Michael Bane of Shooting Gallery and a whole host of other shows on the Outdoor Channel has produced a video review of the SR40. It gives his impressions after shooting one at Gunsite before it was officially released.
The key points to me seem to be that it has the best trigger of the SR family and the heavier slide helps to tame the recoil.
Steve at The Firearm Blog announces that Ruger is making a .40 S &W version of their SR9. It is called, appropriately enough, the SR40. He does not have specs on it yet but notes that one is being offered for sale on Gunbroker.com.
 |
| Ruger SR40 as found on gunbroker.com |
It appears to have virtually the same lines as the SR9. I know the SR9 got a lot of grief early on for being recalled but I like mine. It fits my hand well and shoots better than I can. The only modification that I’ve done to mine is to change the front site to a green fiber optic. I don’t know if I’m in the market for the SR40 as I have a couple of .40’s already.
Caleb at Gun Nuts Media is very excited about this new pistol. He is currently using a SR9c in his Quest for Master Class series which he likes. Caleb says he plans to do an episode on the SR40 in his Quest for Master Class series after he can get his hands on one. He notes:
I’ve been hoping for an SR40 for a while now; eventually I wanted to make a run at my USPSA GM tag in Limited-10, and with the amount of trigger time I’ve had on the SR9, this is a natural transition.
UPDATE: Ruger sent out an announcement e-mail on the SR40 along with its specs. It is also listed on the Ruger website. They have kept the slimness of the SR9 with only a .060″ increase in overall width for the SR40. Capacity has dropped by two rounds to 15+1 from 17+1 which is comparable to the difference between a Glock 22 and a Glock 17. Specs are as follows:
MRSP is $525.00 which is the same as for the SR9. I’m sure the street price will be much less.
From the Buckeye Firearms Association comes this reminder:
The Ohio Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for an important gun rights case, City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, tomorrow, October 12, 2010.
The case came about after the Ohio General Assembly voted to override Governor Bob Taft’s veto of HB347 – Ohio’s “preemption” law – which codified R.C. 9.68, ensuring that firearms laws would be uniform throughout the state.
The City of Cleveland immediately sued the State of Ohio, and the Supreme Court is now going to be forced to issue a ruling that will decide once and for all whether R.C. 9.68 is valid. If it is valid, than other than ordinances banning the discharge of firearms inside city limits and zoning laws, Ohio cities are, once and for all, out of the gun control business.
I will be anxious to hear the outcome of this case and will post an update when a decision is reached.
UPDATE: Here is what the Ohio Supreme Court lists about the case:
Does State Law Invalidating Local Gun Regulations Violate City’s Constitutional ‘Home Rule’ Powers?
City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, Case no. 2009-2280
8th District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County)ISSUES:
•Does R.C. 9.68 violate the City of Cleveland’s “home rule” powers under the Ohio Constitution by prohibiting the city from enforcing local ordinances that regulate the sale, possession, ownership and discharge of firearms within the city limits?
•Does R.C. 9.68 violate the separation of powers doctrine of the Ohio Constitution by legislatively mandating that, in cases where municipalities are sued for continuing to enforce local gun ordinances, state courts must order the city to pay the court costs and attorney fees of any litigant who successfully challenges the constitutionality of that ordinance?
BACKGROUND: In December 2006, the General Assembly enacted Sub. House Bill 347. The bill contained specific amendments to the state’s previous statutory scheme regulating the concealed carry of firearms and established new statewide administrative procedures for the issuance of concealed carry licenses and penalties for violations of those licensing requirements.The other major component of the bill was a new section of state law, R.C. 9.68. That section: 1) stated that it was the legislature’s intention in enacting the section “to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, carrying, sale or other transfer of firearms, their components and their ammunition.” 2) declared that “except as specifically provided by the U.S. Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law or federal law” gun owners in Ohio may buy, sell, transfer, transport, store or keep any firearm “without further license, permission, restriction, delay or process.” And 3) directed that in any subsequent court case challenging a local gun control ordinance, state courts “shall award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule or regulation as being in conflict with this section.”
The City of Cleveland filed a declaratory judgment action in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas challenging the constitutionality of R.C. 9.68 under the Home Rule Amendment to the Ohio Constitution. That amendment, contained in Article XVIII, Section 3, provides that municipalities within the state have the inherent authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their borders local police regulations to protect the safety and health of city residents, so long as such regulations do not conflict with “general laws” of the state. The city argued that R.C. 9.68 violated its home rule authority because the statute had the effect of invalidating multiple Cleveland city ordinances regulating the possession, sale and registration of firearms within the city. The state filed pleadings opposing the city’s petition for declaratory judgment and seeking summary judgment that the challenged statute was constitutional.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the state, citing the Supreme Court of Ohio’s 2008 decision in Ohioans for Concealed Carry v. Clyde. In that decision, the Court held that a Clyde city ordinance prohibiting the concealed carry of weapons in city parks was void and unenforceable because it was in conflict with the uniform statewide guidelines for concealed carry that had been adopted by the General Assembly as part of Sub. H.B. 347.
