Bad Humor

Evaluating "Pro Gun" Humor

Every once in a while someone e-mails me some kind of funny pro-gun humor. Sometimes they can be funny. Often they are sarcastic or reflect a cynical humor about the state of legal affairs. But some are funny only on their face and less funny if you're truely law abiding.

This particular item is making the rounds and was forwarded to me by a former coworker. She thought it was funny. So did I, at least on the surface. But there's a serious problem with it that should be obvious.

This Ad Was Posted to
Craig's List Personals:

To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah night before last.
Date: 05-27-09, 1:43 A. M. EST.

I was the guy wearing the black Burberry jacket that you demanded that I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on my girlfriend and me, threatening our lives.

You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I can only hope that you somehow come across this rather important message.

First, I'd like to apologize for your embarrassment when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. The evening was not that cold, and I was wearing the jacket for a reason.

My girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber Model 1911 .45 ACP pistol for my birthday, and we had picked up a shoulder holster for it that very evening. Obviously you agree that it is a very Intimidating weapon when pointed at your head, wasn't it?

I know it probably wasn't fun walking back to wherever you'd come from bare footed since I made you leave your shoes, cell phone, and wallet with me. [That prevented you from calling or running to your buddies to come help mug us again].

After I called your mother, or "Momma" as you had her listed in your cell, I explained the entire episode of what you'd done. Then I went and filled up my gas tank as well as four other people's in the gas station on your credit card. The guy with the big motor home took 150 gallons and was extremely grateful!

I gave your shoes to a homeless guy outside Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with all the cash in your wallet. [That made his day!]

I then threw your wallet into the big pink "pimp mobile" that was parked at the curb ... after I broke the windshield and side window and keyed the entire driver's side of the car.

Later, I called a lot of phone sex numbers from your cell phone. Ma Bell just now shut down the line, although I only used the phone for a little over a day now, so what's going on with that?

Earlier, I managed to get in two threatening phone calls to the DA's office and one to the FBI, while mentioning President Obama as my possible target. The FBI guy seemed really intense and we had a nice long chat (I guess while he traced your number, etc).

In a way, perhaps I should apologize for not killing you ... but I feel this type of retribution is a far more appropriate punishment for your threatened crime.

I wish you well as you try to sort through some of these rather immediate pressing issues, and can only hope that you have the opportunity to reflect upon, and perhaps reconsider the career path you've chosen to pursue in life.

Remember, next time you might not be so lucky.
Have a good day!
Thoughtfully yours,
Alex

P.S. Remember this motto.
An armed society makes for a more civil society!

At first blush, it's mildly funny that the street thug gets his "just desserts" by becoming a victim of the same kinds of crimes he [and others] would perpetrate against you and me. It's the old an eye for an eye kind of biblical justice.

But let's look at it from a more legalistic viewpoint. When threatened with robbery, our intrepid citizen could have defended himself with his Kimber .45 pistol. And it would probably have been ruled justified.

If he had forced the thug to drop his knife then leave behind his wallet and cell phone and used the thug's cell phone to call police, his actions could be deemed defensible. The knife is evidence, perhaps with fingerprints on it. The wallet identifies the thief and taking the cell phone prevents him from calling his "buddies" to retaliate.

Instead, our citizen turns criminal. He keeps the thug's money and then gives it away. He illegally uses the thug's credit card for purchases, makes threatening phone calls on the cell phone and damages another person's car. By the time he's done, I figure he's chalked up one federal felony, four state felonies and about five misdemeanor crimes.

This kind of behavior is not in keeping with our "law abiding" image as gun owners. It is certainly not the image we want of CCW permit holders! The premise is certainly funny and gratifying for anyone who's been robbed or had their identity stolen.

I think the correct response to this kind of "humor" is that such actions are unlikely by most gun owners or permit holders. But it does point out to the potential thief what could happen if they were given a dose of their own medicine. Fortunately, the vast majority of our citizenry would rather see the thug in jail than commit illegal acts as retribution.

Want to add your comments?

Send to: Editor@handgunclub.com

Terror at Ft. Hood

Islam, Psychiatry and Political Correctness

It has taken me days to learn some details about the Fort Hood, Texas shooting and the man responsible. I will confess to originally having a rather visceral reaction to whole affair. Having sorted out my thoughts a bit better, I find that my anger towards Major Hasan isn't anywhere near as strong as my anger towards those who push "political correctness".

The "executive summary" of the Fort Hood incident is that a U.S. Army psychiatrist, Major Hasan, is also a Muslim. He completed his studies at Walter Reed Hospital but was considered a mediocre student. His duties would be to help soldiers cope with the traumas of war. During his studies, however, he voiced his objection to the Iraqi and Afghan wars as "crusades against Muslims" and equated suicide bombers to U.S. soldiers who fall on a grenade to save their fellow troops.

