We’ve all heard the debates about which pistol caliber is the one to have. Heck, we may have even participated in one or two along the way. Should we carry “God’s own caliber”, a Nine, or that that upstart .40 S&W? And what about a .357 Magnum?
But what caliber puts the most fear into criminals and other assorted thugs? The video below suggests one answer.
As for me, I have a pistol (or two) in each of those calibers and in some that aren’t listed. I say carry what works for you.
The House of Representatives passed an amendment to HR 2217 – the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2014 – that forbids DHS from purchasing any more ammunition until they report to Congress on their previous ammunition purchases. The amendment passed Tuesday with a bi-partisan majority of 234-192. The amendment was proposed, I’m happy to report, by my Congressman, Rep. Mark Meadows (D-NC11).
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) proposed an amendment to the DHS spending bill for 2014 that would require the report to Congress before it can pursue plans to buy 1.1 billion rounds of ammunition. Meadows said the speed bump is a necessary reaction to news of the huge purchase, which alarmed many Americans and prompted conservative groups to suspect that the government was stocking up on the rounds to fight citizens.
“Given this large purchase, the American people and members of Congress rightfully had concerns and questions,” Meadows said. “This is a responsible amendment which ensures that Congress and the American people are aware of the necessity and the cost of ammunition prior to entering into new contracts for procurement.”
This amendment was opposed by Rep. John Carter (R-TX) who is Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations who said it was unnecessary based upon his talks with DHS officials and that it would interrupt the regular procurement process at DHS. I guess he means their solicitation for 30-30 Winchester and .45 Long Colt (sic) ammunition.
The roll call vote can be found here.
Rep. Meadows had more to say on the issue in this release:
A provision of H.R. 2217 requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to submit a report to Congress detailing its ammunition purchases by the time the president submits his next budget. Meadows’ amendment complements this reporting provision by prohibiting DHS from entering into a new contract for ammunition purchases until the report is submitted to Congress.
“Over the past year, many questions have been raised about vast purchases of ammunition by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),” Meadows said. “Earlier this year, we learned that DHS solicited bids for 1.1 billion rounds of ammunition. This is more than ten times the amount that the department purchased in fiscal year 2012. Given current inventory, DHS has nearly 4,000 rounds for each employee trained and certified in firearms use.
“Constituents of the 11th District have repeatedly voiced their concerns to me about these purchases. Prior to committing taxpayer dollars for ammunition contracts, we must ensure that government agencies justify the necessity and cost to both Congress and the American people.”
The amendment passed the House with bipartisan support by a vote of 234-192.
I might have gone further than Rep. Meadows and included a provision that DHS have to buy their ammo over the counter at Walmart or their local gun shop. Oh, and they would have to abide by the usual limitations on purchases that the rest of us do including no more than 3 boxes of ammo per day at a time.
If you have ever taken any intro management course, you have probably come across the name Frederick Winslow Taylor. I’m sure the same could be said for an intro industrial engineering class. Taylor is considered the father of scientific management and was one of the first management consultants. He brought a systematic study of tasks (time and motion studies) to the efforts to improve industrial efficiencies. He was concerned with stuff like the size of a shovel and how big a scoop a worker should take of coal for optimum efficiency.
So what does a late 19th and early 20th century management consultant have to do with shooting? Watch the NSSF video below featuring champion Cowboy Action shooter Jim “Long Hunter” Finch. Listen to him discuss ways to cut down your time in competition with emphasis on how you pick up the rifle, how you shoulder the rifle, and how you lay it back down on the table. If that isn’t a time and motion study I don’t know what is.
Jim, from what I understand, is a gunsmith and a shooting instructor but his explanations of how and why he does things in SASS competition could teach an industrial engineer a thing or two.
By this time 69 years ago, beachheads had been established on all five of the Normandy invasion beaches including Omaha. Soldiers and tanks were starting to move inland to secure the beachheads.
As to casualties, we will never have an exact figure. Most of what we have are estimates. The long-time general estimate was 10,000 Allied men killed, wounded, captured, or missing in action. However, research from the National D-Day Memorial Foundation now puts the number killed at a much higher figure than previously thought.
