While some know today as St. Valentine’s Day or just Valentine’s Day, it is also the 112th anniversary of the patenting of one of the most significant firearms in history. For it was on this day in 1911 that John Moses Browning was awarded Patent No. 984,519 for what became known as the Colt Model 1911.
The United States Army would adopt this pistol, with a few modifications, the next month on March 29th. The official designation was Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911. The Navy and Marine Corps would adopt it as their service pistol in 1913. The US military procured approximately 2.7 million of these pistols including in the M1911A1 version over its service life. I know my father was issued one when he served in South Vietnam as I have his issued equipment inventory.
In civilian life, the 1911, in its multitude of forms, would be used by law enforcement, competitors, and shooters of all ages and all sorts. It would come in different sizes from large to small. It would be chambered in everything from .45 ACP to 10mm to .22LR. Even today, new models are being released such as the recent offerings from Savage Arms.
I doubt that even such a forward thinker as Browning could have envisioned just how popular his invention would become. You can read the full patent application here. Unfortunately, it was too large to embed.
One of my biggest pet peeves is reading a book and then the author writes something stupid about firearms. I don’t mean when he or she calls for gun control which is stupid in and of itself. I mean when the details about the firearm are so egregiously wrong that I want to throw the book against the wall. You find it in novels ranging from thrillers to who-done-its.
I think we’ve all read books where the protagonist pulls his Glock and pushes the safety off. Ummm, safety? I have new examples and both are by the same author.
I am reading a series by Mark A. Hewitt featuring a former Marine pilot named Duncan Hunter as the leading man who now contracts to fly a heavily modified Lockheed YO-3A Quiet Star for the CIA. Hewitt gets the facts about the plane correct especially in the limited number. Reportedly only 11 were ever manufactured for the military. They were designed to be low-level, ultra-quiet observation prop planes that only flew at night to find the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War.
So why if he can get all those details correct, does he write this?
One by one, the four security women extracted their service weapons and racked the slides of their .38 Berettas to chamber a round. Once locked and loaded the weapons were safetied and returned to the holsters on their hips.
P. 287, No Need to Know, Mark A. Hewitt
A .38 Beretta? Does he mean the Model 38?
Obviously not as it could never be “holstered”. I think what he means is one of the small Beretta semi-autos like the Beretta 85 FS Cheetah in .380 ACP.
There is this from when his protagonist Hunter is about to face off against two ex-Libyan special forces killers.
He unclipped and withdrew the Colt Python from his shoulder holster. Once it was cocked and had the safety off, he switched on the laser light, his finger rested on the trigger. He strained to see the red dot of the targeting laser…
p.420-421, Shoot Down, Mark A. Hewitt
Now tell me where the safety is located on that Python! While there are laser grips for revolvers, I am still trying to find one for the Python. I know Crimson Trace doesn’t make one nor does Viridian.
What gets me about Hewitt in particular is that he is a former military pilot who spent 21 years in the Marine Corps and has a graduate degree from the Naval War College. He also worked with the US Border Patrol, the Air Force, and what appears to be the CIA. While planes are definitely his thing, if he was a Marine officer he went to the Basic School where he would have learned a little bit about firearms.
If there is an author out there who wants or needs to include firearms in his or her novel and is unsure of the details, ask me or any of my gun blogger friends who are published authors. I know any one of us would be more than willing to help you get it right. We don’t want to read dumb stuff about guns anymore than you want to look ignorant.
The Complementary Spouse and I will be attending the Safari Club International convention in Nashville in two weeks.
There will be exhibitors from all over the world including firearm companies, optics companies, and the like. This will be in addition to the many, many outfitters from Africa, Alaska, Canada, the continental US, and a multitude of other locations.
If there is any exhibitor or vendor you would like us to check out, please let me know in the comments. Here is a link to all the exhibitors.
The blog NRA In Danger has posted another look at the NRA’s finances by former director Rocky Marshall. As I noted in introducing his guest post on this blog, he has significant expertise in examining a company’s or organization’s finances. Rocky brings up the concept of industry related metrics as a way to validate financial forecasts. As it is, he holds that the NRA’s forecasts for revenue are unrealistic and have no substantiating business plan to validate them.
