Month: September 2010

Uncategorized

“I know you’re mad at Congress, and so am I.”

September 6, 2010 by 1 Comment

Congressman Heath Shuler is running the ad above. He is the “Blue Dog” Democrat who represents much of western North Carolina including me. He isn’t a bad sort but he has never impressed me as the sharpest knife in the drawer either. While he did vote against ObamaCare and is pro-gun, he has voted for cap-and-trade and the union-backed card-check. He rationalized the latter by saying he had been a union member. The union in question was the NFL Player’s Association.

In the beginning of the ad, Heath seriously intones, “I know you’re mad at Congress, and so am I.” However, when you begin to think about it you say to yourself, “Hey, wait a minute, you ARE a Congressman. You’re mad at yourself?”

I call this the Heath Shuler self-loathing campaign ad.

Uncategorized

What Dae Woo? (bumped)

September 5, 2010 by 2 Comments

Before there was the FN SCAR-L, the Bushmaster ACR, the Ruger SR556, or any of the other piston-driver AR-15 variants, there was the South Korean-made Daewoo K1 and K2 assault rifles and their semi-auto brethren, the AR-100/Max II/DR-100 and DR-200.

Adopted as the primary service rifle (K2) and carbine (K1) by the Republic of Korea (ROK) Army in 1987 to replace their American M-16A1’s, they were originally made by the South Korean chaebol Daewoo Industries’s subsidiary Daewoo Precision Industries, Ltd. After the Daewoo chaebol was broken up because of political scandal and financial difficulties, parts of it were bought by S&T Holdings. The new company S&T Daewoo took over production of small arms for the ROK Army.

K2 Rifle with Brass Catcher
K1A Carbine

The various Daewoo models are a unique combination of aspects of both the AR and the AK rifles. It uses the NATO standard 5.56×45 cartridge and will accept most AR-15 magazines. Like the AR-15, the Daewoo uses an aluminum upper and lower receiver that hinges with a front pivot-pin. The fire control group is interchangeable with the AR-15 though there are some variances in the full auto version. It uses a charging handle similar to that of the FN-FAL except that it is on the right side of the receiver. The mag release and safety are similar to and in the same relative positions as the AR-15.

Where it starts to be more like the AK-47 is that it trades the direct gas impingement system of the AR for a long-stroke piston system that sits atop the barrel. A 4-position gas regulating plug is at the end of the piston assembly. As a result, the Daewoo runs much cleaner.

The selective-fire military versions used by the ROK Army and some other militaries, Peru for example, can be fired in semi-auto, 3-shot burst, and full auto.  It uses a rotating bolt that is similar in appearance that of the AR-15. Unlike the AK-47, the bolt of the Daewoo attaches directly to the piston. The K2, AR-100, DR-100, and Max II all have a 1 in 7 twist barrel. The DR-200 and K1 use a 1 in 12 twist barrel.

Used with permission of PeruDefensa.com

The video below illustrates the Daewoo Max II and its inner workings. The Max II was also named the AR-100 and DR-100.

Civilian versions of the Daewoo were imported into the United States up until 1997. The AR-100 and Max II were imported up until 1989 when their import was banned by an Executive Order by President George H. W. Bush. Any Daewoo of the K1, K2, or AR-100 type were effected by the ban. The Clinton assault weapon ban listed both the AR-100 and AR-100c. Among the importers of the Daewoo were B-West of Tucson, AZ and Kimber of America of Clackamas, OR (predecessor to today’s Kimber). The last models imported were the DR-200 in 5.56 and the DR-300 in 7.62×39.

While there is speculation that importation of the Daewoo’s stopped because of Bill Clinton’s 1997 Executive Memorandum 7 – Importation of Certain Semiautomatic Assault Rifles, I think that is probably convenient but incorrect. Daewoo Industries ran into tremendous financial difficulties in 1998 and was actually dismantled by the Korean Government in 1999. At the same time, Kimber had reorganized from its Kimber of Oregon days and was moving towards production of 1911’s and away from being an importer.

