Uncategorized

Local Elections Matter, Too

November 4, 2013 by 1 Comment

It is not only state and national elections that matter when it comes to gun rights. Local elections matter, too.

In North Carolina, Grass Roots North Carolina-PVF is making recommendations in two local elections: a mayoral race in Morrisville and a council race in Winston-Salem.

Jackie Holcomb, mayor of Morrisville, is one of the few members of Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors in North Carolina. She is being opposed by Councilman Mark Stohlman who is pro-gun. Meanwhile in Winston-Salem, Councilman Jeff MacIntosh pushed restrictions on carry that were in conflict with state law. He is being opposed by Lida Hayes Calvert. The defeat of one or both of these officials would send a message to local politicians that opposing gun rights is not in their best political interests.

From GRNC-PVF:

Show Politicians Anti-Gun Efforts End in Short Careers

Morrisville


Currently led by Jackie Holcombe, the rabidly anti-gun member of Bloomberg’s MAIG group of gun control-supporting mayors (many of whom are criminals), Morrisville is in desperate need of political change.


We have already documented Holcombe’s outrageous efforts to violate state law and the rights of NC gun owners.


The good news is that Holcombe may be shown the door this Tuesday by pro-gun candidate Mark Stohlman http://www.citizensforstohlman.com/.


Morrisville GRNC members must get out the vote for this race and kick the anti-gunner to the curb.


Winston-Salem


The city’s Northwest Ward race provides another opportunity to shed an anti-gun politician: Jeff MacIntosh.
MacIntosh supported the City’s misguided resolution opposing expanded carry by state law. He is another freedom-attacker that needs to be shown the door.


Winston-Salem GRNC members of the Northwest Ward are encouraged to vote for Lida Hayes Calvert, a refreshing pro-freedom alternative. Please take your pro-gun friends along with you to the polls.


IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

Uncategorized

SCI Sues Virginia Over Sunday Hunting Ban

November 4, 2013 by 4 Comments

Safari Club International filed suit on October 23rd in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond challenging Virginia’s ban on Sunday hunt. The ostensible purpose of the ban on Sunday hunting was to give wildlife “a day of rest”.

SCI is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against VA. CODE ANN. § 29.1-521(A)(1). They allege that the ban on Sunday hunting violates the Virginia Constitution’s right to hunt provision as well as its Establishment Clause. They are also alleging that the law violates the US Constitution’s First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. They are asking that the law be declared unconstitutional and that its enforcement be enjoined.

SCI claims that the Sunday hunting ban is a remnant of Virginia’s “blue laws” which prohibited many activities on the Christian Sabbath or Sunday. In 1936, the Virginia General Assembly added a secular justification to the Sunday hunting noting it was “to give wildlife a day of rest.”

The suit says there is no scientific basis for giving wildlife a day of rest. They note that the Board of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries passed a resolution in 2011 urging the ban to be repealed. The board resolution said, ” ‘ [w]ildlife biologists with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries state that there is no biological reason to continue a ban on Sunday hunting. States that have lifted the ban on Sunday hunting have seen no impact on wildlife populations.’ “

Virginia does not prohibit the hunting of bear, fox, or raccoon with dogs on Sunday, merely their taking. Likewise, trappers are allowed to trap and kill fur-bearers on Sunday. The suit notes that many outdoor pistol, rifle, and shotgun ranges adjoin areas with wildlife. The suit points out this inconsistency noting that these activities “can and do disturb animals on Sunday, both during and outside of open seasons.” In other words, by permitting this, Virginia gives lie to its claim that it is in the public interest “to give wildlife a day of rest”.

As SCI’s release (see below) points out, Virginia is one of only 11 states that ban hunting on Sunday.

On October 23, 2013, Safari Club International (SCI) filed a lawsuit challenging Virginia’s ban on Sunday hunting. The lawsuit argues that the ban is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of Virginia, in particular because of Virginia’s constitutional right to hunt.