The Allied casualties figures for D-Day have generally been estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. Broken down by nationality, the usual D-Day casualty figures are approximately 2700 British, 946 Canadians, and 6603 Americans. However recent painstaking research by the US National D-Day Memorial Foundation has achieved a more accurate – and much higher – figure for the Allied personnel who were killed on D-Day. They have recorded the names of individual Allied personnel killed on 6 June 1944 in Operation Overlord, and so far they have verified 2499 American D-Day fatalities and 1915 from the other Allied nations, a total of 4414 dead (much higher than the traditional figure of 2500 dead). Further research may mean that these numbers will increase slightly in future. The details of this research will in due course be available on the Foundation’s website at www.dday.org. This new research means that the casualty figures given for individual units in the next few paragraphs are no doubt inaccurate, and hopefully more accurate figures will one day be calculated.
Casualties on the British beaches were roughly 1000 on Gold Beach and the same number on Sword Beach. The remainder of the British losses were amongst the airborne troops: some 600 were killed or wounded, and 600 more were missing; 100 glider pilots also became casualties. The losses of 3rd Canadian Division at Juno Beach have been given as 340 killed, 574 wounded and 47 taken prisoner.
The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured. Of the total US figure, 2499 casualties were from the US airborne troops (238 of them being deaths). The casualties at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing. However, the US 1st and 29th Divisions together suffered around 2000 casualties at Omaha Beach.
The Wall Street Journal had an article today by Nathan Ward in which he tells of his maternal grandfather who was a chaplain in the 29th Infantry Division. His grandfather and a Jewish chaplain, Rabbi Manuel Poliakoff, held a funeral service for 800 dead American servicemen buried in a temporary mass grave on Omaha Beach. I think that gives some idea of the enormous losses from that first day of battle.
I stumbled across some color archival footage of D-Day. The usual images of much of D-Day and, for that matter, WWII, are in black and white such as these by Robert Capa. Thus, seeing it in color seems somewhat strange.
Looking back at the men that fought and died in the invasion of Normandy, we think of them as fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers. However, most who will read this today are older than the men who fought on those bloody beaches were when they landed. I am older today than Ike, Omar Bradley, and Monty were in 1944. The oldest man to go ashore that first day was Brigadier Gen. Ted Roosevelt, Jr. who was 56 just as I am today. I still have a hard time comprehending this.
To sum it up, I thank God that we had such men who willingly faced such unimaginable horrors to liberate Europe and the rest of the world from the Nazis. I just hope we can still prove to be worthy of their sacrifice.
UPDATE: Here is an interesting photo essay of Normandy in 1944 and now. The photographer has used archival photos and returned to the same location to show what it looks like today.
Let’s just say that I didn’t particularly like the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and the policies he pushed. That said, I’ve tried to avoid posting about his death as I didn’t want to be seen as dancing on his grave.
I received an email this afternoon that I found crass, insensitive, and ghoulish. It was sent by the “sainted” Gabby Giffords and her AR-buying hypocrite of a husband Mark Kelly. The letter (see below) asks that Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) appoint a gun prohibitionist to replace Lautenberg and concludes with a request for a contribution.
For God’s sake, Lautenberg’s corpse has barely begun to relax from rigor mortis and they are using it for political purposes. They really have no shame.
John –Frank Lautenberg spent a career working tirelessly to reduce gun violence in our country.
He authored important legislation to keep guns out of the hands of
domestic abusers, and one of the final votes he cast was in support of
expanded background checks. He was wheeled down to the floor for that
vote, as his colleagues applauded his determination.Senator Lautenberg cannot be replaced. However, New Jersey Governor
Chris Christie must now select a successor. And he should pick one who
supports expanding background checks to keep guns out of the hands of
criminals and the deranged.Earlier this year, a Quinnipiac University poll found that ninety-six
percent of New Jersey residents support expanding background checks,
including ninety-five percent of gun owners.These are staggering numbers, and Governor Christie should consider the will of New Jersey voters while making his selection.
Sign our petition calling on Governor Christie to honor
Senator Lautenberg’s legacy and select a successor who will vote ‘YES’
to expand background checks for gun purchases.http://action.americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/christie
As we move closer to a second vote on background checks, this decision
could make the difference between passing background checks, or another
crushing defeat.That’s why your signature is so important. We’ll make sure Governor Christie receives it.
