Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Grass Roots North Carolina Hits Back Hard Against New York Times

December 28, 2011 by 2 Comments

The New York Times, or as SayUncle calls it, the paper of making things up, ran a story on Monday asserting that 1% of North Carolina concealed handgun permit holders had been convicted of felonies or misdemeanors. They didn’t break down the number of felonies versus the number of misdemeanors as that would lessen the impact.

Grass Roots North Carolina head Paul Valone was interviewed for this story and responded late yesterday in a GRNC Alert.

Mike Luo’s crusade

Following an extensive interview between GRNC president Paul Valone and New York Times reporter Mike Luo, the Times is now trying to depict North Carolina’s population of concealed handgun permit-holders as rife with felons. To support his claims, Luo relies on flawed methodology, misuse of anecdotal data, and selectively ignored facts he learned during the interview. The current piece is at least the third time Luo has written biased and misleading articles on gun ownership.

Figures lie…

Although Luo claims to have done data-matching between criminal databases and permit-holders, he admitted confirming only a dozen matches with the NC State Bureau of Investigation.

Data matching between large databases is subject to high rates of “false positives” depending on the number and type of parameters matched. To quote one data mining whiz: “The problem is that if you’re trying to search a couple of large data sets for something that occurs infrequently, the number of true hits (if any) is likely to be far less than the number of false positives.”

…and liars figure

When asked whether Luo would confirm all matches with the SBI, or whether he would do statistical analysis of his data, determining what percentage of North Carolina permit-holders commit crimes, or whether he would simply provide misleading anecdotal examples as he did on a November 13, 2011 piece on restoration of gun rights for felons, Luo refused to answer.

How Luo creates a false impression

The plural of “anecdote” is not “data”: By pulling a small number of anecdotes rather than verifying all of the data, Luo hopes to paint a false portrait of NC concealed handgun permit-holders as criminals.

Selective data: Luo has a reputation among researchers for cherry-picking research to support his assertions, and for failing to disclose the gun-related leanings of researchers he cites.

The Charlotte Observer fell over itself to propagate Luo’s deceptive story

The Charlotte Observer ran this insult to their gun-owning readership as front page news!

GRNC president Paul Valone responds

“What The New York Times recently published is a biased ‘hit piece’ designed to undermine the unerringly successful expansion of concealed carry laws. By cherry-picking anecdotes from error-prone data matching, reporter Michael Luo creates a false impression of widespread abuse by concealed handgun permit-holders. Luo admits not bothering to confirm more than a handful of the matches found, so given the small data set used, the number of “false positives” may well exceed the number of accurate matches.

“Even Luo’s claim of 2,400 crimes by permit-holders – which includes DUI convictions and relatively minor misdemeanors – represents only a tiny fraction (0.6%) of the 395,251 concealed handgun permits approved since 1995. Moreover, data from other states reveals that few permit revocations result from misuse of firearms.

“As Luo was told during the interview (but chose to ignore), when Grass Roots North Carolina helped draft the state’s concealed handgun law in 1995, we gave law enforcement officials the tools for permit revocations by attaching concealed handgun permit information to the state drivers’ license database. Any concealed handgun permit-holder arrested for a crime would be immediately identified as such.

“Furthermore, nothing in the law prevents the North Carolina Department of Justice from doing checks on permit-holders to ensure they remain in compliance with the law, nor would we oppose such an effort. If the state fails to avail themselves of those tools, the problem lies not within the concealed handgun law, but instead within its enforcement.”

Sean at An NC Gun Blog has some further comments on GRNC’s response here and has been running a whole series of stories examining the NYT piece. They make for good reading.

I do find it interesting that this story comes out less than two weeks after New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg starts another crusade to close the “private sale loophole”.  I really don’t think it is any coincidence.

UPDATE: More on the NYT’s “story” from Bob Owens here and a roundup from the Instapundit here.

Uncategorized

Your Laws Mean Nothing To Me

December 27, 2011 by 1 Comment

When candidate Barack Obama was running for President in 2008 he was highly critical of then-President George W. Bush’s use of what are called signing statements. These are written pronouncements by a president when he signs a bill into law. From Wikipedia.org:

A study released by then-Assistant Attorney General, 1993–1996, Walter Dellinger[3] grouped signing statements into three categories:

Constitutional: asserts that the law is constitutionally defective in order to guide executive agencies in limiting its implementation;
Political: defines vague terms in the law to guide executive agencies in its implementation as written;
Rhetorical: uses the signing of the bill to mobilize political constituencies.

