- Page 298 of 710 -

Uncategorized

Going Old School

May 29, 2015

by John Richardson 10 Comments

I came across this comparison of the Colt SP1 and the Colt Sporter Target Model today. Basically, it was a shooting comparison of the A1 versus the A2. This interests me because I am gathering parts to put together a retro semi-auto version of the M16A1 using a combination of new and vintage parts. I also have a Colt A2 upper that I plan to build on later. More on those in a later post.

The video below is from the Military Arms Channel. They were trying to determine which rifle would give tighter groups with 55-grain 5.56 ammo. The SP1 (aka A1) had the 1:12 twist barrel while the Sporter Target Model (aka A2) has the 1:7 twist barrel. They were using Wolf Gold ammo.

I wonder if he would have gotten better results if he had used something like American Eagle/Federal XM193 5.56 ammo.

Uncategorized

District Of Columbia Doesn’t Get Its Stay

May 28, 2015

by John Richardson

This afternoon Judge Frederick Scullin denied the District of Columbia’s request for an immediate administrative stay in Wrenn et al v. District of Columbia et al.

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Defendants’ motion for an immediate administrative stay is DENIED; and
the Court further

ORDERS that Plaintiffs shall file their papers in opposition to Defendants’ motion for a stay
pending appeal on or before June 22, 2015; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants shall file any papers in further support of their motion for a stay
pending appeal on or before June 26, 2015; and the Court further

ORDERS that counsel shall appear for oral argument in support of, and in opposition to,
Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal on July 7, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Second Amendment Foundation is rightly taking this as a win for them. While they didn’t get the contempt citation that they sought, they were successful in opposition to DC’s request for an immediate administrative stay. DC, as Alan Gura noted, had drug its heels for a week before they requested the stay.

Uncategorized

Remington Model 8 – Cool Video

May 28, 2015

by John Richardson 4 Comments

A Remington Model 8 or 81 has been on my collecting wish list for a long time now. It is a John Moses Browning design semi-auto rifle that has long been used for hunting. The game on which the Remington 8 has been used includes both deer and criminals. Famed lawman Frank Hamer used one .35 Remington in his ambush of Bonnie and Clyde.

Ian McCullom of Forgotten Weapons blog has just put out a short video on the Remington 8 showing how its long recoil action works. It is in slow motion. His Remington 8 is in .300 Savage which I think is an ideal caliber.

Uncategorized

More Colt News

May 28, 2015

by John Richardson 7 Comments

As I wrote last week, Colt Defense LLC is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. Yesterday, they once again extended their deadline for bondholders to either accept their offer to exchange their notes or Colt goes ahead with a prepackaged bankruptcy filing. The deadline now expires on June 2nd. So far, only 5.7% of bondholders have tendered their old bonds in exchange for the new notes.

WeaponsMan reported a few days ago that Colt has mortgaged some of its patents. According to Daniel Watters, Colt has mortgaged these patents to a number of borrowers with the latest being Cortland Capital as security for a $33 million loan.

Of course, the finance companies do not want to exploit the patents; they just want security for their loans, and winding up holding the patents in lieu of principal and interest is not their preferred outcome. They’re in the money racket, not the gun racket.

But if Colt defaults on its Cortland loan, Cortland winds up holding a bag of patents (and any other security Colt pledged) rather than its money. In such as case, they might be able to charge Colt royalties for using these inventions of its employees and former employees. If Colt production continues. Or resumes. Most likely, they would try to sell the patents.

The patents are one of the true stores of value in Colt Defense LLC, but they have been mortgaged as part of the financial ~~looting~~ monetization of the company that the last several rounds of owners have undertaken. The company’s trademarks are also a highly valuable asset. One wonders if they, too, have been mortgaged.

There is some good news for Colt. They have won a $36 million contract to deliver M4 and M4A1 carbines to a number of foreign countries including Jordan, Panama, and Colombia.

Colt Defense LLC, West Hartford, Connecticut, was awarded a $36,104,812 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity foreign military sales contract (Jordan, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Colombia, Hungary, Oman, Panama, Romania, Senegal, Lebanon, Romania) for M4/M4A1 carbines. Funding and work location will be determined with each order with an estimated completion date of May 21, 2018. Bids were solicited via the Internet with one received. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity (W56HZV-15-D-0038).

Uncategorized

Punching Back Twice As Hard

May 28, 2015

by John Richardson

Since Judge Frederick Scullin issued his preliminary injunction against the District of Columbia last Monday, the District has been dragging its feet on issuing new carry permits. Indeed they now say they will review the court’s order for the next 90 days. This not only contravenes the court’s order but violates their own law saying that they have 90 days to issue a permit.