All the best,
Gabby and Mark
Michael Hartwell is a staff reporter for the Sentinel and Enterprise of Fitchburg, Massachusetts. Having grown up shooting in Maine and having been threatened more than once as a result of his articles, he decided to apply for his Massachusetts Firearms ID (FID) card and also to get his Class A carry permit.
What clinched it, however, was the way I felt during the manhunt for the second suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. I didn’t feel safe in Leominster, which is less than an hour’s drive away from where the suspect was last seen.
Earlier this month, it occurred to me that as a reporter and a Massachusetts resident, I’m in the perfect position to see what impact the state’s gun-control laws would have on someone with a clean record who simply wants to exercise their legal rights.
A reporter seeking to exercise his or her rights to purchase a firearm and detailing the difficulties isn’t a new story. Emily Miller of the Washington Times detailed her tortuous path to handgun ownership in the series called “Emily Gets Her Gun”. Nonetheless, it is interesting to see the path and the obstacles that Hartwell has to overcome in seeking to get his FID and Class A carry permit.
So far it is a three-part series. The first details his decision to get the FID and Class A carry permit, the second details his training class, and now the third article details the wait times and growth in demand in his town of Leominster.
I live in a shall-issue state so I am somewhat bewildered by the complexity of the process in a may-issue state like Massachusetts. The other thing that has struck me is just how much things can vary by town in terms of who gets a permit, what type of permit, and how long they have to wait to obtain it.
For example if you are a resident in the town of Fitchburg, the local police chief essentially makes you go through a multi-year apprenticeship in order to get your Class A carry permit.
Fitchburg Police Chief Robert DeMoura said the overwhelming majority of applicants pass because people with felony convictions know they would fail and rarely apply. DeMoura said he denies concealed-weapon permits to new shooters 90 percent of the time.
“I will give them a target and hunting permit,” said DeMoura. “First and foremost, they just went through a one-day course about firearms, and I just don’t feel that they’ve had enough time to be around a weapon to be able to carry a concealed weapon. My philosophy is that the state law says I have to give them a permit if they qualify — they don’t tell me what kind of permit, but I have to give them a permit. Most of the time I give them a target-hunting (permit).”
He said he makes exceptions if someone needs a license to carry for their job, such as a security officer. As the chief of an urban area, DeMoura said most applicants did not grow up around guns, but he would take into consideration if an applicant has a history of handling firearms.
If someone has had a standard FID card for a year, DeMoura said he is willing to upgrade it to a concealed-weapons permit.
Hartwell, fortunately enough, lives in Leominster.
Still, he has to wait. The next opening for an appointment to submit his application to the firearms licensing clerk there is July 2nd. If he lived in the town of Richmond in western Massachusetts, he could just walk in without an appointment every other Wednesday evening when the Richmond police chief holds office hours. Moreover, the chief himself handles the application.
I certainly have a greater appreciation for how good I have it here in North Carolina and an even greater admiration for people like JayG and Weerd who have taken on the system and gotten their permits.
Getting each house of the Illinois General Assembly to pass a concealed carry law with lopsided margins looks to have been the easy part. The harder part, in many ways, is going to be getting the law implemented.
It just got a bit harder today thanks to the machinations of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. She has filed a motion to stay the 7th Circuit’s 180 day mandate to have a concealed carry law in place for another 30 days. She gives as her rationale that it would give Gov. Pat Quinn “a reasonable time to fulfill his constitutional duties.” The Illinois Constitution gives the governor 60 days after a bill’s passage to consider and sign it. That amount of time is one of the longest in the nation according to the National Governor’s Association.
Madigan argues that the additional time is necessary to avoid having no state law in place which she says was the court’s original intent of the 180-day stay of its mandate.
The expiration of the stay on June 9 without a substitute law in place
would present a significant harm, not to the defendants in an individualized or
official capacity, but to the People and Constitution of Illinois. The current stay of
this Court’s mandate expires in less than one week, significantly shortening the
sixty-day period constitutionally afforded the Governor to consider and sign
legislation into law. Expiration of the stay on June 9 will either eliminate that
constitutionally-provided period entirely or create a gap in state firearm regulation.