In recent usage, the phrase “signing statement” has referred mostly to statements relating to constitutional matters that direct executive agencies to apply the law according to the president’s interpretation of the Constitution.

Here is candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail in 2008 responding to a question about signing statements.

That was then and this is now.

Two days before Christmas, President Obama was presented with HR 2055 – the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 – and he signed it. He also concurrently released a presidential memoranda or signing statement saying he objected to parts of it. From the political newspaper The Hill:

President Obama said Friday he will not be bound by at least 20 policy riders in the 2012 omnibus bill funding the government, including provisions pertaining to Guantanamo Bay and gun control.

After he signed the omnibus into law Friday, the White House released a concurrent signing statement saying Obama will object to portions of the legislation on constitutional grounds.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 is a 486 page document that contained Congressional appropriations for most agencies and departments of the Executive Branch. Contained within it were three provisions that are considered wins for gun owners. The NRA-ILA released a statement on these provisions that said in part:

Stopping Your Tax Dollars From Funding Anti-Gun Studies

One of the protections expanded and strengthened can be found in Sec. 218 of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education (Labor-H) division of the bill. This section prevents the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from using taxpayer dollars to promulgate junk science designed to paint legal gun ownership as a public health hazard. Since 2002, the NIH has spent nearly $5 million on this “research” even though their counterparts at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have been prevented from funding similar studies since being blocked in 1996 by a NRA-backed provision.

No Tax Dollars to Lobby and Promote Gun Control

The second is a new NRA-backed provision that is found in Sec. 503 of the Labor-H division. This section prevents federal funds from being used for lobbying efforts designed to support or defeat the passage of legislation being considered by Congress, or any state or local legislative body. Too often, community action groups are utilizing federal money to lobby for increased regulation of firearms including trigger locks, bans on semi-automatic rifles, regulated magazine capacity, etc. This funding subverts the Second Amendment and allows anti-gun Administrations to fund grassroots gun control efforts using taxpayer dollars. We are grateful that H.R. 2055 prohibits further use of this gun control scheme.

Protecting Historic Firearms and Spent Brass Casings from Destruction

Finally, a long-standing provision, found in Department of Defense (DOD) Sec. 8017 division A, preserves the opportunity for American gun owners to purchase surplus firearms that are no longer of use to the U.S. military. This includes M-1 Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles and M-1911 pistols. Starting in 1979, different versions of this language have prevented these firearms from being needlessly destroyed. In 2009, Congress amended this language at the urging of the NRA to prevent the destruction of spent brass casings, a boon for gun owners and reloaders concerned about the rising price of ammunition.

According to the signing statement, Obama specifically said he would not be bound by the first of these provisions:

Additional provisions in this bill, including section 8013 of Division A and section 218 of Division F, purport to restrict the use of funds to advance certain legislative positions. I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient.

Section 218 which relates to the funding of the National Institutes of Health says:

SEC. 218. None of the funds made available in this title may
be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.

So again we see now-President Obama doing things which then-candidate Obama criticized President George W. Bush for doing. In this case, using signing statements to modify implementation of Congressional actions. Moreover, he appears to be making good on his earlier promise to Sarah Brady to conduct gun control policies under the radar.

UPDATE: Here are a couple of more takes on Obama’s contentions in his signing statement.

From Dave Hardy: Obama Discovers the Constitution

From Sebastian: Not Reading the Same Constitution

Uncategorized

Now In The Land Of Lincoln

December 27, 2011 by 1 Comment

When we crossed the Ohio River from Paducah, KY to Metropolis, Illinois this afternoon, I had to unload my Ruger LCR and lock it away. Unlike in the antebellum days when crossing the Ohio River meant going from a slave state to a free state, it has now been metaphorically reversed. We went from a free state to one that views personal freedom as an anathema.

I must say I felt a little naked driving with no self-protection.

One of these days, the people of Illinois will have the same freedoms as the rest of the 49 states. Until then, I will need to increase my level of situational awareness.

Uncategorized

Happy Boxing Day

December 26, 2011 by 1 Comment

In Great Britain, December 26th is celebrated as a holiday and called Boxing Day. It is now an official “bank holiday” and, like the day after Christmas in the US, is a big shopping day. It is also traditionally a day for fox hunts as in riding to the hounds. While former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Labour Party may have banned fox hunting in the UK, it is still practiced in theory.

Investigating the origins of Boxing Day I came across a couple of potential explanations.

First, in England, Anglican Churches traditionally put out a box during Advent in which they collect donations of money (or alms) which are given to the poor on the day after Christmas. From an explanation in Time Magazine:

On the day after Christmas, the boxes were broken open and their contents distributed among the poor, thus giving rise to the term Boxing Day.