The city appealed. On review, the 8th District Court of Appeals held that R.C. 9.68 was unconstitutional because it violated both the home rule amendment and the constitutional separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of state government, and remanded the case to the trial court with a directive to enter summary judgment in favor of Cleveland. In its decision, the court of appeals specifically found that R.C. 9.68 was not a “general law” under a four-part test set forth in the Supreme Court of Ohio’s 2002 decision in Canton v. State. The state sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the 8th District’s decision.
Attorneys for the state assert that the court of appeals erred by considering R.C. 9.68 in isolation from the rest of Sub. H.B. 347 and from the body of pre-existing state and federal laws that collectively make up a “comprehensive legislative scheme” that qualifies as a general law by prescribing uniform rules of permissible conduct by all citizens of the state with regard to the possession, sale or transfer, transportation and concealed carry of firearms.
They also argue that the absence of a specific provision in state law that regulates some aspect of gun possession or use that may be covered by a local ordinance does not alter the established legal principle that the state has the ability to displace local regulation of an area of law by establishing a uniform set of statewide regulations as it has done here. With regard to the separation of powers, they argue that the provision of R.C. 9.68 awarding attorney fees and costs against cities that continue enforcing local gun ordinances after they have been preempted by state law is no different than multiple other legislative enactments that entitle successful litigants to recover attorney fees and costs in various types of legal actions such as suits for wrongful imprisonment, delinquent child support, voter harassment, age discrimination and unreasonably denied public records requests, among others.
Attorneys for Cleveland urge the Court to affirm the 8th District’s findings that neither R.C. 9.68 nor H.B. 347 in its entirety meets the Canton v. State criteria for a “general law” because they leave major aspects of gun ownership and use that are covered by local ordinances − such as possession of firearms by minors, licensing of gun dealers, regulation of assault weapons and registration of handguns − unregulated under state law. They argue that R.C. 9.68 does not “prescribe rules of conduct for citizens generally” as required under the Canton test, but instead simply prohibits enforcement of any and all local gun-control ordinances regardless of whether there is any demonstrable conflict between a specific ordinance and a provision of state law. Finally, they assert that in enacting the legal fee-shifting provision of R.C. 9.68, the legislature infringed on the exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial branch to regulate the imposition of court costs and fees as a way to intimidate municipalities into repealing or not enforcing their local gun-laws.
Wisconsin Carry and attorney John Monroe have been busy beavers. Or is that badgers.
Little more than a week after they sued the City of Madison and Chief Noble Wray, they are suing the City of Brookfield (Wisconsin) and four Brookfield Police Department officers in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The city and officers stand accused of violating the civil rights of Krysta Sutterfield by performing an illegal search and seizure among other things.
Ms. Sutterfield was attending services at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Brookfield on July 4th of this year. After church services ended, a church member called the non-emergency number of the Brookfield Police Department and asked whether it was legal to open carry. The BPD responded by sending several officers and cars to the church. The caller pointed out Ms. Sutterfield to one of the officers as she was driving out of the church parking lot.
According to the complaint, one of the officers stopped Ms. Sutterfield’s car and drew his weapon. Another officer then appeared on the scene and also drew his weapon. She was ordered out of the car, handcuffed, and then her car was searched without her permission. One of the officers found Ms. Sutterfield’s handgun in the car enclosed in a securely zippered case. They then placed her under arrest for “illegally transporting a firearm.” However, the prior April the Brookfield PD had circulated a memo from the Chief of Police informing all officers that illegal transport of a firearm was not an arrestable offense in the State of Wisconsin. Ms. Sutterfield was taken to the Brookfield Police Department where she was questioned, booked, and then released.
The local district attorney declined to prosecute the case because he determined:
that the Defendents had no probable cause to stop Sutterfield and to search her car, as no criminal acts had been reported to Defendents at the time of the stop and search.
The Brookfield Police Department still maintains a record of Ms. Sutterfield’s arrest which is also an item of contention in the lawsuit.
