Uncategorized

Re-Writing A New York Times Editorial From 2013

April 7, 2017 by 1 Comment

The New York Times ran an unsigned editorial on Nov. 21, 2013 entitled “Democracy Returns to the Senate.” In light of the events of yesterday in the Senate where the Republicans invoked the “nuclear option” and just this morning confirmed Neil Gorsuch as the newest Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, I thought a little re-writing was in order. My changes are in bold.

It starts:

For five years This year, Senate Republicans Democrats have refused to allow confirmation votes on dozens of perfectly qualified candidates nominated by President Obama Trump for government positions. They tried to nullify entire federal agencies by denying them leaders. They abused Senate rules past the point of tolerance or responsibility. And so they were left enraged and threatening revenge on Thursday when a majority did the only logical thing and stripped away their power to block the president’s nominees.

It goes on:

In a 52-to-48 vote that substantially altered the balance of power in Washington, the Senate changed its most infuriating rule and effectively ended the filibuster on executive and judicial Supreme Court appointments. From now on, if any senator tries to filibuster a presidential nominee, that filibuster can be stopped with a simple majority, not the 60-vote requirement of the past. That means a return to the democratic process of giving nominees an up-or-down vote, allowing them to be either confirmed or rejected by a simple majority.


The only exceptions are were nominations to the Supreme Court, for which a filibuster would still be allowed. But now that the Senate has begun to tear down undemocratic procedures, the precedent set on Thursday will increase the pressure to end ended those filibusters, too.


This vote was long overdue. “I have waited 18 years for this moment,” said Senator Tom Harkin Charles Grassley, Democrat Republican of Iowa.

Furthermore:

Republicans Democrats warned that the rule change could haunt the Democrats Republicans if they lost the White House and the Senate. But the Constitution gives presidents the right to nominate top officials in their administration and name judges, and it says nothing about the ability of a Senate minority to stop them. (The practice barely existed before the 1970s.) From now on, voters will have to understand that presidents are likely to get their way on nominations if their party controls the Senate.

The editorial concludes:

Democrats Republicans made the filibuster change with a simple-majority vote, which Republicans Democrats insisted was a violation of the rules. There is ample precedent for this kind of change, though it should be used judiciously. Today’s vote was an appropriate use of that power, and it was necessary to turn the Senate back into a functioning legislative body.

Not surprisingly, the New York Times has no unsigned editorial praising the Republicans for getting rid of cloture votes on Supreme Court nominees. The filibuster isn’t gone – you just have to do it the old fashioned way which involves a beach ball sized bladder and a lot of stamina.

What has surprised me the most in this whole episode was that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) actually had the cojones to go nuclear. For a Republican whose spine seems to be made of Jello, that was remarkable.

Uncategorized

NICS Checks Resume Upward Path

April 5, 2017 by 6 Comments

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has released it latest adjusted-NICS data. The March 2017 adjusted-NICS checks have resumed their upward path that had been on hold since the election of Donald Trump. The adjusted-NICS checks had shown a year over year increase for the same month in the prior year throughout 2016 until the month of December when it showed a sharp decrease from the prior year. This also held true for the months of January and February 2017. The drop has been attributed to the end of panic buying in anticipation of new gun control measures from a President Hillary Clinton.

You can see this trend in the graphic below:

The numbers as reported by NSSF are as follows:

The March 2017 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 1,356,929 is an increase of 5.2 percent compared to the March 2016 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,289,670. For comparison, the unadjusted March 2017 FBI NICS figure of 2,422,749 reflects a 3.4 percent decrease from the unadjusted FBI NICS figure of 2,509,065 in March 2016.

The first quarter 2017 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 3,693,502 is a decrease of 10.8 percent over the 4,139,791 figure for first quarter 2016.

Even with this quarterly drop as compared to the prior year, March 2017 still was the second highest March on record.

NICS data is more indicative of trends than an actual one-to-one sale of firearms. This is due to certain states using the NICS check system for CCW permit background checks and permit rechecks as well as the exemption from a NICS check for holding of carry permits from certain states like North Carolina.