The post-AWB Daewoo DR-200 came with an ugly thumbhole stock, a 10-round magazine, and a silver soldered can in place of a flash hider. I ended up buying one in 1996 or so. I think I paid $550 for it. It has a 1 in 12 inch twist barrel which more or less limits me to 55-grain 5.56 ammo. Here is a link to its manual.

DR-200 – left side
 DR-200 – right side

So you would think that a firearm without an importer, without ready access to spare parts, part of a class targeted by the gun controllers, and with an ugly stock would just fade away into oblivion, wouldn’t you? If so, you’d be wrong. The unique features and reliability of the DR-200 combined with active Internet forums, gunsmiths, and specialty parts manufacturers have kept it alive. Moreover, with the sunset of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, owners can now modify their Daewoo’s with American-made parts and keep it Sec. 922r compliant. Prices for the Daewoo DR-200 in mint condition average in the $750 to $1000 range. They do show up on the auctions sites like GunBroker.com with regularity.

Two of the best forums to learn more about and to discuss the Daewoo rifles are the Woo-Files forum on FalFiles.com and the Yahoo DR200 Group. The leading experts and gunsmiths for the Daewoo are regular visitors to these forums. Many pictures and files have been posted over the years that give the Daewoo owner ideas on how to modify his or her DR-200.

Suppliers of spare parts and items with which to modify the DR-200 include Ace Ltd. for stocks, CNC Warrior for replacement firing pins and gas plugs, Daewoorifleparts.com for all sorts of replacement parts, and StormWerkz for scope mounts, stock adaptors, and handguard rails. I have dealt with Ace Ltd for a pistol grip and stock and with StorkWerkz for a stock adaptors. I can recommend both of them without reserve.

If you are handy with tools, you can make most of the upgrades yourself. Replacing the thumbhole stock with either a folding stock like the Max II or an AR-type stock is relatively easy. Removing the existing can to put on a muzzle break or flash hider can be more involved. Because the barrel is already threaded, you have to be careful to remove the can without damaging the threads. Methods include heating it with a MAPP torch to break the solder joint or using a Dremel tool and cold chisel. If you don’t want to do it yourself, most gunsmiths should be able to do the work. Moses with CMP Armory specializes in shortening the barrel, recrowning it, and then installing a flash hider.

So if you want a piston-driven rifle in 5.56 should you take a change on the Daewoo DR-200? Maybe. If you want something new or something with a large community of users, then the answer is no. If you are willing to be a bit off-beat and can obtain a DR-200 at a reasonable price, I’d say go for it.

H/T Personal Armament Podcast for the Max II video.

Uncategorized

Righthaven: Equal Opportunity Copyright Troll

September 5, 2010 by

Steve Gibson’s Righthaven LLC is proving itself to be an equal opportunity copyright troll. Earlier it had sued the Democratic Pary of Nevada and progressive website Democratic Underground. On Friday, it filed suit against Sharron Angle, Harry Reid’s Republican opponent in Nevada.

According to the complaint filed Friday, Angle is being sued for reprinting two Las Vegas Review-Journal articles on her campaign website. The first was a July 21st article entitled “Its the Jobs, Stupid” and the second was a August 3rd article entitled “Angle: Reid’s Clout Misguided. Challenger Describes What Junior Senators Can Do.” As of this morning, abridged versions both articles are still up on Angle’s website with a link to the LVRJ for the rest of the article. They can be seen here and here.

The delicious irony in this lawsuit is that Sherman Frederick, publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is known to be a big backer of Sharron Angle. Though denied by Steve Gibson, it has been speculated that Righthaven LLC was goaded into filing this lawsuit by liberal blogger Steve Friess. In his blog, VegasHappensHere.com, he published a post on August 23rd asking “Will the R-J Sue Sharron Angle”. The post detailed instances including those cited above where the Angle campaign website had copied full articles from the Review-Journal. Friess gives his reaction to the lawsuits in posts here and here. It remains to be seen how quickly this case will either come to court or be settled. One commenter on Friess’ blog speculated that it would be quickly settled for a nominal sum at “undisclosed terms.”