These represent unnecessary harms to the public interest.
Madigan goes on to argue that 30 days is only for the “orderly completion of the legislative process and is not intended for purposes of delay.” If this is indeed the case, one might well ask why Madigan isn’t asking for 51 days or the full amount of time left for Gov. Quinn to either sign or veto the bill under the Illinois Constitution.
Madigan concludes her argument by saying she recognizes that a delay of a constitutional right imposes a burden upon the plaintiffs but that is outweighed by the public’s interest in not having a period where no law is in effect.
It should be noted that Madigan still has another 21 days left on her extension in which to file a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court appealing this case. There is no word on what she intends to do regarding that.
UPDATE: Despite it being highly irregular and that a stay would seem to violate many of the Rules of Federal Appellate Procedure, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan got her order staying the mandate of the court for another 30 days.
1. MOTION TO STAY MANDATE FOR 30 ADDITIONAL DAYS, filed on
June 3, 2013, by counsel for the appellees.2. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY MANDATE FOR ADDITIONAL 30
DAYS, filed on June 4, 2013, by counsel for appellants Michael Moore, Charles
Hooks, Peggy Fechter, Jon Maier, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., and
Illinois Carry.3. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS MARY SHEPARD AND ILLINOIS STATE
RIFLE ASSOCIATION’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY MANDATE
FOR ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS, filed on June 4, 2013, by counsel for appellants
Mary Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association.IT IS ORDERED that the motion to stay mandate for additional 30 days is GRANTED.
This court’s mandate is STAYED until July 9, 2013. No further extensions to stay the court’s
mandate will be granted.
form
Sebastian has more on the opposing motions here.
Yesterday, the Nevada State Assembly passed universal background checks by a vote of 23 yea to 19 nay and sent it to Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-NV) for his signature or veto. The text of the bill as enrolled can be found here.
One of the most contentious bills of the day was Senate Bill 221, sponsored by Sen. Justin Jones, D-Las Vegas, to require background checks on private gun sales.
The bill appeared dead early Monday, but in an unexpected move, the Assembly Judiciary Committee approved it on a 7-5 vote.
The full Assembly then voted 23-19 to send it to Sandoval despite his promise to veto the measure. Four Democrats joined with all 15 Republicans in opposing the measure.
The bill previously passed the Senate on an 11-10 party-line vote with Democrats in support.
Multiple reports indicate that Gov. Sandoval will veto this bill. That has not stopped Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors from running ads asking people to call the governor and asking him to sign it. Moreover, they are saying that “86% of Nevada voters” support the bill.
The other day I wrote about how certain legislators were expecting substantial campaign contributions as a result of pushing Bloomberg’s bill.
It is obvious from the lists below, that Bloomberg saturated Carson City with lobbyists. There are a total of 63 legislators in both houses of the Nevada Legislature. Examining the list of lobbyists below for Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors, I see a total of 13 paid lobbyists or one lobbyist for every 4.85 legislators. An asterisk after the lobbyist name indicates that he or she is a paid lobbyist. Bloomberg had no volunteer lobbyists.
By contrast, you have three paid lobbyists and three volunteer lobbyists for the pro-rights side. Besides the NRA, you had the Nevada Firearms Coalition and the Stillwater Firearms Association. The Nevada Firearms Association is the state affiliate of the NRA. As they themselves note, they relied on the NRA-ILA to handle things in the legislature until recently. The Stillwater Firearms Association is a non-profit that puts on classes, organizes shooting competitions, and manages a shooting range in Fallon, NV.
From an outsider’s perspective, it appears that Mayor Bloomberg overwhelmed the grassroots organizations with money, ads, and paid lobbyists just like he did in Colorado. Unlike Colorado, having a Republican governor may be enough to stop this in its tracks. A veto of the bill cannot be overriden by either house of the Nevada Legislature.
While it is past time to have made your voice heard, we still have a chance with Gov. Sandoval. I’d emphasize that this measure won’t stop crime and would not have prevented the Newtown shootings. Moreover, if you are not a state resident but have visited Reno, Las Vegas, or other gambling locations, make that known along with your determination not to spend your money in a state that doesn’t believe in your civil rights.
Contact information for Gov. Sandoval is located here.
One final reminder: be firm but respectful.