The Defendents are accused of violating Sutterfield’s 14th Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, her 14th Amendment rights to due process, of using an unreasonable amount of force, and by harrassing her for open carry they infringed her rights to keep and bear arms. The Court is being asked for an injunction prohibiting the individual police officers from “detaining, searching, or arresting” individuals who are lawfully open carrying. Another injunction is being requested to expunge the record of Ms. Satterfield’s arrest. Finally, the plaintiffs are asking for a declaration stating that “openly carrying firearms, without more, is not a criminal act.”
Ms. Sutterfield had been the victim of violent crime in the past and this is why she now open carrys. To be frank, you don’t often hear the words Unitarian and open carry in the same sentence. Indeed the church has passed resolutions calling for more gun control.
This case is very similar to the California case of Wolanyk v. San Diego which was discussed in an earlier post. I wouldn’t be surprised if an out-of-court settlement isn’t also reached in this case.
H/T SayUncle
Grant Cunningham pointed out this video featuring Rob Pincus and a factory-made Glock Tactical Suppressor. Rob was in South Africa doing some training classes when he came across the suppressor. As Grant notes:
but why in ‘repressed’ South Africa are these things freely available, but here in the ‘free’ United States are they demonized and heavily regulated?
Why indeed.
Salon.com sponsors a social content site for bloggers called OpenSalon. They describe it thusly:
Open Salon is a publishing platform with a built-in audience. It was developed for writers, photographers and artists of any stripe in need of a smart home for their work (and not one of those giant, anonymous blog networks), and who are hoping to be rewarded for it. After a quick, free registration, you can immediately begin posting your words, images or videos to your blog, start building an audience and even earning money.
One such blogger is Alan C. Baird. His biography lists him as a screenwriter, director, and producer now living in Mesa, Arizona. He named his blog Bloguaro presumably after the Saguaro cactus.
In a post entitled “Gunfight At The Shopping-Cart Corral” he details his experience of encountering a person open carrying in a natural-foods grocery store in Arizona. Lest we forget, both open and discrete carry are legal and widely practiced in the state of Arizona. Indeed, discrete or concealed carry now requires no fee and no license after the passage of Constitutional Carry by Arizona.
The blog post is impressive in its ignorance as well in the level of condescension the author exhibits towards gun owners and gun rights. Here is how he describes his reaction after his European-born wife points out a man openly carrying:
“Whaaaat?!” That really captured my attention. Sure enough, some corpulent 80-year-old a**hole was standing in front of the donut peaches, packing a pistol. Rosewood-checkered grip, tooled-leather holster, the whole bit. Not a law enforcement guy, just some retired jerkoff who evidently wanted to enhance the perceived size of his schlong.
And that sets the tone for the rest of the blog post. Mr. Baird then marches off to confront the manager (notice he didn’t have the courage to say anything to the gentleman who was open carrying) about this affront to his sensibilities. He is told by the manager that Arizona is a Right to Carry State and there is nothing that can be done about it. I probably should note here that Baird moved to Arizona from California. During their discussion, this gem came out:
I pulled out the big guns: “Displaying a gun is an implied threat of violence. His threat has spread fear in your customers. Instilling fear is a hallmark of terrorism. Under some definitions, he has already committed a terrorist act.”
He finally slinks back to his wife and tells her its legal and nothing can be done. Baird admits that he won’t confront the elderly gentleman who is openly carrying because he thinks he is psycho.
She was silent for a long time. “You’re afraid of him?”
“Duh.”
“Then I will buy you a gun at Christmas. And you will buy one for me.”
“Huh?” I couldn’t believe my ears. Every now and then, she has trouble with the English language. I was beginning to wonder if this was one of those times.
“We will return here on December 26th, and we will stand in front of that old fasz with our brand-new guns, and we will call him out.” ‘Fasz’ is the Hungarian word for ‘pr*ck.’ When she starts peppering her conversation with Magyar expletives, it’s a pretty good indication she’s having no trouble at all with her English. “And if he tries to walk away, we will laugh at the size of his tiny shriveled-up fasz.”
“He’ll draw. You know he’ll draw.”
“He’s old. We’re faster.”
What is it with these anti-gun types that they have all these fantasies of resorting to violence as well as an unnatural preoccupation with the size of a man’s penis? In reaction to an elderly gentleman going about his own business, they want to engage him in a shoot-out and kill him. The psycho in this story isn’t the elderly man shopping for peaches. It is Baird.
In another post on a blog he shares with his wife, he has this gem which he posted a day later:
National Quick-Draw Contest.
Reality-show pitch:
(1) Require all gun-permit holders to enter the National Quick-Draw Contest.
(2) Pair them up in shootouts.
(3) Survivors move into the next round.
(4) Repeat (2) and (3) until the gun problem is solved.
—
“If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.”
Right. But then you simply declare open season on the people who still have guns, and the cops will mop them up in no time.
