The National Shooting Sports Foundation is back with another one of their video training tips. This one features Gunsite instructor Bob Whaley showing how to clear a double (or more) feed in your AR-15. As Whaley notes, slamming the bottom of your magazine to make sure it is seated can sometimes cause the rounds to “volcano” as he puts it.
The Brady Bunch aka the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (sic) is confused. They don’t seem to know who leads their organization.
On February 6th, they announced with great fanfare that Dan Gross had been “elected” President of the Brady Campaign.
Washington, D.C. – The Board of Trustees of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center today announced that Dan Gross, the co-founder and Executive Director of the Center to Prevent Youth Violence (formerly PAX), has been elected the new President of the nation’s largest gun violence prevention organizations….
Dan Gross replaces Paul Helmke, a lawyer and former Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, who stepped down July 10, 2011. Dennis Henigan, Vice President for Law and Policy at Brady, served as acting president in the interim.
They even got USA Today to buy into Gross being elected as opposed to hired and Paul Helmke stepping down as opposed to the reality of not having his contract renewed.
Youth anti-violence advocate Daniel Gross has been elected to head the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center, the Washington-based organization promoting gun control plans to announce Monday…
Gross is cofounder and executive director of the Center to Prevent Youth Violence and was elected to the Brady post by the organization’s board of trustees. He replaces former Brady president Paul Helmke, former mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., who announced in June he would step down on July 10. Helmke’s resignation followed a five-year commitment he’d made to serve the organization starting in 2006.
So it was interesting to read the February 16th press release where the Brady Campaign announced their 2011 state-by-state “scorecard” which ranks states on the degree of oppressiveness of their gun control regime. It had this tidbit in it.
“Guns don’t fall from the sky into the hands of criminals,” said Brady Acting President Dennis Henigan. “All too often, crime guns come from gun dealers in the states that stubbornly refuse to enact common sense, lifesaving gun laws. Every day, a river of illegal guns flows out of the states with weak gun laws, victimizing families in states that are doing their best to protect their residents. It is no accident that the states with the weakest gun laws are the exporters of death and injury.”
Has Dan Gross said to himself after being on the job 10 days “Omigod! I can’t take any more of these losers! It is worse than I expected and I wasn’t expecting much.” Or is it that the memo that the Bradys have a new president just not get out to all their PR staffers? Regardless, I’m glad they remain the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.
Gus Cotey, Jr. in an article posted on the JPFO website has classified gun control advocates into seven categories. He goes into detail about the characteristics of each category. The seven varieties are:
As he notes about these classifications:
Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.
In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.
I think Cotey’s post is well worth a read since it is essential to know our opposition if we are to preserve our gun rights.
I’m not sure how I missed this but Katie Pavlich is reporting that Andrew Traver, SAC of the ATF’s Chicago Field Division and Obama’s nominee to head ATF, is transferring from Chicago to be the SAC of the Denver Field Division.
President Obama’s pick for ATF director, anti-gun Andrew Traver, has been transferred from his position as special agent in charge of the ATF Chicago Field Division, to head up the Denver division. According to sources, the move came after Traver felt frustrated his confirmation for ATF director had been stalled in the Senate for nearly a year. The estimated cost to transfer Traver is nearly a million taxpayer dollars, all because his feelings are hurt.
Traver will replace Marvin Richardson (no relation). According to the rumors at CUATF, Richardson will now be the Deputy Assistant Director of the Office for Public and Governmental Affairs replacing Scot Thomasson who is now the Acting SAC of the San Francisco Field Division.
Vincent Cefalu had this to say about the moves on Feb. 11th:
WORD IS:
Andy Traver’s feelings are hurt because he got played as a pawn for the Director job. He told ATF to make things right he wants to be the SAC in Denver. ATF is going to move out the current Denver SAC, who is known to ATF to have offered “lack of candor” answers to the questions of Federal investigators and make give him a spot in PGA, the DAD job recently opened when they moved out Scot Thomason.FIRST, SINCE WHEN DO WE MAKE MULTIPLE MOVES TO APPEASE ANYBODY. MR. TRAVER, TWO WORDS. MOBILITY AGREEMENT. YOU PICKED CHICAGO NOW STAY THERE AND DO YOUR JOB.RICHARDSON, BE THANKFUL YOUR REPEATED LACK OF CANDOR AND MISMANAGEMENT DIDN’T GET YOU FIRED. YOU STAY IN THE JOB YOU ASKED FOR ALSO.NOW THOMASSON IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ANIMAL. HE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM ANY POSITION OF MANAGEMENT SINCE HE IS THE SELF PROCLAIMED HELLS ANGEL RICO EXPERT WHO ALMOST TANKED A GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION. AND NOT TO FORGET HE WAS COMFORTABLE (FULL WELL KNOWING BETTER), TOUTING THE COMPANY LINE THAT WE NEVER WALKED GUNS. Now, Mr. Jones and Mr. Brandon, what do we the field get for just saving the Bureau and the taxpayers the unnecessary expenditure of a million dollars?