 A second explanation was that the lords and ladies of the manor would give boxes of Christmas leftovers to the peasants who worked on their estates. From an explanation by Woodlands Junior School in Kent:

Many poorly paid workers were required to work on Christmas Day and took the following day off to visit their families. As they prepared to leave, their employers would present them with Christmas boxes.

During the late 18th century, Lords and Ladies of the manor would “box up” their leftover food, or sometimes gifts and distribute them the day after Christmas to tenants who lived and worked on their lands.

Given that the country formerly known as Great Britain has been transformed into Sarah Brady’s gun-free paradise by edict of Parliament – which as we all know leaves guns in the hands of only the government and the criminals – I have a modest proposal for an alternative Boxing Day tradition.

Gun buybacks are a favorite pastime of anti-gun politicians and their sycophantic big city police chiefs. These gun buybacks are feel-good exercises which have no impact on crime in the inner city much like the British Parliament’s gun edicts have had no impact on violent crime in the UK. Why not transform them into a new “alms/arms for the poor” program whereby unwanted firearms are collected and distributed to the good people of the UK (or the inner city). Thus, when Nigel, Trevor, and  Ali decide that Mr. and Mrs. Smythe’s row house is ripe for a home invasion, they are welcomed with something more than just harsh words when they burst into the front parlor.

There is precedent for this. Prior to our entry into WWII, there were collections of firearms to be sent to the people of Great Britain for the Home Guard in the dark days after Dunkirk. The NRA alone sent over 7,000 rifles to England and the American Committee for the Defense of British Homes sent another 25,000 rifles along with 2 million rounds of ammunition.

Unfortunately, while this would make a great (new) tradition, the governments of both the US and the UK would oppose it with great force and ferocity. The US government because they want to be the only gunrunners in town and the UK government because they have long ago lost their spine. More’s the pity.

Uncategorized

My Black Friday Black Rifle

December 26, 2011 by 4 Comments

This year I took advantage of a variety of Black Friday sales to get the remaining parts needed to assemble a piston-driven M-4gery. I already had a stripped lower from Templar Custom thanks to Sean Sorrentino along with a DPMS lower parts kit I had purchased on sale a couple of years ago.

The heart of the rifle is a mid-length Adams Arms gas piston complete upper that I got on sale from MidwayUSA at the beginning of their week-long sale. It is chambered in 5.56 NATO and has a 1:7 right hand twist barrel. This will allow me to shoot the heavier 75 grain cartridge.

I got most of the other parts from Brownells using their discount code plus my dealer discount. I replaced the standard M-4 handguard and grip with a Magpul MOE mid-length handguard and a MOE+ pistol grip. The handguard did not need any fitting to work with the gas piston upper as can be seen in the picture below.

I did get the Magul BUIS but decided to go with a HK 416 sight set from RTG International Surplus Parts. These were about the only part that I used that I didn’t get on sale. Why the HK drum sight instead of a more traditional BUIS? I just liked them and I think that they are very rugged. I’ll use the Magpuls on another build down the road. You can also see the Magpul ASAP ambidextrous sling attachment point in the picture below.

I got the mil-spec extension tube, spring, and a Spike’s Tactical T-2 buffer tube from Brownells. The buttstock is a Rogers Super-Stoc which came from Wilson Combat. Colt will be offering it soon but has not released it as of yet. I like the cam-lock system as it does away with any slop or rattle in the collapsible stock. Once adjusted for length and with the cam locked, it is as solid as an A2 stock.

Thanks to my son-in-law’s dad Jeff, I got most of it assembled a couple of weeks ago. Jeff works as a machinist for a major airline and has assembled a number of lowers over the years. As this was my first lower that I had assembled from scratch, I was really glad to have his help and advice.

Sean had warned me that the Templar Custom lower was designed to be tight and might need some adjustment. He was correct and we had to do a little bit of fitting. However, this has made for a tight and solid fit between the upper and the lower. The magwell may need a little bit of light sanding to allow me to use Magpul PMAGs. GI mags fit just fine.

I still have to mount an optic on this. For now, I may just go with my Eotech 512 that I have on another AR. I am open to suggestions for other optics especially holographic or red-dot.

The final thing I want to do is to highlight the logo and safe and semi-auto icons with a little bit of Testor’s enamel. I think it will add a finished touch to this rifle.

I am quite pleased with my first real build and am looking forward to sighting it in. With all the year-end business stuff and family stuff, I haven’t had a chance to do this yet. But as Scarlett O’Hara famously said in Gone with the Wind, “for tomorrow is another day”.