In other Righthaven news, Adam Hochberg, longtime NPR contributor, had an excellent article in The Poynter Institute’s PoynterOnline journal. He makes note of the claims of Stephens Media and Righthaven that they are only trying to stop copyright infringement as well as the overwhelming negative response it has gotten from many in the legal community and in the blogosphere. He posits that Stephens and Righthaven may get legal victories but lose the PR war. Other newspaper executives note:

take-down notices can easily resolve most copyright conflicts without litigation. “Generally we don’t even do it through lawyers,” said Seattle Times Executive Editor David Boardman, who is an officer of the American Society of News Editors. “Normally all it takes is a call or note or e-mail or letter to somebody just saying, ‘Hey, you’re in violation of our copyright. Please take it down.’ More often than not, they do.”

 However, as Steve Gibson has made clear, enforcing copyrights by surprise lawsuits is the vehicle he plans to ride to untold riches.

Uncategorized

Beach Kill – the New Roadkill?

September 4, 2010 by

When a 7-foot pygmy sperm whale beached itself and then died on Delray Beach in Florida, Chris Hogan didn’t hesitate. He whipped out his knife and cut off a two foot section of it including the tail fin. He had plans to eat the thin layer of meat beneath the skin and then use the fins for soup.

There was only one problem. It is illegal under Florida law as well as under the federal Marine Mammals Act to even possess parts of a whale. A lifeguard informed him of the law after he had cut off the section and then the police and wildlife officials were called.

The Palm Beach Post News has both pictures and video to go with the story.

Mr. Hogan, who has been unemployed for two years, apologized to the State of Florida and said he didn’t know it was illegal. He does worry about the fines which could go as high as $800 for a first offense. There is no word whether the Feds will charge him with violating the Marine Mammals Act as well.

The money quote for lovers of roadkill – or in this case beach kill – was this:

Hogan said he wasn’t worried about health issues because the body still was warm and there was only one fly on it.

“The tide was still going out. So it (the whale) hadn’t been there that long. The sand was still wet,” he said.

There was no word on whether Mr. Hogan had a copy of The Original Roadkill Cookbook.

H/T Camo Underground.

Uncategorized

Rumor Mongerer

September 3, 2010 by

I guess that is what I am according to the people in Gov. Beverly Perdue’s office. I had called this afternoon to ask when the declared state of emergency would be lifted.

The young lady who answered the phone didn’t know exactly but was sure it would be in effect for a few more days. She asked if I lived in coastal North Carolina and was I affected by the storm. I replied no but I was concerned about it due to the impact of the declaration on my ability to be transport or possess a firearm outside the home.

She immediately got defensive and flustered. The position of the Governor’s Office was that the state of emergency did not ban this because it wasn’t a riot. She was adament that Chapter 14, Section 288 of Article 36A only dealt with riots. Actually it is entitled “Riots and Civil Disorders”. She pointed me to the Governor’s Office Blog for a release by Chris Mackey, Gov. Perdue’s press secretary, as if it were the definitive word on this:

We’ve received a number of questions about dove hunting season. Executive Order 62 did not trigger the provisions of G.S. 14-288.7 and there was never any intention by the issuance of Executive Order 62 to restrict the transportation or possession of off premises firearms. The order was written in such a way that the rights of North Carolina gun owners were not infringed upon.

I’m sure the pronouncement of a press secretary will go over really well when you try to use it as a defense in criminal court.

The young lady in the Governor’s Office did opine that she wished those spreading the “rumor” about the impact of the Executive Order would stop. The only problem is that the law reads the way it does and not the way the young lady, the Governor, or her press secretary would like it to read.

The entirety of Chapter 14 of the NC General Statutes can be found here. I would encourage readers to scan the statutes beginning at § 14‑288.1. Definitions. and continue through § 14‑288.20. Certain weapons at civil disorders. Much of this section does indeed deal with riots and I won’t disagree about that. However, if you read carefully you will see the words “catastrophe”, “storm”, “fire”, “flood”, and “calamity.”