“Sunday hunting bans should be a thing of the past,” said SCI President Craig Kauffman. “Hunters have to work during the week, and young hunters are in school, making weekends the primary time they can hunt. The unconstitutional ban on Sunday hunting robs hunters of half their potential time afield, and has absolutely no basis in science or conservation.”

Kauffman noted that SCI anticipates debate over proposals to repeal the ban at least in part during the upcoming Virginia 2014 legislative session, and said, “As hunters, we are hopeful that state legislators support the Virginia Constitutional right to hunt and fish and pass meaningful legislation to repeal the ban. SCI will not formally serve the Commonwealth of Virginia until state legislators have exhausted their efforts in Richmond. The filing of this lawsuit marks our promise to pursue this issue through any and all available means,” Kauffman concluded.

In addition to the constitutional claims, SCI’s suit asserts that Virginia’s purported justification for the ban – to give wildlife a “day of rest” – is not supported by sound scientific or wildlife management principles. This misunderstanding of wildlife ecology was highlighted by Virginia’s Board of Game and Inland Fisheries when it stated , “the Virginia ban on Sunday hunting serves no biological purpose and is counterproductive to matters of game management.”

In polling conducted earlier this year an overwhelming 88.6% of SCI members supported full and/or partial repeal of Virginia’s Sunday hunting ban.

Eliminating the Sunday hunting ban will provide all hunters with an additional day to hunt, will encourage Virginia hunters to stay in state to hunt on Sundays, and will give out-of-state hunters the opportunity to visit Virginia to hunt on Sundays.

Only 11 states, all on the East Coast, currently have some kind of ban or limitation on Sunday hunting. Opponents of overturning the ban make baseless predictions of dire mayhem, but the existence of Sunday hunting in the vast majority of states proves that these wild predictions have no basis in truth. SCI hopes that success in Virginia might encourage other states to eliminate their statutory bans or limitations on hunting on Sundays. Professional wildlife managers should regulate hunting based on sound science and wildlife management principles, not archaic statutes that have no conservation value.

Uncategorized

A Survey On Concealed Carry

November 3, 2013 by

Ron Larimer at When the Balloon Goes Up is a doing a survey on concealed carry. The survey includes questions on how often you carry, what you carry, and where on your body you carry your firearm.

Why is is running this survey? I’ll let him answer that.

One of the biggest challenges to the new concealed carrier is selecting a pistol and I think we can help.

I would like to create a free concealed carry gun guide that answers many of the new carriers questions about what is the right gun for them by polling actual concealed carriers.

Once the results are in I will compile the specifications on the guns, the popularity, price, ratings, demographics and infer the relative importance of multiple attributes and develop a free downloadable report.

I think this is a great idea. However, it will only be as good as the quality and quantity of the answers he receives. In other words, if you carry concealed, you need to participate.

You can find the very short survey here. Answering the survey won’t take more than a minute or two so head on over there now.

Uncategorized

Sierra Bullets On The Shutdown Of The Herculaneum MO Lead Smelter

November 2, 2013 by 34 Comments

As has been reported in many places, the Doe Run Company will be closing their lead smelting plant in Herculaneum, Missouri. The closure of the only primary lead smelter or a smelting plant that produces lead from lead ore is due to the EPA’s ten-fold increase in air standards for lead.

The NRA-ILA provided a quick summary:

In December, the final primary lead smelter in the United States will close. The lead smelter, located in Herculaneum, Missouri, and owned and operated by the Doe Run Company, has existed in the same location since 1892.

The Herculaneum smelter is currently the only smelter in the United States which can produce lead bullion from raw lead ore that is mined nearby in Missouri’s extensive lead deposits, giving the smelter its “primary” designation. The lead bullion produced in Herculaneum is then sold to lead product producers, including ammunition manufactures for use in conventional ammunition components such as projectiles, projectile cores, and primers. Several “secondary” smelters, where lead is recycled from products such as lead acid batteries or spent ammunition components, still operate in the United States.