Uncategorized

A Reminder Regarding NRA Board Elections

April 4, 2017 by 5 Comments

This is a reminder for NRA Life Members and 5-Year Members (5 years continuous membership). You should have received your official ballot for the NRA Board of Directors in your February 2017 issue of the American Rifleman, American Hunter, or other official NRA magazine. Ballots must be in the hands of Deloitte and Touche by April 9th. Given that is a Sunday and mail isn’t delivered on Sundays, your ballot actually has to be received by Saturday. In other words, get them in the mail now!

My post of February 8th had a round-up on endorsements. You might want to use that as reference. In general I would advise to vote for only a handful of candidates.  I personally only voted for five people. Skip the celebs who don’t need our votes anyway.

One of the people for whom I voted, Todd Rathner, posted on Facebook today that he had been notified that he had been re-elected. I hope he is correct because he has done great work on the advancement of knife rights.

Another of the candidates whom I supported, Willes Lee, sent me a note yesterday saying he had gotten a letter from the NRA telling him that 5-6 people including himself were fighting it out for the last three spots on the Board. Willes is a petition-nominated candidate and will be depending on grassroots support.

Others whom I consider deserving of your support include Adam Kraut, Graham Hill, Sean Maloney, and Stephen Stamboulieh. While I didn’t vote for Mr. Stamboulieh, I would note that he is working with the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation to take the fight to cities that would ban non-lethal weapons such as stun guns.  People from the grassroots whom I highly respect such as Jeff Knox and David Codrea have included one or more of these people in their recommendations.

As to the bylaw changes, I hope you vote NO. While some of the changes are needed, it is an all or nothing package vote and there are some changes that just are not favorable to the grassroots.

If you have already voted, you have my thanks. If you have yet to vote, go on it! Time’s a wastin’.

Uncategorized

Fruit Pickin’

April 4, 2017 by

Smart gardeners know that when they see low hanging fruit, it’s time to be picking the fruit. The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation have found that low hanging fruit in cities like Philadelphia, Tacoma, and Wilmington (Delaware). The low hanging fruit is those cities’ ban on stun guns and other electronic self-defense weapons.

It is low hanging fruit due to the US Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Caetano v. Massachusetts which found such weapons are protected by the Second Amendment. Justice Alito’s concurring decision in the case decimated the argument of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court holding that stun guns were outside the Second Amendment. Among the many excellent points he made was this one regarding the argument that stun guns are dangerous:

If
Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be
categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.
554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s
own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr.
27, cannot be banned on that basis.

 So far, the Firearm Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation has filed suit against the state of New York and has successfully persuaded the City of Annapolis, MD to change their ordinance banning stun guns. In this latest round of action, they have sent demand letters to Philadelphia, Tacoma, Wilmington, and Westminster (MD) saying their bans have to go and legal action would commence.

More on their “fruit pickin'” below:

SACRAMENTO, CA (April 3, 2017) — Today, attorneys for civil rights advocacy organizations Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) sent legal letters to the cities of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Tacoma, Washington; and Wilmington, Delaware demanding that they repeal their respective bans on electronic arms or face federal Second Amendment litigation. Last week, a demand was sent to the City of Westminster, Maryland, regarding its ban.

The Philadelphia Code § 10-825 states that no “person shall own, use, possess, sell or otherwise transfer any ‘stun gun’,” making a violation of the law subject to a fine of up to $300 “and/or imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days.”

“The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms, not only the right to keep and bear firearms,” explained attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh in the letters.

“We hope that these cities will simply choose to comply with the Second Amendment and respect the people’s fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Coalition and chairman of the Foundation, “but if they don’t repeal their unconstitutional bans, we won’t hesitate to sue them in federal court if that’s what it takes to protect the rights of law-abiding people.”

In its March 2016 Caetano v. Massachusetts decision, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Massachusetts high court, which had upheld the State’s ban on electronic arms and stun guns. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote separately to say that if “the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.” After Caetano was remanded back to the state court system, a trial judge found her not guilty and sealed her record, quickly ending the case before it could proceed.

