Ladd Everitt: Noted Ordnance Expert

Modern day journalists have this obsession that borders on compulsion to balance any comment that could be be remotely considered “pro-gun” with one from a gun prohibitionist.

Thus, it isn’t surprising that David Trinko of the Lima (Ohio) News reached out to Ladd Everitt in an article entitled “Few mechanical differences found between AR-15s, hunting rifles.” The article noted that there were few differences between an AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14 given that both use the same .223 Remington cartridge, both are semi-automatic, and both have detachable magazines.

As most readers of this blog would agree, the major difference between the AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14 is in the action. The former uses a direct gas impingement system while the latter uses a gas operated piston. The rest of the differences are just cosmetic. Not so says Everitt.

Those additional features are really at the heart of the debate about gun violence in America, says Ladd Everitt, director of communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence in Washington.

“They’ll tell you these features are pieces of plastic and are merely scary-looking. They’re just cosmetic,” Everitt said. “That’s just nonsense.”

The article goes on to note that Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 would ban firearms with more than one of the following features: folding or telescopic stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, or grenade launcher. The article mistakenly says S. 150 hasn’t gotten out of committee yet. It has and is supported by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic) because “those additional features on AR-15s” concern them.

“The world’s not affected by scary looks. It’s specific features and
what they do,” Everitt said. “Pistol grips, the specific purpose is to
keep level and steady during repeated fire. A flash suppressor is to
disguise sniper fire at night. A barrel shroud keeps your hand safe
while firing round after round so it doesn’t heat up and burn your
hand.”

While Everitt is correct that the barrel shroud does provide a heat shield, the rest of his statement is full of nonsense. Pistol grips in a variety of shapes and sizes have been on bolt action rifles for many a year. Look at this page of McMillan stocks – every one has a pistol grip and each one is intended for a bolt action rifle. The main purpose of a flash suppressor is to keep the shooter from being blinded at night by the flash – not to disguise “sniper fire”.

Finally, Everitt gets around to discussing semi-auto versus full auto and magazine size.

The speed someone can repeatedly fire a semi-automatic rifle makes it just as dangerous as a fully automatic weapon, Everitt said.

“It’s a nonsense argument that you can’t hold down the trigger so it’s safe,” he said. “You can fire as quickly when you repeatedly press the trigger. It’s highly insulting to those who are victims of gun violence.”

Instead, much of the debate centers on how many rounds should be allowed in a magazine for a semi-automatic weapon. The 1994 law only allowed 10 rounds per magazine. Feinstein’s proposal also used the number 10.

“No one in the world needs more than 10 rounds at a time unless you’re hunting humans,” Everitt said.

Let’s be clear about one thing. All firearms used improperly are dangerous. It doesn’t matter if you have a single shot Cricket or an AR-15 with a standard capacity magazine as either could be used to kill or injure. That said, if I am protecting my loved ones from a pack of home invaders, I’d prefer to have the AR-15 with multiple standard capacity magazines. More and more, home invasions involve multiple invaders. Furthermore, tests of the 5.56 round show less over-penetration than with most pistol calibers.

There are experts and then there are propagandists who like to portray themselves as experts. The first are useful and the second are useless. Ladd Everitt is in the second category.

Good News From Florida

Buried in the news of the week amongst the Senate votes on gun control and the bombing at the Boston Marathon with the subsequent manhunt for the Chechen bombers, was the defeat of one of Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors in Gainesville, Florida. The last time I had reported on Mayor Craig Lowe, he had just been arrested for driving under the influence with property damage.

In the run-off election for mayor of Gainesville, Lowe lost to former City Commissioner Ed Braddy.

In a city where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a margin
of more than two to one, the Republican Braddy defeated the Democrat
Lowe by almost 10 percent of the vote. With all 35 precincts reporting,
Braddy had 7,258 votes (55 percent) to Lowe’s 6,007 (45 percent).

Lowe was one of the 30 mayors featured in a recent MAIG video demanding “a plan”.

While Lowe’s DUI undoubtedly played some role in his defeat, Braddy attributed his win to a campaign message of making Gainesville more affordable for both people and business. He also pledged to run a more open City Hall.

While campaigning, Braddy said that differing or contrary viewpoints were not welcome under Lowe’s leadership. He said the city should do away with more restrictive rules on public comment at City Commission meetings, including the requirement to sign up in advance to speak at the 6 p.m. time for general comment.