From Rocky at NRA In Danger:
A Realistic Projection: The obvious relationship most closely associated with NRA revenues are U.S. Gun sales¹. In reviewing US gun sales data, NRA Revenues will increase or decrease as gun sales vary from year to year. From 2004 through 2019, the NRA received on average $25 for every gun sold in the United States. However, after the breaking news of corruption in 2019, the NRA revenue dropped 48% to $13/gun sold.
The ratio of NRA Revenue/US Gun Sales is a useful metric because revenue for the NRA can be easily calculated for 2023 with a high degree of certainty. Based on the current declining trend of US gun sales, it is projected that total US gun sales will be similar to historical (pre-covid) norms of roughly 13 million guns sold². With this in mind, a quantifiable estimate of projected revenues for the NRA in 2023 is $169 million (13 million guns sold at $13/gun).
The NRA is projecting $230 million in revenue, which would equate to $18 for every gun sold in the US. This is the same group that also planned $241.2M for last year and missed this estimate by $36M. The NRA estimates are not based on any practical industry metrics or upon a viable business plan to increase revenue; but, instead are misleading the BOD once again into a false premise.
Using firearm sales as a proxy in the metric is interesting and makes sense. Both actual gun sales and actual NRA revenue are known from government reports. Actual gun sales are found from the Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report submitted to BATFE and the NRA”s revenue is reported on the IRS Form 990. Forecasts on future firearm sales do come from the NSSF and the industry in various forms. The FBI’s NICS data could be used but, as we know, it isn’t a direct correlation with firearm sales. The NSSF-adjusted numbers would be more accurate.
When comparing the ratio of NRA Revenue/US Gun Sale for the pre-2019 and post-2019 time periods, there is another factor in play that was not mentioned. Pre-2019, it was often the case that if you purchased a new firearm from one of the major manufacturers, it would come with a coupon entitling the buyer to a free one-year membership in the NRA. I know Taurus offered this and I seem to remember getting the same offer from Marlin and Ruger. I also remember the Ruger campaign where they would donate $1 for each firearm sold if they reached the 1 million mark. That was in the 2012-2013 timeframe. The key point here is that the industry seems to have backed away from the NRA once the dirty laundry started coming out.
The second part of Rocky’s post on NRA In Danger deals with the cost of corruption in terms of lost revenue. Read the whole thing as Rocky provides hard numbers of the revenue drop and the amount is shocking. Suffice it to say, the longer that Wayne remains as CEO/Executive VP of the NRA, the more potential lost revenue.
Reinterpreting regulations in such a way as to make possession of an item a felony is the modus operandi of the BATFE. They did it with bump stocks and they are doing it now with pistol braces.
It is now up to the courts to push back on this. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals did it with Cargill v. Garland. There are now at least four cases before US District Courts challenging the BATFE on their new pistol brace rule. Fingers crossed that the judges will do the right thing.
I’m sorry but I just can’t watch Joe Biden bloviate on TV. I know it is the State of the Union speech which is supposed to be important but really isn’t. Thus, I went to the White House website to see what he was going to say about firearms. It is easier to read his words than to hear him shout them on TV.
That was the same plea of parents who lost their children in Uvalde: Do something on gun violence.
Thank God we did, passing the most sweeping gun safety law in three decades.
That includes things that the majority of responsible gun owners support, like enhanced background checks for 18 to 21-year-olds and red flag laws keeping guns out of the hands of people who are a danger to themselves and others.
But we know our work is not done.
Joining us tonight is Brandon Tsay, a 26-year-old hero.
Brandon put off his college dreams to stay by his mom’s side as she was dying from cancer. He now works at a dance studio started by his grandparents.
Two weeks ago, during Lunar New Year celebrations, he heard the studio’s front door close and saw a man pointing a gun at him.
He thought he was going to die, but then he thought about the people inside.
In that instant, he found the courage to act and wrestled the semi-automatic pistol away from a gunman who had already killed 11 people at another dance studio.
He saved lives. It’s time we do the same as well.
Ban assault weapons once and for all.