On February 28, the City Council of Annapolis, Maryland, responded to a Second Amendment civil rights lawsuit brought by FPC, FPC, and a local resident by passing an ordinance repealing its total ban on the possession and carry of electronic arms, like Tasers and ‘stun guns’, in a special meeting.

FPC and FPF filed a Second Amendment challenge to the State of New York’s ban on electronic self-defense weapons in federal district court last December. That case is currently pending the trial court’s decision on two motions that were argued on March 24. The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction in that case and the State has indicated that it would defend its total ban on electronic arms and Tasers up to the Supreme Court.

Uncategorized

New Product From A Vortex-Hornady Collaboration

April 1, 2017 by 1 Comment

Vortex Optics and Hornady have collaborated on a new cartridge that is being released just for today. It has many features but the most important one in my estimation is that it saves you the trip down the range to examine your target. You don’t have to wait for the range to be called “cold” before checking where your bullet has struck the target. Moreover, you don’t have to invest in expensive spotting scopes either.

Microtechnology just never ceases to amaze me.

Is there anything technology can’t do on April First

Uncategorized

Ideologues Versus Science

March 31, 2017 by 2 Comments

There is currently a battle going on between anti-science ideologues and those committed to a health-related change in the laws based upon science. You have doctors, public health advocates, and civil rights advocates on one side and you have the New York Times and anti-health prohibitionists on the other side. I am talking about the battle between those for and opposed to the Hearing Protection Act of 2017.

The New York Times weighed in the battle with an absurd editorial entitled “Echoes of Gunfire Hurt Tender N.R.A. Ears”. As per their usual, they conflated the number of deaths attributed to the use of a firearm to include intentional deaths (suicides), they misrepresented the intent of Congress for adding suppressors to the National Firearms Act, and they created a strawman by insisting the public would be at risk because “ShotSpotters” would not be able to hear gunfire.

The annual tally of 30,000-plus gun deaths accounts for just a tiny fraction of the total shots fired, most of which miss their targets but terrorize neighborhoods. Amid the lethal cacophony, the police in more than 90 cities here and abroad seek to reach the scene of the latest gun troubles more quickly by using an audio detection system called ShotSpotter, which triangulates the sound of gunfire onto computer maps. Police officers in major cities hail these precise early alarms of where the latest shooting is.

Yet despite these advances, the National Rifle Association argues, self-servingly, that noisy guns are a public health hazard. With the help of supporters like President Trump’s son Donald Jr., a gun hobbyist, it wants to roll back an 80-year-old federal law that tightly controls the sale of firearm silencers. Immune to irony, the N.R.A.’s congressional friends have introduced a measure called the Hearing Protection Act, which contends that the sound of gunfire is hard on the ears of gun owners.

“What about the rest of us?” the nation’s unarmed majority might well ask. When it comes to public health, the noisier a gun is, the better the chances for innocent bystanders to hit the ground and for police officers to apprehend the shooter.

I guess reading the Washington Post is beneath the editorial board of the New York Times. The Post reported only four days earlier that the CEO of ShotSpotter said their devices had detected suppressed gunfire in the past and would be able to detect it in the future with some fine-tuning.

Then there is Mark Kelly aka Mr. Gabby Giffords of Americans for Responsible Solutions (sic) who has been leading the charge against suppressors.

From a fundraising email:

One of those bills would lift restrictions on the sale of firearm silencers.

Now, I don’t want to give the impression that firearm silencers work like you see them in the movies — where someone fires a gun and it wouldn’t wake a person sleeping in the same room.

But silencers do suppress sound and light when a weapon is discharged, and that makes them attractive accessories for criminals who want to conceal their crimes.

Attractive accessories for criminals? Really? Actually, criminals want to scare the shit out of you with the noise of a firearm report because it tends to make victims more compliant.

You would think someone who had been around jet engines like Kelly would have an appreciation for the damage that loud noises do to hearing. I know I do because every day for me is like a hot summer night in Mississippi where the crickets, cicadas, and tree frogs keep up an incessant noise. That is what tinnitus sounds like to sufferers like me.