He was transferred to Ft. Hood in preparation for deployment to Iraq. During the months he was in Texas, he found a great conflict between his duty as a Muslim and his sworn duty as a soldier. This conflict led to his choosing Islam over his military duties and on November 6th, he opened fire on the base, killing 13 and wounding over two dozen more.

Lessons Learned

Islamic indoctrination for most Muslims begins at as soon as they can understand speech and continue for most of their lives. The rules and lessons of Islam are enforced with harsh (and sometimes brutal) efficiency. Islam denies that any other religion is valid. To non-believers (infidels) it denies them basic rights even if they convert under duress - such as a sword at your neck. But most of all, Muslim faith requires its followers to put Islam above all else. This includes any laws or rights others have. It includes violating any oath you voluntarily took.

If your religious beliefs are so strong that you place them "above all else" then swearing an oath means little. Swearing an oath to any organization can be negated by showing it is contrary to Islamic law or rule.

In England, Muslims have challenged long standing English laws by proclaiming them superceded by Muslim Law. In otherwords, that which Islam permits is always legal, everywhere for Muslims. This has been used to make child beatings and child murders a "family matter" not subject to the courts. So far, it hasn't worked.

Political Correctness is self-defeating. It has been established there were "warning signs" exhibited by Hasan in the months leading up to the shooting. His outbursts of anti-war sentiments, his praise of jihadists and calling the conflicts genocide against Muslims. Several of his concerned classmates - officers in the U.S. Army - talked to their superiors about Hasan's views. But when it came down to making a formal complaint, they all declined.

Why? Because, no one wanted to appear racist. Without a formal written complaint little could be done to look into Hasan's rantings or his mental state. Despite the concerns and fears of his fellow doctors, the fear of being called "racist" or "anti-Islamic" won out. Thus, political correctness becomes de facto thought-control. We are afraid to voice our concerns lest we be marked with scarlet letter "R" for racist.

Mass shootings depend on defenseless victims. Once again this serves as a prime example of the defenseless being targeted. Even though a military base like Ft. Hood has thousands of weapons present, they are kept secured. Only authorized military police may carry weapons routinely. Soldiers qualifying at the range are strictly supervised and weapons returned to the armory.

There is no doubt that Major Hasan knew this. It is standard protocol on U.S. Bases in this country. This policy serves the interests of the military and I am not criticizing it. However, it does show us that even the presence of thousands of weapons cannot deter someone, if those weapons are unavailable when needed. Killers may be deranged, but they aren't stupid. They deliberately select locations that are unlikely to have firearms or people who can defend themselves.

Seek, engage, destroy. These are the newest tactics to handle public shooting events. Rather than waiting for superior numbers or the arrival of a SWAT team, officers are being trained to aggressively seek out and engage the shooters to save lives. This was demonstrated to us by the outstanding performance of Sergeant Kimberly Munley (pictured) of the Ft. Hood civilan police agency. Munley engaged Hasan and shot him several times, despite being shot in both legs and her right hand.

Munley, stands barely five feet tall and is described as "petite". Armed only with a handgun, she showed the world that it doesn't take a big, burly male soldier or police officer to stop such an attack. Anyone with solid firearms training and maintaining their focus should be able to do the same. Of course, such actions require training ... and lots of courage. Munley's performance tells us she has the courage of a squad of soldiers.

Psychiatry is still a primitive medicinal practice. When compared to other forms of medicine, it sometimes seems no better than visiting a witch doctor. Too much is subjective, based on opinions and indirect inferences. And this case points out how even a "qualified" psychiatrist can not diagonose his own mental instability.

There have been sufficient cases of one individual being declared dangerous or incompetent by one psychiatrist only to be pronounced utterly sane by another. This is one reason I am always suspicious of any psychiatrist. Plus one always wonders about what kind of personal biases and prejudices the psychiatrist brings into the diagnosis.

Political correctness, inflexible Islamic teachings, psychiatrists who are not, themselves, subjected to "analysis" and defenseless victims all contributed to this tragedy. It is doubtful the military will change its policy of unarmed soldiers on U.S. bases due to safety concerns. Islam is unlikely to change either. But we can strive to choke off political correctness and make sure psychiatrists are more stable than their patients.

Do you have comments?
Want to add your voice?

Send comments to: editor@handgunclub.com

Firearms and Psychiatry

Psychiatric Myopia

An article on the Psychiatric Times website shows the narrow-minded myopia with which the medical community views gun ownership.

The referenced article is titled Firearms and Mental Illness, written by Donna M. Norris, MD and Marilyn Price, MD. A good, unbiased psychiatrist might have a field day dissecting their article.