We did it before. I led the fight to ban them in 1994.
In the 10 years the ban was law, mass shootings went down. After Republicans let it expire, mass shootings tripled.
Let’s finish the job and ban assault weapons again.
C’mon, man. Don’t you know that the firearm arm used in Monterrey Park was banned in California years ago?
I do agree that Brandon Tsay is a hero for stopping the murders. On that we can agree.
As to the so-called Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, why are we treating 18-21 year olds like second-class citizens? We are OK with sending them to war in faraway places with fully automatic weapons to fight and die for this country so why are they treated differently. They can vote, they can enter a contract, they can be imprisoned as adults, and, in most states, they have reached the age of majority.
With regard to red flag laws, they make a mockery of due process. More importantly, if the person is so dangerous to either themselves or to us, why are they still out on the street? As seen in both Europe and in Wisconsin, a killer or terrorist with a vehicle can kill a lot of people.
Finally, mass shootings are rare events. They are aberrations. They are black swans. Yes they do happen but they are not the norm. Moreover, rifles including “assault weapons” (sic) are one of the least used weapons in homicides. They lag even fists and feet.
I’m sure Joe got some cheers from the left side of the aisle for his comments. But that is all he should get.
Existing California law makes it a felony for a convicted violent felon to purchase, own, or possess body armor. A new bill before the California Assembly would change this so as to make it a felony to commit a violent felony with a firearm while also wearing body armor. Unfortunately, the California Assembly would also make it a misdemeanor for anyone to purchase or possess body armor as well to sell it or deliver it. AB-92 Body armor: prohibition does make exceptions for people in certain professions such as law enforcement, the military, building inspectors, and security guards. However, the average homeowner or non-exempt business owner who wants such protection is out of luck.
“Simply put, the widespread availability of military-grade body armor helps mass shooters and criminals kill more people,” Connolly said in a statement. “It is clear that the sale of body armor has empowered violent criminals, including mass shooters, to harm, kill, and prolong their rampages. This ongoing and unnecessary epidemic of violence must be stopped and AB 92 will help protect innocent bystanders and our peace officers.”
I was alerted to this new bill by a blog post I was sent from Spartan Armor Systems. I agree with the author of this post that such a bill would not make the average public safer. What really caught my eye in this post was the claim that such a ban would be unconstitutional. That spurred some research on my part.
The Second Amendment says, in part, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Justice Scalia in DC v Heller went to great lengths in his opinion to show that “the people” was much more than merely the militia. He said the strong presumption was that the Second Amendment was a right that is “exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.” Thus, it should be assumed that any law which restricts possession of an item to a select class of individuals is suspect.
But would body armor be considered “arms” in the meaning of the word when the constitution was ratified?
Spartan Armor Systems Concealable IIIA Certified Wraparound Bulletproof Vest
The answer is yes. Justice Scalia helpfully points out a couple of early definitions of arms as it would have been understood by James Madison and the other architects of the Constitution.
Armour or Arms, (Arma) In the understanding of law, are extended to anything that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another. (emphasis added)
In both cases, arms were understood to be more than weapons of offense such as a sword or a musket. Arms could also be a means of defense that was meant to be worn. Thus, a suit of armor or even a chain mail vest would have been understood to be arms at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment.
From Wikimedia Commons
If one applies the newer standard of text, history, and tradition as expressed by Justice Thomas in NYSRPA v. Bruen, it seems obvious to me that body armor would be a constitutionally protected “arm” that one could keep (possess) and bear (wear).
One would hope that wisdom might prevail in the California Assembly but that often is fleeting.
There is a 2022 movie called Vengeance starring B. J. Novak from The Office. It is described as a darkly comic thriller about a podcaster who travels from New York City to West Texas to investigate the death of a girl he briefly hooked up with. Her family thought it was more and has welcomed him with open arms.
In one scene, the family matriarch is giving her opinion on what it will take to solve this.
You have to love Texas, Texans, and Texas matriarchs.
Right now Vengeance is available for free on Amazon Prime. If you don’t have Prime, you can get a 30 Day Trial for only $3 using this link. (commission earned)
by 