In both of these stories, the violent person is Mr. Baird. Oh, how typical.
Sebastian of SnowFlakesInHell has a report on a poll showing Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-Brady Campaign) in a statistical tie with her Republican challenger Fran Becker. McCarthy’s supports seems to be dropping more and more as the election approaches. As would be expected, McCarthy is dismissing the poll results saying it is a private poll and not reliable. They insist Becker is no threat to McCarthy.
So who is Francis X. “Fran” Becker, Jr.? He is a financial planner who owns a practice, Becker and Associates Planning Services, in Lynbrook, New York. He holds the Certified Financial Planner™ designation. Becker is an eight-term member of the Nassau County Legislature representing District 6.
Becker has been married to his wife Clementine for over 36 years. They have three grown daughters and six grandchildren. He has been active in community affairs ranging from the Knights of Columbus to raising money for the Cerebral Palsy Foundation.
Given that Carolyn McCarthy has always vied with Sarah Brady to be the Queen Bee of Gun Control, Becker’s position on the Second Amendment is, of course, of interest. Would a vote for Becker be just trading one gun controller for another given the proclivities of northeast Republicans? In a word, no. Becker is pro-gun and says this on the issue:
Second Amendment
I am a Constitutional Conservative. While we must keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals, the Second Amendment clearly states that every law-abiding citizen has the Constitutional right to bear arms for their own safety and protection.
In one of those weird quirks of fate, I know Fran Becker. He and I were participants together in the Financial Planning Association’s Residency Program back in 2004. This was an intense, week-long small group training program where we worked with some of the best and most experienced financial planners in the business. I remember Fran as strong in his faith, conservative, well-versed in financial matters, and anxious to get home to his family.
According to OpenSecrets.org, McCarthy holds a huge financial advantage over Becker. She has raised over a half million dollars from PACs such as the Brady Campaign’s PAC and numerous unions including the thugs at SEIU. If you want to help Becker out, you can make a donation here. I did and really encourage you to do so as well for two reasons. Fran is a good guy and Congress would be better off without someone who thinks a barrel shroud is “that shoulder thing that goes up.”
I plain flat out just don’t like Dick Blumenthal of Connecticut.
Reason number one is that Blumenthal lied about serving in South Vietnam so as to burnish his credentials with veterans. He has since said he “misspoke” and has offered a half-hearted apology.
My dad, who would be 91 this year if he was still alive, served two full-year tours of duty in Vietnam. He was old in comparative terms when he went there in 1967 for the first tour and even older the second time. By my estimate, he was 48 when he went over there the first time. While he was not an infantryman humping a ruck in the boonies, he was in a war zone. Moreover, he was there for the Tet Offensive where no place in the whole God forsaken country was safe.
Dad had to take a medical retirement in 1972 because his body was too worn out to effectively serve in the Army. In retrospect, a lot of his ailments like angina were stress related. Not PTSD but just plain old stress which took its toll on his middle-aged body. He died nine years later from congestive heart failure. He had just turned 62 a few days earlier.
I missed out having a father around during much of my childhood and adolescence. My dad was serving overseas and we didn’t or couldn’t accompany him on those tours of duty. It is what it is. Obviously, I don’t blame Blumenthal for this but his lies about serving in Vietnam just infuriate me.
I didn’t know too much about his opponent Linda McMahon except of her connection with pro wrestling. However, reading her campaign bio I found out that she is a native of New Bern, North Carolina and is a a graduate of East Carolina University.
Being from eastern NC and going to ECU puts Linda McMahon a whole lot closer to the average person and their concerns than being a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law like Blumenthal. Call that reverse snobbery, if you will, but I think we as a nation have for too long put too much credence in an Ivy League degree. Just look at the state in which the so-called elites have put this country. Enough is enough.
Jim Shepherd’s The Outdoor Wire is reporting a story this morning involving Warne Scope Mount Company of Oregon, Home Depot, and ultimately Citibank. Charles Lake, the president of the company, had submitted an application for a business line of credit to Home Depot which was approved. He needed wood for work benches plus some small appliances sold at Home Depot.
On September 28th, Warne was informed that the approval was rescinded not because of their credit rating but because of the “industry you are in”. When asked for specifics, he was told it was because he made parts for the gun industry.
Like many companies with private label credit cards, Home Depot doesn’t actually grant the credit or administer the program. It is actually run by a credit card company who sets the policies and who decides who gets or doesn’t get credit. In this case, the company is Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.
The story is now taken up by Rich Grassi, editor of the Tactical Wire. After finding out from Stephen Holmes, Senior Manager of Corporate Communications for Home Depot, that Home Depot had no policy against approval for companies in the gun industry and that Citibank handled all the details, he went to Citibank for an explanation.