G.S. 14‑288.7 does not discriminate between storm and riot if an emergency has been declared. It does not read “in an area in which a state of emergency exists; AND, Within the immediate vicinity of which a riot is occurring.” The two clauses are connected by OR which means that they are independent clauses and either will trigger the prohibition on transport or possession off-premises.

Where I think the Governor’s Office has it wrong is that they assume she must specifically invoke the provisions of G.S. 14‑288.12.(b)(4) which prohibits “the possession, transportation, sale, purchase, storage, and use of dangerous weapons and substances, and gasoline” to impose restrictions on the possession and transportation of firearms. Actually, the declaration of the state of emergency triggers the lesser restrictions on possession and transportation and G.S. 14‑288.12.(b)(4) allows the Governor or local officials to go over and beyond that.

If excellent attorneys such as Alan Gura, Kearns Davis, and Andrew Tripp read the law this way – and they do – then I don’t think I’m off base in my statement of the facts regardless of what Bev Perdue and her minions may think.

Uncategorized

Hurricane Earl and North Carolina Law

September 2, 2010 by 2 Comments

Bateman et al v. Perdue et al was the first case to be filed after the Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment to the states with its decision in the McDonald case. Bateman challenges North Carolina’s emergency powers law which makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to transport or possess a firearm off your own premises. As Alan Gura noted in his complaint, North Carolina is often hit by hurricanes.

As of 11am on Thursday, the National Hurricane Center estimates that Hurricane Earl is approximately 300 miles south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. It is a Category 4 hurricane with sustained winds of 140 mph near the eye of the storm. Even if the eye of the storm doesn’t make landfall, the outer bands of the storm will have hurricane force winds and these will hit sometime this evening or in the early morning hours of Friday.

Governor Perdue issued Executive Order No. 62, “Proclamation of a State of Emergency by the Governor of the State of North Carolina Due to Hurricane Earl” on Wednesday, September 1st. The order is effective immediately and could last for up to 30 days. The proclamation declares a state of emergency exists. Section 3 delegates her power by Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the NC General Statues to the Secretary of Crime Control and Public Safety “to such further action as is necessary to promote and secure the safety of populace in North Carolina.” The Executive Order does not specify that it is limited to certain eastern North Carolina counties such as Dare and Hyde.

NC Gen. Statues Section 14-288-1.10 defines a State of Emergency as follows:

The condition that exists whenever, during times of public crisis, disaster, rioting, catastrophe, or similar public emergency, public safety authorities are unable to maintain public order or afford adequate protection for lives or property, or whenever the occurrence of any such condition is imminent.

NC Gen. Statues Section 14-288-7 bans transportation and off-premises possession of “dangerous weapons”:

Transporting dangerous weapon or substance during emergency; possessing
off premises; exceptions.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to transport
or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area:
(1) In which a declared state of emergency exists; or
(2) Within the immediate vicinity of which a riot is occurring.
(b) This section does not apply to persons exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14-269
with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties.
(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 1
misdemeanor. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 192; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

G.S. 14-269 deals with the carrying of concealed weapons. The only exemptions it provides to those “carrying out their duties” involve law enforcement and military personnel. The holder of a NC Concealed Handgun Permit does not have “duties” and therefore could not be considered an “exempted person” under G.S. 14-288-7.

G.S. 14-288-7 makes no exemptions for recreational shooting, it makes no exemptions for hunting, and it makes no exemption for concealed carry permit holders. If you possess or transport a firearm off your premises during the state of emergency, you will have committed an offense that the state considers a Class 1 misdemeanor. It does not matter that you live in an area that has received no rain, no wind, and no damage from Hurricane Earl.

I predict that on Saturday at noon, unless the state of emergency is lifted, there will be widespread lawlessness occurring across the state of North Carolina as that is the opening of dove season. Furthermore, I understand from another message board that the Louis Awerbuck Tactical Carbine class begins on Saturday in Durham at the Durham Pistol and Rifle Club. One wonders if North Carolina will enforce its own laws with the same rigorousness that Chicago seems to have enforced their gun ban. That is, rarely, if ever. If they do attempt to enforce it, I doubt that there will be enough jail space to hold all of the scofflaws.