Doe Run made significant efforts to reduce lead emissions from the smelter, but in 2008 the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead that were 10 times tighter than the previous standard. Given the new lead air quality standard, Doe Run made the decision to close the Herculaneum smelter.

Most ammunition uses lead as one of its primary components whether in bullets or lead shot. The question is whether they use recycled lead or lead that comes directly from ore.

Sierra Bullets of Sedalia, Missouri is the first bullet manufacturer that I know of that has addressed the question of whether the plant closure will shut down their supply of lead. The answer is a qualified no.

The main question asked is “Will this shut down your supply of lead.” The answer to that is no. First, Sierra buys lead from several different vendors to maintain constant supply. Second, this facility only smelts primary lead or lead ore. This is lead ore that has just been brought out of the earth. Sierra uses no primary lead at all and never has, so we use nothing directly from this facility. The lead we buy from Doe Run comes from their recycling facility in Boss, MO that is about 90 miles away from the smelter that is closing.

The facility we buy from is still going strong and delivering to us as scheduled. The lead from this facility is from recycled lead, mostly coming from car batteries. This is a continuing “in and out” cycle for them and the smelter closing will not affect this facility.

Our supply should not be in jeopardy and we do not anticipate any changes in our supply chain at this time. Could the lack of primary lead create a little more demand for recycled lead? Sure, but how much is unknown. Could this increase in demand also create an increase in price? Sure, but again, by how much is unknown at this time.

There are many other primary lead smelters in the world and so the flow of primary lead will not be shut off. Where there is a need for primary lead, I am sure there will be a salesman more than happy to pick up the business.

If you read their answer closely, they are saying their source of lead seems to be secure. However, the demand for recycled lead will undoubtedly begin to rise as battery manufacturers may increase their consumption of recycled lead. The increase in hybrid and electric cars will also increase the demand for lead-acid batteries.

Ammo prices have risen with demand and I expect they will continue to rise from both ammo demand and demand for the raw materials such as lead. Where it will end, I just don’t know.

Uncategorized

Just In Time For Halloween

October 31, 2013 by 1 Comment

If you are a fan of the YouTube videos of Greg Hickok aka Hickok45, then you know in addition to his marvelous gun reviews he has a thing about pumpkins. He shoots them, he blows them up, he knives them, he mows over them, he bashes them with a baseball bat, etc. You get the picture.

Now someone has taken four years of Hickok45 killing pumpkins and done a mashup of it. I didn’t know there were that many ways to kill a pumpkin!

As to my favorite way to kill a pumpkin, it will always remain eating it as in a pumpkin pie with a dollop of whipped cream on top.

Uncategorized

Comment Of The Day

October 30, 2013 by 2 Comments

Secretary of Health and Human Resources Kathleen Sebelius might be “as frustrated and angry as anyone” over the badly run launch of ObamaCare. That’s all nice and well except it doesn’t go to the heart of the problem.

Ask SayUncle who is being forced to switch primary care physicians or the Complementary Spouse whose job at our local hospital was eliminated as the hospital tries to deal with the revenue shortfall they anticipate due to the Affordable Care Act about whether they care that the launch of the ObamaCare website went poorly. It still doesn’t change the fact that it is a law that sucks.

The Mad Ogre, George Hill, may have said it best in a Facebook post yesterday.

The website working or not is the least of my issues with the ACA.
Complaining that the Web Site is not working is like French Aristocrats complaining that the Guillotine isn’t working.

 I think that about sums it up.

Uncategorized

Dick Durbin’s Dog And Pony Show On Stand Your Ground

October 30, 2013 by 1 Comment

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, finally held his delayed hearing on so-called Stand Your Ground laws. The hearing entitled, “‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws: Civil Rights and Public Safety Implications of the Expanded Use of Deadly Force”, was originally scheduled to be held on September 17th.