Lawrence Powers is an approved firearms instructor for the District of Columbia. Without the now enjoined “good cause/proper cause” critiera, there is no reason that he, of all people, is not issued a permit. He has already met all the background and training requirements to be approved as an instructor.

Fed up with the District’s foot dragging, Alan Gura has filed a Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt yesterday. After outlining the negotiations on compliance with the injunction and how the District has plainly ignored the court order, he writes:

11. The games continue. Defendants supposedly not understanding the Court’s order,
they will ignore it. Of course, Defendants understand the order perfectly well. They simply dislike it.
On May 26, 2015, counsel met and conferred regarding this motion. Defendants’ attorney declined to
state what is ambiguous about the Court’s May 18 order, and offered only that “soon” there would be
a filing discussing the matter.

12. If Defendants want a 90 day stay of the Court’s injunction, they need to ask for one.
There are requirements and standards—in other words, there is actual law that governs that process.
For parties in this Court, let alone government officials, to unilaterally declare a 90 day “court ignoring”
period upon issuance of a preliminary injunction is simply unacceptable.

Defendants are and should be held in contempt.

Sometime after Mr. Gura filed his Motion, the District filed a motion asking for an immediate administrative stay while they study their alternatives for an appeal. It seems that this move was anticipated because a Memorandum in Opposition was filed shortly thereafter. Mr. Gura says the District has “already granted themselves a stay” and calls their arguments “disingenuous.” He goes on to say that if they really thought they faced irreparable harm, then they would have requested a stay immediately and not waited a week. As to the harm they face, he says, “Of course the District faces no harm from having to join the vast majority of
the country in respecting Second Amendment rights.”

It will be interesting to see what Judge Scullin does.

The Second Amendment Foundation is the organizational plaintiff in this case. This afternoon they issued a press release on the matter. Alan Gottlieb called their attempts to stall “unconscionable” and an example of “municipal arrogance.”

Uncategorized

On This Memorial Day

May 25, 2015

by John Richardson 4 Comments

Memorial Day is set aside to remember those men and women who died while serving our country in the armed services.

A recent family reunion and subsequent visit to my father’s grave got me to thinking about those who didn’t die while on active duty but who had significantly shortened lifespans due to their military service.

My dad was medically retired with 60% disability after 28 years of active duty service in the US Army. According to his DD 214, the effective date of his retirement was April 14, 1972. This was approximately a year after he returned from Vietnam on his second tour of duty there. I should be clear that my dad’s medical retirement was not due to combat-related injuries but rather due to angina, ulcers, and other maladies. These are typical stress-related illnesses.

As you can see from the headstone, my dad died eight years and 364 days after he was retired from the Army. He had turned 62 just days earlier. (The date of birth on the headstone is erroneous – it should be April 3, 1919).

According to studies done by Department of Defense actuaries, active duty retirees have a higher mortality rate than do their reserve component peers. This disparity increases for enlisted retirees as compared to officers. The study was done on non-disabled retirees who were age 60 plus.

Defense officials haven’t done a study to explain death rate differences among military retirees. Speculation centers on stresses of full time service including past wars, frequent moves, constant physical activity to stay in shape, and stress-induced habits such as smoking and alcohol consumption…

Tom Bush, a senior policy official for reserve affairs, suggested to the board last August that more active duty retirees might have used tobacco or alcohol more often than did reservists. Hartnedy suggested post-traumatic stress might be a factor, even controlling for VA-rated disabilities.

“I would think that kind of mental strain” from years on active duty “would have an impact…very long term, after retiring,” he said.

As to the suggestion that active duty retirees might have “used tobacco or alcohol” more often, it was common and it was expected that you drank and smoked. Cheap booze and cheap cigarettes were the rule in the Army of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. It was a part of the culture and I think stress was a contributing factor to overuse.

My dad arrived in Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam at the age of 48 in 1967. He returned to Vietnam in 1970 at the age of 51. He was a middle-aged man with white hair. While he never complained of it being stressful, I imagine it had to be especially since it was hard to distinguish friend from foe. Even though he served in what was essentially the rear echelon, it was still a war zone.

I think about all of those more recent veterans who have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan or both. Just like in Vietnam, the front lines are blurred. Even if they weren’t injured in an IED explosion or a suicide bombing, the possibility was there. I think the actuaries and epidemiologists will have their hands full in years to come conducting studies on these vets. I have to wonder how much their life expectancy has been shortened by their military service.

So on this Memorial Day, let’s remember all of those who died while in service to our country. Let us also remember those who, while not dying in active service, died a lot sooner than they should have.

