of the 00 buckshot traveled across the room, through a door, across the garage, through an exterior wall, and embedded themselves into an outbuilding.
Dry fire is excellent practice. But you have to make sure the firearm is unloaded and all live ammunition is out of the room. Brownells (among others) sells a full range of dummy ammo and snap caps.
H/T SayUncle
What is it with Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his Mayors Against Illegal Guns? Yet another one of his coterie of gun hating mayors has had to step down due to an arrest.
 |
| Mug shot from Broward Sheriffs Office |
According to the Miami Herald,Mayor Beth Flansbaum-Talabisco of Tamarac, Florida was arrested on March 9th on bribery and other corruption charges. With her arrest, she was suspended from office.
Prosecutors charged Flansbaum-Talabisco, 57, for allegedly selling her vote to developers who contributed $21,000 through a political action committee to smear her opponents and support her 2006 mayoral campaign.
She was replaced on the Tamarac City Commission today by Marion Swenson, the former City Clerk.
Mayor Talabisco joined Bloomberg’s group in early 2007 according to their press release. With her arrest, she is now eligible to join the rest of the other Illegal Mayors featured on the Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors webpage.
H/T Cam Edwards
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments today in Ezell v. Chicago. Attorney Alan Gura appealed to the Seventh Circuit when U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Kendall denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction against Chicago’s ban on shooting ranges.
The three judge panel included Circuit Court Judges Michael S. Kanne, Ilana D. Rovner, and Diane S. Sykes. Judge Kanne is from Indiana and was appointed to the Court of Appeals by President Reagan. Judge Rovner is from Chicago and was appointed to the Court of Appeals by President George H. W. Bush. Finally, Judge Sykes was appointed to the Court of Appeals By President George W. Bush. Judge Sykes had previously served as a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice.
In the argument, each side was given 20 minutes to argue their case. Alan Gura represented the plaintiffs and James A. Feldman was the attorney for the City of Chicago. After listening to the oral arguments, it seems that Judges Kanne and Sykes favored Ezell and Judge Rovner favored Chicago. I am assuming that the older sounding female judge is Judge Rovner and the younger one is Judge Sykes.
There were a number of good quotes that came out of the argument.
“The city has at once required range training for licensure and at the same time, banned them. How is that Constitutional?” Judge Sykes
“you’re not planning or regulating, you’re banning” Judge Sykes
“Is the City taking any steps towards REGULATING ranges?” Judge Rovner to which Mr. Feldman answered “no.”
After Mr. Feldman went on about stray bullets and fights at gun ranges, Judge Kanne asked “Have you ever been to a firing range?” – answer – No
“Well by the looks of your briefs it looks like nobody who wrote the briefs had either” Judge Kanne
“How can you claim that the live-fire range training is so critical to licensing and yet claim it’s not fundamental, it’s not within the scope of the right. Those are mutually contradictory positions… ” Judge Sykes
“Mr Gura, what would you like your preliminary injunction to say?” Judge Sykes
Maryland Shooters forum has a good discussion of the arguments with more quotes here as does the CalGuns forum here.
The oral arguments are embedded below.
Bateman et al. v. Perdue et al was the first case filed after the Supreme Court incorporated Second Amendment rights in McDonald et al v. Chicago et al. The case is a challenge to the State of North Carolina’s emergency powers ban on the possession of firearms and ammunition outside of the home during declared emergencies. The City of King, Stokes County, and the State of North Carolina were sued over the firearms and ammunition ban that occurred as a result of an emergency proclamation brought on by a heavy snow storm.
All three defendents filed Motions to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This motion is for the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The State Defendents – Gov. Beverly Perdue and Sec. of Crime Control and Public Safety Reuben Young – also filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On Thursday, March 31st, Senior U.S. District Court Judge Malcolm J. Howard issued a decision on these motions. He granted the motion to dismiss for the City of King and Stokes County. However, he found that the motion to dismiss for the State Defendents was moot due to their filing a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Judge Howard noted that both Stokes County and the City of King were authorized under NC General Statute § 14-288.12 and § 14 -288.13 to declare states of emergency as well as impose restrictions on firearms during declared states of emergency. He goes on to say that even though they had statutory authority granted by the state, this alone was not enough to state a claim for injunctive relief under 42 USC § 1983.
To impose liability against either Stokes County or the City of King, there must have been some “deliberate action attributable to the [local governmental body]” that is the “moving force” behind a deprivation of the plaintiffs’ federal rights. Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 400 (1997). Because plaintiffs are challenging only the state statutes and not any ordinance, regulation, policy or custom of either of these governmental bodies, plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim against them fails.