Uncategorized

CalGuns/SAF Leave Lump Of Coal in California’s Stocking

December 24, 2011 by 1 Comment

The CalGuns Foundation along with the Second Amendment Foundation dropped off a little gift yesterday for Kamala Harris and the California Department of Justice. They filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California challenging the ten-day waiting that California imposes before an existing gun owner make take possession of an another individual firearm.

The individual plaintiffs in this suit are Jeff Sylvester, Michael Poeschl, and Brandon Combs. All three  are owners of handguns registered in California’s AFS Database. Mr. Sylvester also holds one of those rare things – a California Carry License – and Mr. Combs holds a California Certificate of Eligibility. Both of these licenses are subject to real-time and ongoing background checks.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs are Jason Davis and Don Kilmer (of Nordyke fame).

The release on the suit from CalGuns is below:

San Carlos, CA (December 23, 2011) – The Calguns Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against the California Department of Justice and Attorney General Kamala Harris challenging the policy of requiring gun owners to wait at least 10 days before taking possession of an additional firearm. The case is entitled Jeff Silvester et. al. vs. Kamala Harris, et. al.

The Calguns Foundation is joined in the lawsuit, filed today at the District of California Federal District Court in Fresno, by the Second Amendment Foundation and three individual plaintiffs.

“The State has absolutely no reason to infringe the rights of California gun owners who already possess firearms when they buy another one,” said Jason Davis who is the attorney for the plaintiffs. California currently requires the registration of handguns in California. And, beginning January 2014, it will also require the registration of all newly-purchased rifles and shotguns. Notably, California keeps a current database of all residents who are prohibited by state or federal law from owning or possessing firearms.

Individual plaintiffs Jeff Silvester, Michael Poeschl, and Brandon Combs each have firearms registered with the State of California. Mr. Combs and Mr. Silvester also have firearms licenses from the State that constitute ongoing background checks.

“In just about every other state in the U.S., I as a law-abiding gun owner could walk in and, after passing an instant national background check, walk out with a firearm to defend myself in my home,” said Michael Poeschl. “What’s really frustrating is that California is one of the very few states that forces gun owners to register all handguns that they buy. If the State’s database saying that I already lawfully own a gun isn’t proof that I don’t need a ‘cooling-off’ period, then what is?”

“I have a license to carry a loaded firearm across the State,” noted Jeff Silvester. “It is ridiculous that I have to wait another 10 days to pick up a new firearm when I’m standing there in the gun store lawfully carrying one the whole time.”

“As a collector, I submitted to a Live Scan background check and obtained a Certificate of Eligibility to Possess Firearms from the State of California at my own expense,” said Brandon Combs. “In the Internet era, where every California gun dealer has a computer connected directly to the State’s databases, there is no logical reason to force me to wait 10 days and make another trip simply because California doesn’t want to acknowledge the Certificate that it issued to me. I have registered guns, and I have the State telling me that I can possess guns, but for some reason I can’t exercise my constitutionally protected rights for another ten days? That’s insane.”

“Laws that infringe on the right to purchase arms have to be more than just merely rational and must directly serve important governmental interests,” added Hoffman. “Here, the law is not just irrational but actually contradictory. We filed this case right before Christmas in the hopes that, by next Christmas, gun owners will not suffer this continuing infringement on their right to acquire firearms.”

A copy of the complaint and case filings can be downloaded at http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/category/20-silvester-v-harris.html

Uncategorized

First Impressions Of The Ruger LCR-22

December 23, 2011 by 1 Comment

I posted the announcement of the new Ruger LCR-22 last Friday. I had a chance to handle one in the flesh, so to speak, today at The Gun Rack in Kernersville, North Carolina.

While the MSRP of the LCR-22 is $524, The Gun Rack was selling it for $399. Having bought guns from them in the past, they tend to price their Rugers at the low range.

My first impression of the LCR-22 was that it was almost an exact clone of the LCR in .38 Special and .357 Magnum. The weight felt close to my .38 Special version and it felt very similar in my hand. The sights appeared to be the same as with the original LCR. I have changed mine long ago to the XS Sights Standard Dot tritium sights so I’m going on memory.

I did find the trigger pull felt heavier than that of its bigger brothers. This was a subjective evaluation and was not measured with a trigger pull scale. I didn’t feel any stacking of the trigger unlike in my Colt Detective Special.

If you are thinking of getting one as a training gun, I’d suggest renting one first to see how you like it. The heavier trigger pull was a bit of a negative for me but your experience might be different.