Uncategorized

Colt Defense Teeters On The Brink

May 20, 2015

by John Richardson 7 Comments

Colt Defense, LLC is teetering on the brink of bankrupcy. Yesterday, the rating agency Standard & Poors reduced their credit rating from CC to D. This is the lowest level possible.

Standard & Poor’s reduced Colt’s rating two grades to D from CC, according to a statement Tuesday from the credit grader. The new rating means S&P considers the company “in default or in breach of an imputed promise” and that it has ruled out the possibility the manufacturer will make good on a missed interest payment during a 30-day grace period.

The weapons maker didn’t pay the $10.9 million due May 15 to holders of its $249.4 million of 8.75 percent unsecured notes due November 2017, according to S&P. Colt had warned in November it was “probable” it wouldn’t have the cash to make the payment if it didn’t meet internal sales forecasts.

On Monday, Colt issued a press release saying it had extended their tender offer to bondholders. This tender offer is asking bondholders to swap existing bonds for new bonds at a very substantial cut in their face value. If 98% of bondholders don’t accept this swap by May 26th, then Colt Defense is prepared to go into bankruptcy. They say they have a “prepackaged plan of reorganization.” This is the third time Colt has extended their deadline for the tender of bonds for exchange. If they do go into bankruptcy, unsecured creditors will get just pennies on the dollar.

On Friday, Colt announced a new stocking dealer program. What concerns me the most about it is the pricing of their models involved in the program.

Colt has recently refocused its core model lineup to ensure ample opportunity for consumers to acquire the most sought-after models. These same models have been repositioned in the market with more attractive suggested retail price points: the standard 1991 Government Model now has an MSRP of $799, the Combat Commander carries an MSRP of $849, the Defender is now positioned at an MSRP of $899 just to name a few.

This gives the Colt 1991 Government Model a MSRP less than that of Springfield’s Mil-Spec 1911 and Ruger’s SR1911. This reeks of desperation to me.

Uncategorized

Another Win For Carry In DC (Updated)

May 20, 2015

by John Richardson 2 Comments

US District Court Judge Frederick Scullin granted a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs who had challenged the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement for obtaining a carry permit. The case, Wrenn et al v. District of Columbia et al, was a follow-on case to Palmer v. District of Columbia and was filed after the DC City Council adopted their new carry regulations.

The court found that the plaintiffs including the Second Amendment Foundation stood a good chance of winning a permanent injunction based upon the merits of their argument. Under legal precedent, a preliminary injunction is only granted if that can be shown.

Examining the existing DC law using intermediate scrutiny standard as established in the DC Circuit by Heller II, Judge Scullin found:

The District of Columbia’s arbitrary “good
reason”/”proper reason” requirement, however, goes far beyond establishing such reasonable
restrictions. Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the
overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for
self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment Foundation was very pleased with Judge Scullin’s order. In their release below, they call it a “devastating loss” for DC and its gun control policies. The release points out more about the decision as well.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today won a preliminary injunction against the District of Columbia and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier’s enforcement of a requirement to provide a “good reason” when applying for a concealed carry permit.

Judge Frederick J. Scullin ordered that the city is “enjoined from denying handgun carry licenses to applicants who meet the requirements of D.C. Code 22-4506(a) and all other current requirements for the possession and carrying of handguns under District of Columbia law.”

Judge Scullin further wrote in his 23-page opinion that the District’s “good reason/proper reason” requirement “has far more than a ‘de minimis’ effect on [their] rights it completely bars the right from being exercised, at all times and places and in any manner, without exception” and that the requirement “impinges on Plaintiff’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.’

“This is a devastating loss for the District and its anti-gun-rights policy,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’re delighted with the judge’s ruling, because once again, the court has thwarted the District’s blatantly obvious effort to discourage the exercise of Second Amendment rights by forcing permit applicants to jump through a series of hoops and then frustrate them by requiring an arbitrary ‘good reason’ for the exercise of a constitutionally-protected civil right.”

Gottlieb said that the court ruling essentially says the “good reason” requirement does not pass the smell test.

“It stinks, and always did stink, and now everybody knows it,” Gottlieb said.

The order also says that attorneys for both sides shall appear for a conference with the court on July 7, to “discuss an expedited schedule for the resolution of this case.”

“You can’t ask for more than that,” Gottlieb said. He noted that this is the second time in a row the District has lost on a carry issue in a case involving SAF.

“This is getting to be rather tiring,” he said. “To quote the renowned American folk trio, Peter, Paul and Mary, ‘when will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?’”

UPDATE: The Firearms Policy Coalition did a good breakdown on the decision. It can be found here.

Also see this from Brian Doherty at Reason.