Yesterday, Elliot Fineman of the Brady offshoot National Gun Victims (sic) Action Council was interviewed by Melissa Lee of CNBC. The interview centered on his group’s boycott of Starbucks due to their policy of neutrality on gun issues. Fineman said the boycott would be ongoing. Of course, no mention was made of the Valentine’s Day BUYcott by either Fineman or CNBC.
The story was presented in such a way as to give credence to Fineman’s claims that the boycott would impact Starbucks. When pressed on how it would be determined that his group’s boycott was hurting Starbucks’ bottomline, Fineman said that they were using self-reported data from their supporters on how much they were not spending at Starbucks.
Excuse me but self-reported data from their “followers” is not exactly reliable data from which to make projections. Fineman then says that their Monte Carlo simulations show that 90% of the time their boycott will have “a significant impact on the Starbucks’ stock.” Having used Monte Carlo simulation with retirement planning for years, I understand the results you get are very dependent upon both the constraints and the input data. In other words, if you put garbage in, you will get garbage out and that is exactly what they are getting.
It is very hard to prove a negative unlike a positive. The results from the BUYcott can be shown by an increase in sales for February 14th. However, a decline in sales over time would be hard to attribute to just the boycott by Fineman’s group. There are many other factors like the state of the economy and competitors (like McDonalds) which come into play which are much more significant.
Fineman goes on to say that institutional investors who own 357 million shares of Starbucks’ stock should be able to make their own decision based upon his studies. However, they don’t plan to go to the institutional investors to pressure them to pressure Starbucks.
If Fineman is so confident in his projections, then he should have no problem presenting them to investors nor have a problem with pressuring these same institutional investors. I would speculate the reason he won’t be “pressuring” the institutional investors is because he knows he would be laughed out of the room.
The gun prohibitionists and anti-hunting/fishing groups are grasping for anything they can use to stop the lawful exercise of shooting, hunting, and fishing. In this release from the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, we see that the Center for Biological Diversity was stopped in their attempt to regulate fishing tackle due to lead. Unfortunately, I doubt they will stop their attempts just because the EPA told them to take a hike.
Science has prevailed. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has denied a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)—an anti-sportsmen group—that would have precipitated significant restrictions on lead fishing tackle all over the United States. The CBD wanted the EPA to use the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to heavily regulate anglers from using tackle they have long used even though science doesn’t support such a measure. The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) has been, and will continue to, fight such unscientific lead bans and restrictions at the state and federal level.
In a letter to the CBD on February 14, 2012 the EPA wrote:
After careful review, EPA has determined that, while the petition does provide evidence of exposure and a risk to waterfowl in some areas of the United States, it does not provide a basis for finding that the risk presented is an unreasonable risk for which federal action under section 6(a) of TSCA is necessary to adequately protect against such risks. Accordingly, EPA is denying your request to initiate a proceeding for the issuance of a rulemaking under Section 6(a) of TSCA to adequately protect against risks posed by fishing tackle containing lead of various sizes and uses that are ingested by wildlife…. Your petition does not demonstrate why federal action is necessary given the mix of regulatory and education actions state agencies and the Federal Government already are taking to address the impact of lead fishing tackle on local environments.”
When the CBD began its quest for this unwarranted restriction on fishing tackle in 2010, the CSF responded by working with the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (CSC) in Washington, D.C., and with the National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses (NASC), which serves as the umbrella organization for launching and working with state legislative sportsmen’s caucuses now active in 39 state legislatures, to demand such regulations should be based on sound science and under state jurisdictions. The Executive Council for the NASC, and several state legislative sportsmen’s caucuses, wrote letters to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson asking that she deny the CBD petition. Meanwhile, the CSF rallied legislators in the CSC and in caucuses around the country to demand that any such ban be based on real scientific evidence; after all, the cost to anglers would be real if affordable tackle is taken off the shelves. The EPA subsequently denied the CBD’s first petition.