“City Hall is open to the people,” Braddy told a cheering group of supporters at The Warehouse restaurant. “The people will be welcomed at City Hall.”

Why am I not surprised to read that Mayor Lowe wasn’t open to differing or contrary viewpoints. That seems to be the modus operandi of all gun prohibitionists.

Misleading Infographic Of The Day

Normally, I like infographics. Used correctly, they convey a lot of useful information in an understandable format. However, they can be misused.

An example of infographic misuse is shown below. It comes from Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors and their Demand Action project.

What the infographic doesn’t tell you is that Harry Reid (D-NV) set the bar at 60 votes for any amendment to S. 649 to forestall any efforts at a filibuster. It was part of the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill and to accelerate the discussion. Otherwise, there would have been 30 hours of debate and Harry Reid didn’t want the details of Manchin-Toomey subjected to that much sunlight.

Moreover, their argument that five senators representing four states which comprise 1.4% of the US population is specious. You could make the equally valid argument that the six senators from three states – Vermont, Rhode Island, and Delaware – put Manchin-Toomey over the 50 vote mark. These three states, by the way, represent a mere 0.8% of the US population.

Jame Taranto of the Wall Street Journal in his Best of the Web Today column calls these efforts “a thuggish majoritarian rhetoric”. It helps put this infographic – which is nothing but authoritarian propaganda – into perspective.

Don’t Know Much About (Constitutional) History

In an editorial published yesterday after the defeat of Manchin-Toomey, the editors of Bloomberg View bemoaned the filibuster and the fact that even small states have two senators. They claim the “rural bias” of the Senate puts gun control out of reach.

The struggle to enact their plan turned uphill this week, with nearly all Senate Republicans opposing it and even a few red-state Democrats running for cover. The proposal’s demise, in a 54-46 vote, is a testament to legislators’ continuing fear of the gun lobby. It also illuminates a political equation that grows more unbalanced, especially in the Senate, every year. The votes of Wyoming’s two senators, representing 580,000 citizens, effectively cancel the votes of California’s two senators, representing 38 million. The votes of Illinois, with a population of almost 13 million, are voided by those of Alaska, with little more than 700,000.

This is a problem for sensible gun legislation. It is also a problem for American democracy. If the nation’s laws fail to represent the views of the overwhelming majority of its people, representative democracy becomes a shallow and unsustainable exercise.

Just as gun laws have failed to keep pace with the advance of technology — which puts ever greater firepower in the hands of virtually anyone who wants it — the Senate has failed to adapt to the urbanization and suburbanization of the nation, enabling rural representatives to veto the will of an increasingly metropolitan majority. The Senate cannot, and indeed does not, function if 60 votes are the threshold for every proposal.

Turning their logic on its head, I don’t think they would object to the two senators from Vermont, population 626,000, voting for gun control and effectively canceling out the votes of the two senators from Texas, population 25,146,000. Nor would the editors object to the two senators from Delaware, population 898,000, canceling out the pro-gun votes of the senators from Georgia, population 9,688,000.

While I might be able to excuse their lamentations about the failure of the Senate to gun control, there is no excuse for their abysmal ignorance of the Constitution and the history behind its creation which the editors should have learned before they even got to high school.

When representatives from the thirteen states assembled in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation in 1787, the delegates brought with them ideas on how they would like the future government to be structured. James Madison of Virginia brought a plan for a bicameral legislature. The Virginia, or Large State, Plan would have apportioned each house of the legislature based upon population. In response to the Virginia Plan, William Paterson of New Jersey proposed an alternative unicameral legislature with one vote per state. While the New Jersey Plan was rejected in favor of the Virginia Plan, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention finally adopted the Connecticut Compromise which satisfied both large and small states. It is this bicameral legislature that we have today: a House of Representatives apportioned by population and a Senate with two Senators per state.

 The founding fathers were wise in their compromise. The Senate was meant to be a deliberative body somewhat akin to a non-hereditary House of Lords. It was meant to be a bulwark against populist passions. To throw out the filibuster and equal apportionment by state in the name of some ill-conceived claim of discrimination against the urban areas is to trample on the concept of minority rights. I sincerely think the editors of Bloomberg View might want to consider the ramifications of that move.