They first bolster support for their idea that "restrictions" on gun ownership extend back to the 18th century. However, back then there were "common sense" rules, like telling Martha not to store the 2 pound keg of black powder near the fireplace and no firearms in the courthouse.

In fact, the first page and a half claims that State and Federal laws require more reporting of "mental illness" histories, but are still lacking. The second page contains three long paragraphs about suicide and firearms. Their most significant fact is 46 people a day committed suicide with a firearm daily in 2005 or 53% of the total. Of course, they don't tell you that a whopping 70.7% of those suicides also involve intoxication with drugs and/or alcohol. It would seem that drugs and alcohol are much more of a problem for depressed people.

As I read this article, I noticed that both early in their article and later, these doctors denied there was a confirmed link between "mental illness" and mass shootings or acts of violence. In the first paragraph, they state:

While violence is often portrayed in the media as related to persons with mental illnesses, there are limited research data to support this idea.

Later, as they turn to the topic of suicide, they make the curious statement that ...

Persons with mental illnesses and/or substance abuse disorders are frequently perceived by the public to be dangerous, and their inclusion in the NICS data bank is controversial.

Apparently the psychiatric field doesn't "perceive" the mentally ill or those with substance abuse as "dangerous". Or they are saying public perception is wrong, I'm not quite sure. I was expecting them to claim that public policy was in error to include the mentally ill in NICS checks. But, there's more of course.

I continued reading and expecting them to discuss how the entire handling of mental illness and firearms ownership has been overplayed or overblown. Especially when they said ...

the vast majority of violent events are not perpetrated by persons with mental illness. However, there is a well-documented correlation of violence for individuals with substance abuse disorders. Thus, it is unclear whether a database of mentally ill persons is a deterrent.

Admittedly, if we take every violent act in the country, we might agree. However, it is the repeated violent acts of rapists and mass murderers that get our attention.

But these doctors ignore evidence as plain as their noses. In the first few postal shootings in the 80's, three of the four suspects were being "treated" for depression and other mental disorders. The Columbine killers had been taking psychiatric drugs. The Virgina Tech shooter is another example. In other shootings we have heard the person was "in therapy" or had "stopped taking their medications".

The article even touched on Federal requirements for a "relief from disabilities". In theory, this allows you to get your 2A rights back when you're put onto the NICS prohibited list. While this is true, we've also seen how Congress can de-fund such programs, which allows them to claim there is "a process", with no one to administer it.

Their "conclusion" is much like today's practice of psychiatry in that it falls far short of being effective. In short, it's nothing more than a very general warning for doctors to know what the state laws require and that attesting to a patient's "cure" ...

may impose potential legal liability for a patient’s future acts.

So, instead of examining the real issues with modern psychiatry, the laws and public perceptions, we get an article that appears to support more restrictions, calls for more reporting of "mental illness" interventions and a warning that doctors may face liability for releasing a patient from a "prohbited person" status.

First, let me say that true mental illness affects a great many people. I'm not talking about those with a fetish for washing their hands or always lining up eating utensils perfectly, but those who are mentally ill and dangerous to themselves or others. These folks need and deserve treatment. Their rights should be carefully guarded and the opinions of their doctors challenged.

Next, if you are ever in a situation where authorities are called and want you to get a "psychiatric examination", never force them into making it an involuntary commitment. Not even for one of those 24 hour holds in the county hospital. Once it is involuntary, it gets reported. This is not always the case for voluntary check-ins. An involuntary stay might effect your ability to purchase firearms in the future.

Doctors want to reduce the stigma associated with the term "mental illness" so that people are less afraid to seek help. However, at the same time, they still advocate having the ability for a doctor to deprive a free man of his rights with just a signature. And once that is done, it can be frightfully difficult and expensive to reverse it.

We should re-examine whether mandatory reporting is necessary or even desireable if we want more people to seek help. Unfortunately, from what I'm hearing, most so-called psychiatrists are nothing more than dispensers of happy-pills.

Many people have episodes of depression that are perfectly normal. The loss of a loved one, family breakups, financial losses, etc. Sometimes the emotions are severe enough to warrant seeking help. Other times folks just need some advice on keeping their sense of perspective.

If the medical community is serious about expanding mental health care services, they will re-examine their prejudices against firearms ownership. In addition, they will work with legislatures to ensure people can be released from prohibitions once they have passed through a crisis point. But I won't hold my breath for these changes. Not when so many psychiatrists themselves have a prejudice against firearms.