UPDATE: The NC Wildlife Resources Commission released this tonight:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Dove Season Opens as Scheduled on Sept. 4

RALEIGH, N.C. (Sept. 2, 2010) – Despite North Carolina’s current state of emergency, dove season will open as scheduled at noon on Sept. 4.

After Gov. Perdue declared a state of emergency on Wednesday due to the impending arrival of Hurricane Earl, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission received numerous calls from the public asking if dove hunting will be allowed beginning this weekend. The Governor’s Office has informed the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission that nothing in the current emergency declaration, Executive Order 62, invokes any provision of law that would prohibit lawful hunting activities, including transporting a firearm to and from a hunting location (subject to local emergency ordinances to the contrary). Hunters in coastal areas should stay tuned to local media for the latest updates on Hurricane Earl and related emergency conditions that could affect the safety of themselves or others.

For more information on hunting, visit www.ncwildlife.org.

While the Governor’s Office states that nothing in the emergency declaration invokes any provision of the law that would prohibit hunting or transportation of a firearm to and from the dove fields, that is not how the law reads. The law does not say it is at the Governor’s discretion to invoke or not invoke a prohibition on the transport or possession of a firearm off-premises. I will note that the Governor’s Office gives themselves some wiggle room by saying “subject to local emergency ordinances to the contrary.”

It is obvious to me that they are starting to feel some heat. Now if the General Assembly would just get off its duff and do away with the ban totally we wouldn’t be in this Twilight Zone situation.

UPDATE II: Grass Roots North Carolina, one of the organizational plaintiffs in Bateman et al v. Perdue et al, released this statement tonight. It looks like their legal counsel agrees with my interpretation of the law.

GRNC Alert 09-02-10:

NORTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR LIES ABOUT STATE GUN BAN

State of emergency order makes criminals of concealed handgun
permit-holders, sport shooters and hunters…

“Even if EO 62 were worded…to expressly permit the possession of
firearms, the governor has no constitutional or statutory authority to
suspend the effect or enforcement of a valid NC criminal law.”

The State of Emergency order issued by Governor Beverly Perdue in
response to Hurricane Earl makes carrying a firearm outside one’s home
or place of business a Class I misdemeanor. Beyond law enforcement and
the military there are no exceptions: Not for hunters, sport shooters
or concealed handgun permit-holders.

Worse, with the legislature out of session, there is no immediate way
to address the crisis. As NC gun owners are aware, GRNC is among
plaintiffs on a lawsuit against the State of Emergency law, arguing
that it violates the Second Amendment, but legal redress is months, if
not years away.

PERDUE’S LIE

Gov. Perdue’s office has been issuing various denials to input about
the gun ban implications of the SoE, but the most blatant misstatement
is this:

“Thank you for contacting the Office of the Governor. After checking
with legal counsel, we are pleased to inform you that THE CURRENT
STATE OF EMERGENCY WAS WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE RIGHTS OF NC GUN
OWNERS ARE NOT INFRINGED UPON. . However, local
authorities still have the authority to establish states of emergency
within their jurisdictions that may impact your right to carry
weapons.”

Office of the Governor Bev Perdue

20301 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699

1-800-662-7952 (for NC residents only)

919-733-4240

919-733-2120 (fax)

governor.office@nc.gov

http://www.governor.state.nc.us/

THE TRUTH

From GRNC legal counsel Ed Green:

“On Sept. 1, 2010, Governor Perdue issued Executive Order No. 62
declaring “that a state of emergency exists in the State due to the
approach of Hurricane Earl.” Nothing in EO 62 mentions gun owners or
the possession of guns in any way. Nothing in EO 62 purports to
suspend the operation of any NC law.

“NCGS § 14-288.7 clearly and unambiguously forbids the possession of
any firearm off one’s premises during any declared State of Emergency,
with exceptions only for law enforcement and military in the course of
their duties. Under NC law, whenever a State of Emergency is declared,
no citizen may possess any gun outside of their home.