Building Speed By Pushing Your Limits

In the latest training tips video from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Doug Koenig discusses how to build your speed as a competitive shooter. He suggests having a timer and then begin to push your limits. When your performance starts to suffer – larger groups, missed targets, etc. – back off a bit and start to work at that speed. Eventually, your groups will tighten and your speed will increase.

Responses Of The Increasingly Irrelevant Old-Line Gun Prohibitionists

The old line gun prohibitionists are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the debate. When Obama threw his hissy fit yesterday after Manchin-Toomey was defeated, he didn’t have Josh Horwitz or Dan Gross by his side. He had Gabby Giffords, former Congresswoman and co-founder of Americans for Responsible Solutions, by his side.

When Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) partnered with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) to revive gun control, it wasn’t out of fear of pathetic demonstrations by CSGV or an ad campaign by the Brady Campaign. While we will never know for sure what convinced him to go over to the dark side, I’m sure the pressure from Mayor Bloomberg and his fat wallet had something to do with it.

So I find the petulant responses of groups like CSGV and the Brady Campaign to the defeat of the gun control measures yesterday more amusing than irritating. They are like the high school prom queen who has not aged well and is still expecting to get the same attention she got in high school.

From the Brady Campaign:

“This is an insult to the 90 people killed by gun violence every day and the 90 percent of Americans who believe that felons, domestic abusers, and the dangerous mentally ill should not be able to buy guns without a background check, no questions asked. The Senate failed to pass something that virtually all Americans support and would undoubtedly make this a safer nation. It is unfathomable that a Senator could sit across the table from a Newtown parent who lost a child, and then days later vote against this amendment. We will not give up in this fight and we should not lose sight of the progress we have made. That we have come this far only strengthens our resolve to make the American public heard until we can make the Congress listen. And we will work to make sure that those Senators who refuse to represent the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans on this crucial issue are replaced with others who will.

In addition to continuing the fight for expanded background checks at the federal level, the Brady Campaign continues to work to keep the American public safe from gun violence. We are working to maintain momentum at the state level and pass common sense legislation, as we’ve seen in several states including New York, Colorado, and Connecticut. The Brady Campaign has also created groundbreaking programs to help change the way we approach guns in our communities. With 300 million guns already in the nation, it is imperative that we take shared responsibility for how they are stored and handled.”

From the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic):

The outcome of today’s votes is a stain on the reputation of the U.S. Senate, and insulting to victims and survivors of gun violence nationwide.

At the same time, gun violence prevention advocates have made tremendous progress in changing the political dynamic of this debate, and we will keep the heat on both the Senate and the House of Representatives until we get meaningful reform. More importantly, with today’s recorded votes, we will be able to inform Americans exactly which legislators are prioritizing the grade they are getting from the NRA over the safety of their constituents.

Americans have made it clear time and time again that they want real reform. Strong majorities of Americans support universal background checks, tough new criminal penalties for gun traffickers, and the renewal of the federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

More than 3,482 Americans have been killed by guns since 20 children and six adults were slaughtered at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14, 2012. We are destined to bury our loved ones following future tragedies if this Congress continues to willfully ignore this epidemic of gun violence.

Tonight was merely the first step in a tireless campaign to keep the gun issue at the top of Congress’ agenda until decisive action is taken. To Americans who want to stop gun violence, we say don’t retreat. Don’t despair. Redouble your efforts and maintain daily pressure on those Senators and Representatives who have failed to support sensible gun reforms. Working together, we can and we will enact life-saving legislation at the federal level.

Regarding Cornyn And National Right To Carry Reciprocity

One of the amendments offered yesterday was on national right-to-carry. It was offered by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). Because it didn’t get 60 votes in favor, it was considered defeated. The final vote was 57 ayes to 43 nays.

I think the mood in the Senate yesterday was that if Manchin-Toomey didn’t pass, nothing was going to pass good or bad. Otherwise you wouldn’t have had 44 Senators voting against the Burr Amendment which would have protected the Second Amendment rights of veterans by requiring that they be adjudicated mentally incompetent before losing their gun rights. To me, that amendment was right up there with Mom, apple pie, and baseball.