It also made the Washington Post. Spencer Hsu took great pains to point out that Judge Scullin’s rulling differed from precedent set in the 3rd and 4th Circuits.

Scullin’s ruling runs counter to decisions by federal judges upholding similar “may-issue” discretionary laws in Maryland and New Jersey, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in March set aside a three-judge panel’s ruling relied upon by Scullin, and the full court will rehear arguments next month.

While that is very true, Judge Scullin is bound by precedents set in the Circuit for the District of Columbia. He pointed to Heller II as being instructive as to the level of scrutiny (intermediate). He also acknowledged the precedents set in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits were “uninstructive” and that those courts either accorded too much deference to the legislature or did not address whether the law or regulation was “no broader than necessary to achieve the government’s substantial objectives.”

The full opinion can be found here.

Uncategorized

“An Act to Regulate the Sale of Concealed Weapons in North Carolina” – Part I

May 19, 2015

by John Richardson 1 Comment

The North Carolina House of Representatives passed HB 1318 on March 10, 1919 and ushered in what we now call the pistol purchase permit system. Attempts to overturn this 96-year old law failed in the last session of the North Carolina General Assembly due to opposition from the sheriffs’ lobby. The battle is continuing in this session of the General Assembly with gun rights groups and Republicans on one side and gun control groups, the NC Sheriffs Association, and Democrats on the other.

In an earlier post, I detailed some of the racial climate of North Carolina and how that led to the bill’s passage. This post will detail how the law has changed over the years since 1919. In subsequent posts, I plan to examine the personalities involved, the political machine behind it, and the bills passage through both houses of the General Assembly. While we are currently fighting the NC Sheriffs Association over the passage of HB 562, it was not until 1959 that the duty of issuing purchase permits was transferred from the Clerks of the Superior Court to the sheriffs.

The Law As Passed

Chapter 197 of the 1919 Session Laws reads:

The General Assenibly of North Carolina do enact:
Section 1. That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or
corporation in this State to sell, give away or dispose of, or to
purchase or receive, at any place within the State from any other
place within or without the State, without a license or permit
therefor shall have first been obtained by such purchaser or
receiver from the clerk of the Superior Court of the county
which such purchase, sale, or transfer is intended to be made,
any pistol, so-called pump-gun, bowie knife, dirk, dagger or
metallic knucks.

Sec. 2. That the clerks of the Superior Courts of any and all
counties of this State are hereby authorized and directed to issue
to any person, firm, or corporation in any such county a license
or permit to purchase or receive any weapon mentioned in section
one of this act from any person, firm, or corporation offering
to sell or dispose of the same, which said license or permit shall
be in the following form, to wit:

North Carolina,
______________________County.
I, ___________________________clerk of the Superior Court of said
county, do hereby certify that ___________________________whose
place of residence is ________________________________Street, in
____________________(or) in______________________ Township
_________________________County, North Carolina, having this day
satisfied me as to his, her (or) their good moral character, and
that the possession of one of the weapons described in section one
of this act is necessary for self-defense or the protection of the
home, a license or permit is therefore hereby given said________________
_________________________________________to purchase one pistol,
(or) ____________________________________________from any per-
(If any other weapon is named, strike out word pistol.)
son, firm, or corporation authorized to dispose of the same.
This ______________day of ______________________________, 19___

Clerk Superior Court.

Sec. 3. That before the clerk of the Superior Court shall issue
any such license or permit he shall fully satisfy himself by affidavits,
oral evidence, or otherwise, as to the good moral character
of the applicant therefor, and that such person, firm, or corporation
requires the possession of such weapon mentioned in section
one of this act for protection of the home: Provided, that
if said clerk shall not be so fully satisfied, he shall refuse to issue
said license or permit : and Provided further, that nothing in this
act shall apply to officers authorized by law to carry firearms.
The clerk shall charge for his services upon issuing such license
or permit a fee of fifty cents.

Sec. 4. That the clerk of the Superior Court shall keep a
book, to be provided by the board of commissioners of each
county, in which he shall keep a record of all licenses or permits
issued under this act, including the name, date, place of residence,
age, former place of residence, etc., of each such person,
firm, or corporation to whom or which a license or permit shall
have been so issued.

Sec. 5. That each and every dealer in pistols, pistol cartridges
and other weapons mentioned in section one of this act shall keep
an accurate record of all sales thereof, including the name, place
of residence, date of sale, etc., of each person, firm, or corporation,
to whom or which any and all such sales are made, which said
record shall be open to the inspection of any duly constituted
State, county or police officer, within this State.