“Even if EO 62 were worded (or amended) to expressly permit the
possession of firearms, the governor has no constitutional or
statutory authority to suspend the effect or enforcement of a valid NC
criminal law. Once she declared a State of Emergency, Gov. Perdue
legally disarmed all NC civilians outside their own homes, including
the thousands of otherwise legally licensed hunters expected to take
to the fields for the opening of Dove season at noon Saturday.”

UPDATE III: A good article by Paul Valone in the Examiner on this. Paul is the president of Grass Roots NC and is the Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner.

Uncategorized

Hurricane Earl and the Bateman Case

September 2, 2010 by

This news release from Grass Roots North Carolina, one of the organizational plaintiffs in Bateman v. Perdue, helps put the case into perspective. The entire state of North Carolina is now under a state of emergency.

GRNC Alert 09-01-10:

Gov. Perdue’s Order Suspends Rights of NC Gun Owners

HIS NAME IS EARL AND YOUR RIGHTS ARE NIL

With the approach of Hurricane Earl, the North Carolina state of
emergency statute (N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-288.7) has once again reared its
ugly head. Gov. Perdue has declared a state of emergency for the
entire state of North Carolina. As a result it is a Class 1
misdemeanor “for any person to transport or possess off his own
premises any dangerous weapon or substance.” There is no exception for
recreational shooting. There is no exception for hunting. There is no
exception for having a concealed carry permit. The prohibition applies
to all possession — open carry, concealed carry and transportation in
a vehicle.

GUESS WHAT SATURDAY IS!

Anybody? That’s right… Dove season opens Saturday at noon. Unless
Earl is well past NC and the SoE has been lifted (not likely), every
hunter who doesn’t live in the dove field is a criminal.

Following the state of emergency declared this winter in King, GRNC
attempted legislation to solve this problem. Now GRNC is part of the
lawsuit filed against the state of N.C. on this very issue. Attorney
Alan Gura – who won the Heller and McDonald decisions affirming the
Second Amendment as an individual right and overturning the gun bans
in DC and Chicago – helms this case.

Elections have consequences and this November, you have a unique
opportunity to change the landscape of the N.C. General Assembly. Not
only would this allow legislation like that attempted by GRNC to pass,
it will set up a friendlier environment for the redistricting of U.S.
Congressional districts. Remember last time this allowed Brad Miller
to custom design the 13th district just for himself. Elections have
consequences. Make them positive.

Uncategorized

A Trifecta in California

September 1, 2010 by

As reported in a release from the California Rifle and Pistol Association, three anti-gun bills in the California Assembly were voted down late last night. There was intense pressure on a few members to change their vote but they didn’t switch.

•AB 1810(Feuer) – Registration of Rifles and Shotguns
•AB 1934 (Saldana) – Handgun Open Carry Prohibition
•AB 2358 (De Leon) – Ammunition Registration

AB 1810 would have registered ALL rifles and shotguns in the same manner that handguns are currently registered in California.

AB 1934 would have prohibited the open carry of handguns whether loaded or unloaded. There is currently a growing movment among California gunowners to participate in unloaded open carry or UOC. The goal is to normalize perceptions of firearms and those who carry them.

AB 2358 would have “required that ammunition vendors transmit records of sale, information on the quantity and type of ammunition purchased, and the personal information of purchasers collected at the time of sale to local law enforcement if required by city or county ordinance.” The sponsor of this bill was the same Assemblyman who was the prime sponsor of AB 962 which requires face-to-face sales of handgun ammunition. The dangerous component of this bill is the last clause – if required by city or county ordinance. This would have allowed politicians in areas such as Oakland, LA, and San Francisco to make life even harder for lawful firearms owners.

Congratulations to our friends in California and to all who worked so hard to defeat these bills including CRPA and CalGuns.

UPDATE: Dirtcrashr at Anthroblogory has more including info on SB250 which mandated spay or neutering of (most) dogs.