The witness list changed somewhat from the earlier scheduled hearing. It added three US Representatives as witnesses in one panel and substituted the president of a prosecutor’s association for a Florida state’s attorney. The list is below:

Panel I

The Honorable Marcia L. Fudge
United States Representative (D-OH-11)
Washington, DC

The Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez
United States Representative (D-IL-4)
Washington, DC

The Honorable Louie Gohmert
United States Representative (R-TX-1)
Washington, DC

Panel II

Sybrina Fulton
Miami, FL

David LaBahn
President and CEO
Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
Washington, DC

Lucia McBath
Atlanta, GA

Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr.
Clinical Professor of Law, Director of the Criminal Justice Institute
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, MA

John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D.
President
Crime Prevention Research Center
Swarthmore, PA

Ilya Shapiro
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies
Cato Institute
Washington, DC

The webcast of the 2 hour hearing can be seen here.

Fortunately, you don’t have to wade through all 2 hours of testimony to get the gist of what was said. Attorney Andrew Branca, author of The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Ed. has done it for us over at the Legal Insurrection blog. In addition to summarizing the testimony of each witness as well as that of the senators on the panel, he gives his take on the whole charade.

My first general observation is that the anti-SYG folks were, as experience would suggest, big on emotion and small on actual facts, law, or data.

One of the anti-SYG witnesses, Professor Sullivan from Harvard Law School, did raise some actual data–but when these were utterly destroyed by the later testimony of Dr. John Lott and Elliot Shapiro of CATA (sic), Professor Sullivan was swift to discount the use of data (which he himself had introduced into the testimony) and instead focus on the “real people” behind the data. In sharp contrast, the testimony of the pro-SYG speakers was focused and direct.

Second, the anti-SYG folks persistently conflated the legal concept of Stand Your Ground with utterly discrete legal concepts, such as presumptions of reasonableness and civil/criminal immunity.

When this is done by people without legal training or experience, such as Sabrina Fulton, one can of course accept it as an unknowing error. When it is persistently done by a Harvard Law Professor and a head of an (allegedly) leading association of State Prosecutors, one can only wonder at either their actual intent or their underlying intelligence.

Indeed, their misstatements of the law were so egregious that at one point Dr. Lott was obliged to read aloud from the actual Florida statute they had badly mischaracterized, to which they naturally had no substantive response. In that case they were claiming that even criminal aggressors could claim Stand Your Ground privilege under Florida law, a claim that the plain language of the statute read by Dr. Lott clearly destroys.

In any case, it is clear that their effort is intended to be a broad attack on all three fronts — likely with immunity being the true target, as it represents the largest pot of gold for their supporters — rather than any focused concern on Stand Your Ground, per se.

Finally, the bottom line is I expect this hearing, and any similar subsequent efforts, to be little more than political theater, with no substantive changes resulting to the law of self-defense.

I certainly hope Mr. Branca is correct that there will be no substantive changes and that this is nothing more than political theater. One explanation that I’ve heard for these hearings is that they are an effort by Sen. Durbin to keep alive a polarizing issue so as to promote higher turnout by African-Americans in the 2014 mid-term elections. Given that Durbin has shown time and again that he is a shameless opportunist, I wouldn’t put this past him.

UPDATE: Kurt Hofmann, the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, gives his take on Durbin and these hearings. I agree with Kurt that having Durbin chair any committee with the word “Constitution” in its name is “a grim joke.”

Uncategorized

The Outdoor Wire’s Concealed Carry Special Edition

October 30, 2013 by

The Outdoor Wire network of newsletters released their annual Concealed Carry Special Edition this morning. It features articles on training for concealed carry from Mike Seeklander, Michael Bane, Claude Werner, Tiger McKee, Rich Grassi, and Paul Erhardt. 

Dave Spaulding, whom I consider one of the best trainers out there, said it contains “good, useable information” on his Facebook page.

If you have a concealed carry permit or are thinking of finally getting one, I’d highly recommend this. We can all use more training.

You can open it from this link.

Uncategorized

Nothing Like Walking The Dog To Get A Bill Signed

October 28, 2013 by 1 Comment

While there may be other meanings to walking the dog, taken literally it might just have been the deciding factor in California Gov. Jerry Brown’s decision to sign the ban on lead ammunition.