However, the CBD filed a new petition with the EPA in November of 2011. This petition asked the EPA to evaluate the unreasonable risk of injury from lead fishing tackle, and to begin proceedings for rule making under Section 6 of TSCA. The CSF stayed engaged at all levels of government. The NASC sent letters from various state sportsmen’s caucuses, including Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Oregon and South Carolina, to point out that state natural resource agencies are in a better position to respond to any localized concerns and that such a restriction is not biologically justified as no studies have shown that fishing tackle is impacting loon or other waterfowl populations.
Also, on April 14, 2011, the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act (S. 838 and H.R. 1558) was introduced into both chambers of Congress by the chairs of the CSC—Senators Jon Tester (D-MT) and John Thune (R-SD) and Representatives Jeff Miller (R-FL) and Mike Ross (D-AR). This legislation is another way the CSF has been working to prevent a federal ban on lead in recreational fishing tackle. It would clarify the TSCA exemption for ammunition and establish a similar exemption for fishing tackle. The Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act would put an end to attempts to over-regulate the recreational fishing and hunting industries and protect the rights of anglers and hunters who choose to sustainably enjoy their sports.
Jeff Crane, president of the CSF, says, “Sportsmen and wildlife won a big battle. Though we doubt the Center for Biological Diversity will stop this ideological attack on fishing, the EPA has decided against an unscientific restriction of lead fishing tackle. The state legislative sportsmen’s caucuses, under the umbrella of the National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses, have once again represented their angling constituents admirably.”
If the EPA agreed to this ban it would have been an unjustified fishing restriction at the federal level. Wildlife management in the United States has been a model to the rest of the world because we have successfully managed wildlife at the population level. There is no evidence that lead fishing tackle is causing negative population-level impacts, therefore forcing anglers to replace their lead tackle with costly alternatives would be an unnecessary burden to America’s fishermen and an impediment to fishing participation.
Other sportsmen’s groups, most notably the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), have also been instrumental in fighting back these unnecessary restrictions on America’s anglers right to fish. Click here for more on the conservation communities’ position on lead.
North Carolinians Against Gun Violence (sic) are starting a campaign called Eat in Peace. The aim is to encourage restaurants to post their establishments against legal carry if HB 111 passes.
Grass Roots North Carolina is calling them out on some of their lies and misstatements.
North Carolinians “Against Gun Violence” is publishing lies to disarm law-abiding restaurant patrons.
On its website, NCGV blatantly and dishonestly claims that HB 111 will “…force family restaurants and bars to allow loaded, concealed guns.” See promulgation of this flagrant lie below and here: http://grnc.org/gun-ban-advocates-lie-about-restaurant-carry.
The fact is that HB 111 will not prevent restaurant owners from posting against carry should they (unwisely) choose to do so. GRNC has always supported the property rights of restaurant owners while protecting the rights of gun owners.
Restaurant Association does not oppose restaurant carry
This is why THE NC RESTAURANT & LODGING ASSOCIATION (NCRLA) DOES NOT OPPOSE RESTAURANT CARRY AND HB 111! A letter documenting NCRLA’s position on HB 111 is available here: http://grnc.org/ncrla-and-hb-111.
The only thing NCRLA ever opposed was an effort by anti-gun Rep. Deborah Ross (D-Wake, GRNC 0 star) to force restaurant servers to question patrons about whether they are armed – a hostile amendment GRNC removed from the bill long ago!
Republican lawmakers are deceived
The real tragedy is that Republican lawmakers have joined in NCGV’s self-embarrassment by allowing themselves to be swayed by disinformation and tainted polls. As a result, HB 111 languishes in committee and has not been brought up for the hearing it deserves.
Will it require the deaths of more North Carolinians in Restaurant Homicides to force lawmakers to see the truth?
Danielle RIP
What about Restaurant Homicide?
Victims of Restaurant Homicide like Danielle Watson and her unborn child — viciously stabbed to death just a few weeks ago by an ex-con in a restaurant where she was prohibited by law from protecting herself – indicate that a more appropriate slogan for NCGV’s disinformation campaign is not “Eat in Peace, but rather…
“Rest In Peace”
How many more mothers and children will have to die in NC restaurants before the General Assembly rescinds dangerous laws mandating defenselessness?