What does this mean for national right-to-carry in general? As I see it, national right to carry reciprocity legislation has a majority of the Senate in support of it. However, it is not a filibuster-proof majority as it didn’t get 60 votes. It would be foolish to think that a Senator Boxer or a Senator Schumer would not filibuster this as a stand alone bill.

A number of the senators voting against the bill come from states with strong shall-issue carry laws. It might be possible to gain the remaining three needed votes. I see Sen. Harry Reid’s votes as a “tactical no” while a Nelson of Florida or a King of Maine might be persuaded to listen to their constituents. It would be close and it again shows the folly of the Republicans in nominating weak, stupid, or ineffectual candidates. McCaskill of Missouri, Kaine of Virginia, and Baldwin of Wisconsin should have been beaten in 2012 and weren’t. That would have been the three needed votes.

Ah, woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Here is the breakdown of the roll call vote on the Cornyn Amendment.

YEAs —57
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)
NAYs —43
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NSSF On Yesterday’s Votes

The National Shooting Sports Foundation issued this statement yesterday evening after Manchin-Toomey went down to defeat along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s new AWB.

NEWTOWN, Conn. — Today, the U.S. Senate voted on several measures that would have impacted the firearms and ammunition industry and our Second Amendment rights. Thanks to the hard work of our allies in the Senate, in the end no anti-gun measures were adopted.

The flawed Manchin-Toomey amendment, opposed by NSSF, was defeated as was Senator Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) amendment to institute a new “assault weapons ban” and an arbitrary limit on magazine capacity. Unfortunately, a handful of positive, solutions-based amendments also failed to pass the Senate.The NSSF-backed Grassley substitute amendment, which would have improved current law and fixed the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), fell short by one of the closer margins of today’s amendments.

All Americans share the goal of wanting to make our communities safer. The civil debate on the Senate floor today further shows that reasonable minds can disagree on how to best achieve this goal. Looking ahead, NSSF will continue to work to find real solutions that improve current law, fix the NICS background check system to ensure all appropriate criminal and adjudicated mental health records are entered into the system, to provide law enforcement with additional tools they need to arrest and prosecute illegal firearms traffickers and straw purchasers and to urge effective, consistent enforcement of existing laws, all without infringing our Constitutional rights and unduly burdening our industry.

Today’s votes do not represent the end of the discussion in Congress or in America. NSSF looks forward to moving ahead with the work that remains to be done to try and help make our families safer and preserve our firearms freedoms.

Headline Of The Day



The headline of the day comes from the National Journal on a story about today’s win for gun rights (or defeat of gun control depending upon your perspective).

At Pivotal Point in Presidency, Obama Routed on Gun Control

What makes this headline even more sweet is that it was written by the National Journal’s Ron Fournier who has been vehemently anti-gun. He tries to salvage this defeat by saying that the win could backfire if it empowers those backing gun prohibition.

I sincerely doubt that will happen given the differences in intensity between those who support rights and those who want to take them away. Even Fournier recognizes this. That said he still has high hopes for Obama’s version of the Young Pioneers.

What if the fledgling OFA unlocks the key to converting Obama’s
reelection machine into a million-member lobbying force? What if voters
who support the Second Amendment and commonsense gun regulation
get angry at Congress for ignoring them? What if these voters realize
that the same social and technological forces that democratized 21st century media and commerce—as well as enabling revolutions in the Middle East—also empower individual Americans to change Congress?

To which I would say, dream on.

Heh – Feinstein’s AWB Amendment Fails

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) got the vote she demanded on her Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.

And as expected, she lost. Big time!

The vote was 40 aye, 60 nay.

I’m a bit surprised that Bob Casey (D-PA) voted FOR the bill. I’m sure that will go over well with all the gun owners and deer hunters in Pennsylvania.

The only thing this vote did was allow some red-state Democrats to claim they voted against gun control. I noted that Kay Hagan and Mary Landrieu who both voted for Manchin-Toomey voted Nay on this.

UPDATE: Below is the roll call vote by position. It tells me two things. First, that there are 40 hard core gun prohibitionists in the Senate. Second, Senate seats that were winnable in 2010 and 2012 by Republicans went to anti-gun Democrats due to weak, ineffectual, or stupid Republican nominees. I’m talking about Wisconsin, Virginia, Delaware, and especially Missouri.

YEAs —40
Baldwin (D-WI)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs —60
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Johnson (R-WI)
King (I-ME)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)