The biggest proponent of the lead ammo ban was the anti-hunting Humane Society of the US. And who just happens to walk Jerry Brown’s dog Sutter on a regular basis? None other than Jennifer Fearing who is the state director for HSUS in California.

Does the hand that holds the leash of California’s “first dog,” cuddly corgi Sutter Brown, also have a hand in guiding policy with the dog’s master, Gov. Jerry Brown?

That’s the question being raised about Jennifer Fearing, the senior state director for the Humane Society of the United States, who critics suggest has turned her role as regular walker of the governor’s dog into a cannily effective way to lobby the state’s chief executive on animal rights issues.

Fearing scored a perfect 6-for-6 record this legislative season in getting bills signed by Brown, placing her in the ranks of Sacramento’s most effective lobbyists.

Among the coups for the Humane Society was legislation banning lead ammunition that Fearing said endangered as many as 130 species in California. It was one of 11 bills signed by Brown out of the 18 that the Legislature passed to restrict guns or ammunition.

Fearing denies any impropriety and says she hasn’t talked to Gov. Brown or his wife personally about the bill in question.

Others are not so sure. The gun-rights group Free California has filed a complaint with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission saying the dog-walking is an in-kind payment to the governor. Ethics experts are also unsure about this.

Fearing is “a powerful person who wants something from the government,” said Jessica Levinson, an expert on law and governance issues and associate professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

With her role in the dog’s life, “she has access to Gov. Brown,” Levinson said. “There are a variety of ways to exercise influence.”

California taxpayers, for instance, would have a right to know if “Brown had a kid, and his tutor was head of the California Teachers Association,” Levinson said.

I know I, for one, would be more favorably disposed towards someone my dog liked. Conversely, if my dog didn’t like you, then there is something about you that might be suspect. Regardless of the intent, Fearing’s regular walks with Sutter who seems to like her has to have made Brown more receptive to her arguments. It would be hard for Brown to dismiss Fearing and her group’s agenda out of hand given the personal relationship in question. I don’t know if Fearing started walking Sutter in order to get Brown’s attention but it seems to have worked anyways.

UPDATE: The Washington Times is wondering if this should be called “Corgigate”. Attorney Chuck Michel who handles much of the NRA’s legal work in California had this to say of Fearing.

“For someone who did not hesitate to take the moral high ground in denigrating the ethical standards of hunters during the campaign to ban lead ammunition, it is disappointing to see that Jennifer Fearing does not hold herself to those same ethical standards in properly disclosing her relationship with the governor,” said Chuck Michel, California attorney for the National Rifle Association, in a statement.

Uncategorized

BATFE – We Aren’t Saying It Is Illegal Or Wrong But…

October 28, 2013 by 3 Comments

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives released a new “informational” YouTube video this past Thursday on private and Internet sales. The video was narrated by Rich Marianos, Assistant Director for Professional and Governmental Affairs.

The ostensible purpose of the video is to provide “guidance” regarding private and Internet sales. While noting that firearms are a legal commodity and that private sales without a background check are perfectly legal between residents of a state under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (note – state laws may vary), he then alludes to criminals obtaining firearms without going through a background check. He then makes the strong suggestion that private sellers “protect” themselves by having the transaction handled by a FFL who must perform a NICS check.

I almost laughed out loud when Marianos said that AFT respects the Second Amendment rights of “our citizens who own firearms” and that they are only concerned with “traffickers”. I’m sure that explains the visit that gun blogger Andrew Tuohy of the Vuurwapen Blog received from ATF agents last year asking about his firearms purchases.

After listening to the deadpan delivery of Marianos which makes Sgt. Joe Friday of Dragnet seem animated and his announcement that ATF has established an Internet Firearms Trafficking Unit, I am left to wonder who is jerking ATF’s chain about private and/or Internet sales. Is it new Director B. Todd Jones, the White House, or Mayor Bloomberg and his Illegal Mayors? Someone surely is doing it because getting a new unit approved is not an everyday occurrence.