Russia Today has a story and a video on the new 5th generation AK which is called the AK-12. The first thing I noticed immediately is that it has a much longer sight radius than the earlier versions.
From the Russia Today story:
The Kalashnikov makers claim its has better range, increased fire dispersion, better ergonomics, usability and a potential for configuration changes.
The new weapon is as reliable as the AK-74, the Izmash factory CEO Maksim Kuzyuk says, but the dynamic characteristics differ significantly. It considerably increases the accuracy of shooting. The rifle is capable of firing in three modes: single shot, three shots and automatic fire mode.
Also, AK-12 is capable of using magazines of various types and capacity.
The basic feature of the new rifle is its modularity. It will serve as a basic platform for designing of over 20 modifications of small-arms weapons of various purpose and calibre.
AK-12’s composition allows operating it single-handedly, and can be converted for left or right handed use.
The rifle can accommodate night vision and Holo-sights, target indicator, or a light grenade launcher.The AK-12 is undergoing firing tests in extreme conditions which should be completed by the end of the year. The Russian Ministry of Interior has already agreed to test the AK-12 in its special police units after official certification of the weapon.
Steve at The Firearm Blog has some more comments on this new AK.
The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (sic) has been running a campaign of sorts where they try to dish dirt on NRA Board Members. The Gunny, R. Lee Ermey, is one of the Board that they’ve profiled. Of course what they call “dirt” is, for the most part, what the rest of the world calls normal.
Now here is something that should really get them peeved. The Gunny is pushing voter registration. I am sure that they will find someway to say that the Gunny is demeaning librarians and is only encouraging gun rights extremism at the polls.
As someone who has been registered to vote since the day I turned 18 – and yes, I did it on my birthday – I think what the Gunny is doing is fantastic. There is no excuse for anyone who is pro-gun rights not to be registered to vote. That county commissioner or city councilman can do as much or more to restrict your gun rights as anyone running for President. Think about that.
Justice Stephen Breyer and his family were recently the victims of an armed robbery at his vacation home on the Caribbean island of Nevis. The robber was armed with a machete. The Second Amendment Foundation has released a statement regarding this incident.
BREYER’S ROBBERY ILLUSTRATES WHY RKBA SO IMPORTANT EVERYWHERE
For Immediate Release: 2/14/2012
BELLEVUE, WA – The recent robbery of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer at a vacation home in the West Indies should hopefully cause the learned jurist to re-examine his core beliefs about the individual right to keep and bear arms at places other than their primary residence, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
Breyer has voted with the minority twice in recent years against recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms, in both the Heller and McDonald cases. He was robbed last week, along with his wife and some guests, by an intruder wielding a machete, according to published reports. Justice Breyer was not harmed, but the robber got away with about $1,000 in cash.
“We’re delighted that Justice Breyer was not hurt during this incident,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and hopefully this case will give him a new perspective on the right to bear arms for personal safety. Police cannot always be around when you need them, even if you’re a Supreme Court justice. One does not leave his right of self-defense at the doorstep of his home when he travels.
“If this demonstrates anything to Justice Breyer,” he continued, “it is that crime does not happen just at someone’s primary residence, and criminals do not make appointments, giving someone time to unlock and assemble and load a firearm. You must be able to protect yourself, even on vacation outside of your home state, at a moment’s notice. That’s not just a civil right, but a basic human right.
“When Justice Breyer dissented in the Heller case,” Gottlieb recalled, “he expressed concerns about keeping loaded firearms in the home for personal protection. Faced with a machete in the hands of a criminal, one wonders whether Breyer might have quietly wished he had a gun with which he could have defended himself, his wife and their guests. We hope this incident gives him new insight with which to temper his views.”
I’m not sure if “machete-point” is a word or not but if I had been threatened by a robber who was wielding one, I’d definitely consider it a word. I’m sure Justice Breyer might agree.
As to the lethality of a machete, it was the weapon of choice in the Rwandan genocide. According to Wikipedia, “Even after the 1993 peace agreement signed in Arusha, businessmen close to General Habyarimana imported 581,000 machetes for Hutu use in killing Tutsi, because machetes were cheaper than guns.” These machetes were used to kill somewhere between 500,000 and a million Tutsi in an approximately three month period of time.
by