Judge Howard then goes on to discuss the State Defendents’ motion to dismiss. He notes that since they filed this motion, both the plaintiffs and defendents have filed cross motions for summary judgment. Both the plaintiffs and State Defendents included by reference their arguments for and against dismissal in their Motions for Summary Judgment as well as in their replies.
In light of these circumstances, the court construes the State Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The court will rule on the parties’ summary judgment motions in due course and in so doing will consider the briefs previously submitted in support and opposition of the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss, as well as the parties’ summary judgment briefs. The State Defendants’ motion to dismiss [DE #29] is DISMISSED as moot.
In summary, Judge Howard granted the motions to dismiss for the City of King and Stokes County. He dismissed as moot the motions for summary judgment for the City of King and Stokes County and the motion to dismiss for the State Defendents. This leaves the motions for summary judgment by the plaintiffs and the State Defendents still remaining.
On a side note, the attorney of record for the State Defendents, Special Deputy Attorney General Mark Davis was replaced by Special Deputy Attorney General Alexander McClure Peters. Mr. Davis has left the North Carolina Department of Justice so could no longer remain as attorney of record.
Mr. Peters has an undergraduate degree in music from UNC-Greensboro and his J.D. from UNC-Chapel Hill. From a Google search on Mr. Peters, it appears that he has been with the NC Department of Justice since sometime in the late 1990s. Since all the motions for summary judgment have been filed by both parties, it probably will mean little that Mr. Davis has left the case.
H/T Krucamm
Andrew at the VuurwapenBlog has just posted a review of a prototype beavertail backstrap for the Gen 4 Glock. With the exchangeable backstraps of the Gen 4, this may be an option in the future.
Andrew notes that the beavertail backstrap might work best for those with large or fat hands.
I saw this story linked on another site:
DOD to Drop Social Security Numbers from ID Cards
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press ServiceWASHINGTON, April 1, 2011 – Beginning June 1, Social Security numbers on military identification cards will begin to disappear, said Air Force Maj. Monica M. Matoush, a Pentagon spokeswoman.
The effort is part of a larger plan to protect service members and other DOD identification card holders from identity theft, officials said.
Criminals use Social Security numbers to steal identities, allowing them to pillage resources, establish credit or to hijack credit cards, bank accounts or debit cards.
Currently, the Social Security number is printed on the back of common access cards, and on the front of cards issued to dependents and retirees. Beginning in June, when current cards expire, they will be replaced with new cards having a DOD identification number replacing the Social Security number, officials said. The DOD identification number is a unique 10-digit number that is assigned to every person with a direct relationship with the department. The new number also will be the service member’s Geneva Convention identification number.
An 11-digit DOD benefits number also will appear on the cards of those people eligible for DOD benefits. The first nine digits are common to a sponsor, the official said, and the last two digits will identify a specific person within the sponsor’s family.
Social Security numbers embedded in the bar codes on the back of identification cards will remain there for the time being, and will be phased out beginning in 2012.
The department will replace identification cards as they expire.
“Because cards will be replaced upon expiration, it will be approximately four years until all cards are replaced with the DOD ID number,” Matoush said.The identity protection program began in 2008, when DOD started removing Social Security numbers from family member identification cards.
Maybe it is time to go back to the old fashioned Serial Number that all members of the Armed Services had in days gone by. You know, as in “name, rank, and serial number.”
Given the rise in identity theft, I’m amazed that it took the military this long to make the change. Having suffered an episode of identity theft, it is a pain in the ass to have to contact all the banks and credit card companies, fill out all the affidavits, and notify all of the Big Three credit reporting agencies.
When you consider how many of today’s military are or have been overseas for extended periods of time, it is not hard to imagine the criminal mischief that identity thieves can do in 12 -18 months. DOD should not take up to four years to replace all the ID cards as that will only drag out the problem.
H/T SoldierSystems.net
Another good video courtesy of NSSF.
WRAL-TV sent reporter Beau Minnick to get “man in the street” perspectives on HB 111 which passed the North Carolina House this past week.
One man said he didn’t object to firearms in parks so “long as it was concealed and it wasn’t loaded”. I think someone doesn’t quite get the concept behind concealed carry and personal protection.
Based on the other comments – especially the ones from patrons in a sports bar – I think the detail about carrying concealed and not consuming alcohol was conveniently left out of the conversation. Nothing in HB 111 allows a person to carry concealed and consume alcohol. That is still illegal under North Carolina law as it should be.
I must wonder how much footage was left on the editing room floor from this exercise in broadcast journalism.
I admit that I don’t own any lever-action rifles or carbines. That said, Sheriff Jim makes a good case for owning one especially if you live in a gun unfriendly area.
I like the idea of one in a pistol caliber like a .357 Magnum where you can use the same ammo in your revolver and your rifle. I’m just still looking for the right one for me.
by