The following was a prepared statement that he received from Elizabeth Fogarty, Citi Public Affairs:
“Citi does not prohibit the financing of firearms purchases by individuals nor the financing of businesses that manufacture and sell them to individuals for recreational use. However, we do prohibit financing merchants in the non-ancillary military equipment industry, including the financing of businesses that manufacture and or sell firearms for military use. While we do not discuss individual credit applications, we are always open to reviewing particular decisions when appropriate to ensure the policy is applied correctly.”
Non-ancillary military equipment industry? When asked to clarify the meaning of that description, Ms. Fogarty came back with “the policy prohibits financing businesses that manufacture and/or sell firearms for military use.” Grassi and The Outdoor Wire promise updates if they come along.
One wonders how long that Citibank has had this policy and, more importantly, why. Are they afraid of getting caught up in a Pentagon procurement scandal or does it have something to do with the fact that it is 36% owned by the Federal government? Or none of the above? I hope Rich Grassi finds out more on this.
UPDATE: Rich Grassi will be a guest on Tom Gresham’s GunTalk Radio this Sunday to discuss the issue. I’m sure Citibank never thought they’d get this amount of negative publicity for shafting a little 50 employee company in Tualatin, Oregon. Heck, I bet they don’t even know where Tualatin is. I sure didn’t and had to look it up on the map – it’s in the Metro Portland area.
UPDATE II: From the NRA-ILA on the issue:
NRA-ILA Investigates Citibank Issue
Friday, October 08, 2010
This week, NRA-ILA and NRA’s Publications Division learned of an issue regarding the disapproval of credit by Citibank South Dakota for a respected manufacturer of scope mounts for firearms. Upon investigation with Citibank, it appears that the initial disapproval was based on the type of business the company is engaged in. Citibank applies an industry code to every business that seeks credit and it appears that the company was assigned a code that Citibank does not lend to. However, we believe this code was misapplied in this case.
At this time, it does not appear that Citibank is actively denying banking services or credit in an attempt to discriminate against firearm-related businesses. Rather, we believe that there was a misunderstanding as to the nature of this particular company’s business.
NRA-ILA staff will continue to work with Citibank to resolve this situation and to help prevent similar problems in the future.
Illinois is one of two states that do not have any form of concealed carry whatsoever. Bills have been introduced on an annual basis for a number of years now and have always failed. The voting strength of legislators from the Chicago Metro area has been enough to overcome those Downstate Illinois legislators in favor of it.
According to a story in the Springfield State Register-Journal, the tide against concealed carry may be changing.
“The climate is changing,” said Todd Vandermyde, an Illinois lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. “I think we are closer than we have ever been. We will probably have the most aggressive year you’ve ever seen.”
The agrees with what Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said at the 2010 Gun Rights Policy Conference. He said that they are going to go “full bore” on concealed carry in the legislature this year along with state pre-emption of municipal gun laws so that they won’t have cities like Chicago interfering with concealed carry laws. He noted that they had gotten the Illinois Sheriffs Association to be supportive of concealed carry and the Illinois Police Chiefs Association and the State Police have been neutralized on the issue. Pearson said “those are big steps in Illinois. If you can get some of the people to back out of the fight and others to join you, it is a big deal.”
This brings us to the gubernatorial race. The unelected Democratic incumbent, Gov. Pat Quinn, is anti-gun, anti-concealed carry, and has been endorsed by the Brady Campaign. Conversely, his opponent, State Senator Bill Brady is both pro-gun and pro-concealed carry. Indeed, Brady has been criticized in ads by Quinn for not supporting more gun control.
Brady was quoted in the same Springfield State Register-Journal story regarding concealed carry:
“Carrying to protect yourself is a right that is afforded to citizens in 48 other states, not Illinois,” Brady said in a written statement issued through his campaign. “With the proper safeguards — including training, education and background checks — it should be legalized in Illinois.”
I don’t if Brady supports “may issue” or “shall issue” concealed carry but this is a definite improvement over Gov. Quinn whose spokesperson, Mica Matsoff, said ““He is not in favor of legalizing conceal and carry.” The spokesperson then adds this non sequitur, “Gov. Quinn believes in keeping the most dangerous guns, such as assault weapons, off of our streets.”
The latest Rasmussen polls show Brady leading Quinn 48% to 36% with 8% undecided and 9% backing other minor candidates. Brady’s support has dropped slightly and Quinn’s rose by 1%.
With a pro-gun governor, concealed carry, and a whole host of legal challenges to gun control laws in the state, Illinois may become a free state again. Or at least a semi-free state.
by