On the rational, scientific side of this debate are groups like Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership. They have just released a position paper in favor of suppressors to prevent hearing loss. The four primary authors of the paper are all board-certified physicians specializing in otolaryngology or ear, nose, and throat issues. The following is from their executive summary of the paper:

Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) is a real public health problem:

The causal relationship between loud noise exposure and irreversible hearing loss has long been
recognized by medicine and the U.S. government.

NIHL is permanent and untreatable. Prevention is the only possible intervention.


Demonstrable need:

NIHL is the most prevalent service-connected disability among Veterans.

Per the CDC, 15% of adults aged 18 and over (or nearly 38 million American) have hearing problems.

Over 100 million Americans who own guns are at risk for gunshot-induced NIHL. Auditory injuries are
sustained by bystanders the same as by shooters.

Nearly all gunshots exceed the noise threshold for instant damage to the hearing cells of the inner ear.
And their explosive blast generates 1,000 times the force on the eardrum than the noise itself.


Benefit of suppressors:

Muzzle blast sound levels from most firearms range from 140 to over 170 decibels. 120 decibels is
considered the maximum safe level for short exposures (the intensity of a car horn 3 feet away). Ear
plugs and/or ear muffs only reduce noise by 20-30 decibels.

Evidence supporting the need for greater use of firearms suppressors comes from the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communicative Disorders, the
Centers for Disease Control, as well as academic and military research.

Muzzle-mounted suppressors are vastly superior to ear protectors, providing 50% greater noise reduction.
Only suppressors can make most modern firearms safe for hearing, as noise at gun ranges routinely
reaches 160 decibels.

I would urge readers to study the position paper issued by Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership. It provides great graphics and is extensively sourced. Moreover, unlike most doctor’s handwriting, it is both readable and understandable!

Our first suppressor arrived this week after a wait of over three-fourths of a year. As I said in that post, can you think of any other consumer product for the health and safety of both the purchaser and the general public for which you have to ask the government for permission to take possession of it on top of paying $200 for the privilege? It is time for Congress to act on the established science of hearing loss and pass the Hearing Protection Act.

Uncategorized

Chicago May Finally Be Listening

March 31, 2017 by 1 Comment

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has told the City of Chicago that a) they must allow shooting ranges, b)that they can’t so limit their locations as to be prohibitive, and c)that those under the age of 18 should be allowed at ranges so as to get proper firearm training. These rulings stem from cases brought the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association in  Ezell v. City of Chicago and what is called Ezell II.

On Wednesday, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel proposed new zoning regulations that would bring the city into compliance with the court’s rulings.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday proposed allowing gun ranges in more areas of Chicago in response to a federal appellate court ruling that struck down the city’s zoning restrictions on the shooting facilities.

The new rules would allow gun ranges in business, commercial and industrial areas, provided the owners obtained a special-use permit — which requires officials to take into consideration any objections from people and businesses in the surrounding area…

The changes also would allow people younger than 18 to shoot at a range, provided they are supervised by a parent, guardian or trained instructor.

The earlier regulations had limited shooting ranges to industrial areas and required that the ranges be located more the 500 feet away from “homes, schools, day care operations, houses of worship, liquor stores, parks, libraries, museums and hospitals.” This effectively limited shooting ranges to about a 2% area within the city limits. The early regulations also banned anyone under the age of 18 from going to a range.

While I don’t have the final details of Emanuel’s proposal, this seems to be a start in the right direction. When the minutes from the March 29th City Council meeting are published, I will publish the relevant portions.

Congratulations again to the Second Amendment Foundation, the Illinois State Rifle Association, plaintiff Rhonda Ezell, and attorney Alan Gura for their efforts to bring a basic civil right to the City of Chicago.

Uncategorized

272 Days

March 29, 2017 by 6 Comments

It took the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives a total of 272 days to approve the Form 4 for our new suppressor. I say our because it is in the name of the trust that the Complementary Spouse and I set up for this purpose.

It took a total of 279 day or nine months, six days to be notified that we had been approved.