The headline is from a release put out by the State Department noting that the United States planned to sign the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty. Maybe the vaguely French looking Secretary of State who, by the way, served in Vietnam, welcomes it along with the rest of the Obama Administration but most assuredly I don’t welcome it and neither do at least 130 members of Congress.
Last week, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons.
“As your review of the treaty continues, we strongly encourage your administration to recognize its textual, inherent and procedural flaws, to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, and to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and thus to decide not to sign this treaty,” the lawmakers wrote.
The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim, even if Obama goes ahead and signs it — as early as Monday, or possibly months down the road. A majority of Senate members have come out against the treaty. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify.
Kerry’s statement goes on to say it won’t infringe on the Second Amendment.
The ATT will not undermine the legitimate international trade in
conventional weapons, interfere with national sovereignty, or infringe
on the rights of American citizens, including our Second Amendment
rights.
I wonder if he considers the walking of guns to Mexico in Operation Fast and Furious to have been “legitimate international trade in conventional weapons” as it certainly did interfere with the national sovereignty of Mexico. Kerry’s remark that it won’t infringe upon the Second Amendment does not even dignify a response.
According to the Toronto Globe and Mail, Canada, by the way, has not yet decided whether or not it plans to sign the Arms Trade Treaty.
The federal government hasn’t decided whether it agrees with the UN’s arms trade treaty, despite having voted to move it ahead in the first place, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Monday.
“We believe that any treaty regarding the sale of munitions that helps move the international community closer to world-leading standards is a good thing,” Baird said during question period. “We participated actively in these discussions. I think we have an obligation to listen before we act, and that is why we will be consulting with Canadians before the government takes any decision.”
The Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister went on to say that the Canadian Government sees a potential link between the ATT and their former gun registry which they abolished last year.
I think the Canadians are being a heck of a lot smarter about this than the US which doesn’t surprise me in the least.
The CalGuns Foundation just come into a bit of change thanks to the Merced County (CA) Sheriff’s Department. That is because the department come to an agreement with CalGuns to settle a lawsuit over how the MCSD handled applications for carry permits and agreed to pay them attorney’s fees.
Sometimes lawsuits and payments like the check above are the only thing that will get the attention of those who stand in the way of the Second Amendment.
From the CalGuns Foundation release:
Merced County, CA Sheriff Pays $9,250
in Handgun Carry Lawsuit SettlementSAN CARLOS, CA (June 3, 2013) – As part of a settlement reached in the handgun carry case of Michelle Rossow, et al. v. County of Merced and Merced Sheriff Mark Pazin, the Merced County Sheriff’s Department has agreed to pay The Calguns Foundation $9,250.47 for attorney fees in the matter.
The lawsuit, filed in July 2011, sought to correct problems in the Sheriff’s policy for applications for and licenses to carry concealed handguns as part of the Foundation’s ongoing Carry License Sunshine and Compliance Initiative.
In addition to the fee recovery, The Calguns Foundation’s action against the Sheriff resulted in a number of changes to the Sheriff’s carry license policies, which was based on a boilerplate document produced by Lexipol, a law enforcement policy management outsourcer, and modified with local rules.
The Foundation first contacted Merced in October of 2010, when it discovered that the Sheriff had established an unlawful moratorium on the acceptance of new carry license applications. The Sheriff subsequently lifted the moratorium but refused to modify parts of his policy that CGF identified as unlawful. When talks broke down, the Foundation filed the lawsuit in Merced County Superior Court.
“It’s great to see a successful outcome in this case, as Merced’s policy on licenses to carry handguns was substantially revised to address the most grievous concerns, and the Court retained jurisdiction to address future compliance issues,” said attorney for plaintiffs Jason Davis of Mission Viejo.
“This case is an important next step in our Carry Initiative,” explained Brandon Combs, executive director for The Calguns Foundation. “The County chose to address our concerns rather than face a possible court order, and we applaud them for that. Now it’s up to the other California sheriffs to follow suit or be sued themselves.”
“Ultimately, this case is about making carry license policies consistent with California law,” said Foundation Chairman Gene Hoffman. “We hope that we can accomplish this without suing every California county, but if that’s what it requires, that’s what we are prepared to do.”
by 