Sec. 6. That during the period of listing taxes in each year
the owner or person in possession or having the custody or care
of any pistol or other weapon mentioned in section one of this
act shall he, and is hereby, required to list the same specifically,
together with the value thereof, as is now required by law for
listing other personal property for taxes : Provided, that all
persons listing any such weapons for taxes as aforesaid shall also
be required to designate his place of residence, local street address,
or otherwise as the case may be.

Sec. 7. That any person, firm, or corporation violating any of
the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
fined or imprisoned in the discretion of the court.

Sec. 8. That upon submission or conviction of any person in
this State for unlawfully carrying concealed weapons off of his
own premises, the pistol or other deadly weapon with reference
to which the defendant shall have been convicted shall be condemned
and ordered confiscated and destroyed by the judge presiding
at any such trial.

Sec. 9. That this act shall be in force from and after the first
day of April, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen.
Ratified this 10th day of March. A.D. 1910.

1923 Amendment

The General Assembly adopted two changes to the original concealed weapons bill. First, it made it unlawful to receive one of the weapons mentioned in the original bill by mail, railroad express, or any other common carrier unless you possessed the permit from the Clerk of the Superior Court. You were also required to present that permit to the mail carrier, postmaster, railroad agent, etc before taking delivery of the weapon.

This amendment also specified the fine and potential prison term for violation of the law. Fines were to be from $50 to $250 while the prison terms were not less than 30 days nor more than six months. All of the above were at the discretion of the court.

1947 Amendment

The changes to the law in 1947 were very minor. As part of an omnibus revision of a number of state statutes, blackjacks and slung-shot were added to the list of weapons that required a purchase permit from the Clerk of the Superior Court.

1959 Amendment

HB 1048 made major changes in the administration of the purchase permit law. It transferred responsibility from the Clerks of the Superior Court and gave it to the Sheriff of each county. The sheriffs were now made responsible for issuing permits and keeping records of the issuance of the permits. It was also the sheriff’s responsibility to dispose of confiscated weapons.

Interestingly, this amendment did not apply in all counties. 41 counties were excluded from this act. While most were small counties in the eastern and western parts of the state, the most significant exclusion was Mecklenburg County.

1971 Amendment

Historic edged weapons were defined to be any bayonet, trench knife, sword, or dagger manufactured during or prior to WWII (as late as January 1, 1946). These and antique firearms previously defined as those made prior to 1899 or muzzle loading firearms were excluded from the purchase permit requirement. As an aside, it is interesting that edged weapons from the Korean Conflict and Vietnam War were not excluded.

1979 Amendment

Three significant changes were made in this amendment by SB 213. First, the permit was now required to be obtained from the sheriff in the county in which the purchaser or receiver resided. It has been previously required to be obtained in the county in which the sale or receipt took place.

The second major change was that any provisions of local acts in conflict with these changes were repealed. As noted in the 1959 Amendment, it only applied to 59 counties.

The third major change was that the list of weapons now only included pistols. Dirks, daggers, bowie knives, metallic knucks, blackjacks, slung shot, and “so-called pump guns” were now excluded from the permit requirement.

Interesting Sec. 3 and Sec. 4 still refer to obtaining permits from the Clerk of the Superior Court even though this requirement was changed in 1959.

1993 Amendment

While the 1979 amendment dropped everything but pistols from the permit requirement, this amendment headed in the opposite direction by adding crossbows to the law. Crossbows were added because a person ineligible to purchase a firearm used a crossbow to murder someone in Union County according to former Union County sheriff and later NC Rep. Frank McGuirt.

1994 Amendment

This amendment was part of a larger omnibus bill that codified classes of misdemeanors. Rather than being a fine of up to $200 and/or imprisonment of up to six months, the penalty was now listed as a “Class 2” misdemeanor. This was the mid-range classification which meant imprisonment for more than 30 days but less than six months.

2003 Amendments

HB 817 provided that a North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit could substitute for the pistol/crossbow purchase permit.

HB 281 made grammatical corrections and changes to the law.

2009 Amendment

These changes concerned crossbows and the definition of a crossbow dealer, manufacturer, and wholesaler. It deemed the permits issued to dealers, wholesalers, and manufacturers as being continuing permits with no expiration date.

2011 Amendment

Just as the 1993 bill added the crossbow to the purchase permit requirement, so SB 406 repealed the requirement to get a “pistol permit” to buy a crossbow.

This bill also clarified that persons under indictment for or who have been convicted of a felony were not eligible to be issued permits. However, pursuant to a NC Supreme Court ruling, the bill excepted those convicted of felonies involving antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, or restraints of trade. It also said that a person who had been pardoned or who had his or her firearm rights restored could obtain a pistol purchase permit.