Regardless of whether it was 279 days or 272 days, it took over three-fourths of a year to be approved to take possession of a product that we had already for paid in full.

Think about that for a minute. Can you think of any other consumer product for the health and safety of both the purchaser and the general public for which you have to ask the government for permission to take possession of it on top of paying $200 for the privilege? I really can’t.

For enquiring minds, it is a SilencerCo Omega in .30 caliber with a .22 muzzle break  brake on order. The suppressor was purchased from Tar Heel State Firearms outside of Charlotte. They were very helpful throughout the whole process.

Uncategorized

Women Arm Yourselves Safely (WAYS) Program

March 26, 2017 by 2 Comments

If you are a woman who wants to learn to shoot a handgun and live in western North Carolina then the Asheville Practical Shooting Association has a program for you. The program is called “WAYS” or “Women Arm Yourselves Safely.” Formerly called “Women on Target”, the program seeks to introduce women with little or no experience shooting handguns to them in a safe and effective manner.

I met Mike Privette of the APSA this weekend when he assisted with the shooting portion of my NRA Basic Instructor Training class. He and his wife Beth are the coordinators of these classes being held in Brevard. They will be offering four opportunities to take the WAYS class this year. I have posted his flyer below.

For $35 this is a great bargain and a great way to learn more about shooting a handgun.

Women Arm Yourselves Safely (WAYS)
(formerly “Women on Target”)


Are you a woman who has ever been curious about shooting a handgun?


Do you have a handgun at home but don’t really know how to handle it safely and effectively?


If you’re a woman who has never shot a handgun or have very limited experience and want to learn more, then this course is for you!


Asheville Practical Shooting Association (APSA) offers an orientation and training class for women that is structured for those who have very little to no experience with handguns. The course consists of a one-day combination of classroom instruction and handgun firing at the Bear Arms indoor shooting range in Brevard, NC. Course focus is on firearm safety and proper shooting techniques. The staff is made up of highly qualified instructors who provide top notch training in a safe, nurturing environment. The association provides firearms, ammunition, targets, all safety gear, and lunch for only $35.


If you have been thinking about getting a concealed carry permit, want to learn how to safely handle and shoot that gun that you’ve had for a while but don’t know anything about, have just a little experience but want to learn more, or have no experience at all but are just curious about handguns, then contact us for more information or to reserve a spot in one of our four 2017 classes.


Where: Bear Arms, 1653 Rosman Highway, Brevard, NC 28712


When: April 1       June 3        August 5       October 7


How: Contact Mike or Beth Privette, APSA “WAYS” coordinators, 828-966-9611, to sign up or get your questions answered.

Uncategorized

Every Picture Tells A Story, Part VII

March 24, 2017 by 4 Comments

New Hampshire and North Dakota are the 12th and 13th states respectively to have passed constitutional carry. That means fully one-quarter of the US states now have permitless concealed carry. To see what this means in terms of the percentage of the US population now living in constitutional carry states, Rob Vance has updated the graphic we have presented since 2011.

To see how much the world has changed since 2011, see the original post here. I said at the time that shall-issue was the new norm. While shall-issue is still the norm, the number of states adopting constitutional carry may eventually change this statement. I certainly hope so!

Rob had this to say about his statistics in an email he sent me:

As of 3/24/2017

Percent of US population living under class of concealed carry law

No issue = 0.4% HI (de facto no issue)

May issue= 27.0% CA,DC,MD,MA,NJ,NY,RI
Shall issue = 62.9% all other states

Unrestricted = 9.7% AK,AR,AZ,ID,KS,ME,MO,MS,NH,ND,VT,WV,WY

Note MT is near unrestricted in terms of CCW law

Given the behavior of some counties in CA, 75+% of the US population now lives in shall issue or better territory.

My friend and podcasting colleague Rachel Malone has been fighting for constitutional carry in Texas. She has been working with Rep. Jonathan Strickland on his HB 375. It would bring constitutional carry to the Lone Star State. The good news on this is that it is scheduled for a hearing on March 28th before the House Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee. Moreover, Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) has promised to sign constitutional carry if it does pass the Texas Legislature.