Have something to say? Want to disagree?
Send comments to: editor@handgunclub.com

Guns & The Media - Bias Gives Way to Lies

The Story That Wouldn't Die
MSNBC Blatantly Distorts Gun News

In 1997 a Media Watch study concluded the media was biased against guns. The study found there were 87 stories favorable to the gun control lobby to every 4 stories favorable to gun rights. To anyone who has watched media reporters mutilate the English language and firearms terminology to dramatize a news story involving guns, this is old news.

Today, while reporters still flaunt their complete ignorance (my second favorite is San Francisco's KGO radio reporter Holly Kwan's description of a semi-automatic machine gun) some media outlets have cast truth in jouralism aside entirely.

That's exactly what MSNBC did regarding a recent story of an armed man at an Arizona healthcare meeting. I commented on it a few days later in this blog entry. But I never expected MSNBC to blatently lie about the entire thing.

Even the Washington Times ran an editorial about it, entitled False Reports About Guns. I've watched the replays of the MSNBC report and I can tell you that I was seriously outraged at MSNBC's distortion and lies.

In short, here's what happened. An African-American gentleman showed up at an Arizona healthcare event while legally carrying both a pistol and an AR-15 rifle. The media predictably focused on the gun and when police declared the man's actions legal they speculated for many minutes on his "apparent motive".

But MSNBC, in revisting the "anger" at townhall meetings over healthcare, showed a snippet of "a man with a rifle" with the man's race intentionally obscured. Their on-air personalities then painted the armed man as a white racist angry about a black president and national healthcare. It was almost one hundred percent likely that they know the protester was black, not white.

Watch a clip of this "news" segment using this YouTube link and tell us what you think.

In my opinion, this is the same kind of yellow journalism that resulted in the firing of CBS Anchor Dan Rather. This is the kind of distorted "news" one would expect to see in a movie like 1984. There are plenty of video sources that showed the rifle was carried by a black man and from several angles. MSNBC had to work hard to focus on a short snippet that obscured the man's race. And the hosts of that program either knew what they were doing or are simply incompetent to be journalists.

On Ted Kennedy's Passing

Ted Kennedy - The End of Camelot

First, let me extend my sympathies to the Kennedy family, his personal and political staff and those who were close to him. I know many people liked him and thought of him as a champion for certain causes. If it is any consolation, he is no longer in any discomfort and he may know peace at last.

However, as someone who grew up in a home with parents who were independent voters and a father who was born about the same time as Joseph Kennedy Jr., I cannot say that I'm terribly saddened by Mr. Kennedy's passing. My father had some contact with the Kennedy family before the Second World War and those experiences shaped his opinion of them. And, he didn't have many kind words for them. In fact, he voted for Richard Nixon over JFK, if that'll give you an idea of how he felt.

The Brothers
Almost unknown today, Joseph Jr. was a Navy Lieutenant during WW-II. He was killed on August 12, 1944, at age 29 when the PB4Y (B-24 Liberator) he was piloting as part of Operation Aphrodite exploded near the English Channel. He was the first of the four brothers to die in service to his country.

The loss of Teddy's brother, John F. "Jack" Kennedy in 1963 shocked the nation. We'd had presidents assassinated before (four of them), but never had it been caught on film. Worse was that Jack's charisma was very strong and many that initially resisted him came to like him personally. People mourned for their "Camelot" president.

Five years later, with America embroiled in the increasingly unpopular Vietnam War under President Lyndon Johnson, Robert F. "Bobby" Kennedy ran for president. Both he and Johnson were Democrats but Bobby ran on a popular platform appealing to the younger crowd. Then, on June 6, 1968, just after winning the California Primary, a young Palestinian man wielding a .22 caliber revolver assassinated him in the kitchen of the Los Angeles Ambassador hotel.

Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy was the last of four brothers. That he might also one day run for president was obvious. But first, he joined with others in Congress to support the 1968 Gun Control Act (or GCA-'68). This act forced gun sellers to be licensed by the government, prohibited felons, drug users and non-citizens from buying guns and required the registration of ammo sold. With two brothers assassinated, I think we could easily understand his desire to tighten up on firearms.

Teddy - Mr. Anti-gunAny aspirations Teddy had for the White House were dashed in the infamous 1969 Chappaquiddick incident in which Mary Jo Kopechne died in Teddy's car. As a result of this incident, he never ran for President. Instead, he supported every anti-gun measure to come before the Senate.

Kennedy supported many various causes over the years, from civil rights, immigration reform, health-care bills, anti-war legislation, campaign finance reform and many others. The problem many people had with his politics was that Kennedy pushed social program over many primary needs of the nation.

Rather than address crime, it was always guns. Rather than address illegal immigration, it was always immigration reform. Rather than create jobs for the poor, he wanted to build them housing. He would often publicly excoriate those who opposed him with an acerbic tongue.

I'm told that Kennedy was the backroom force that required a no gun ownership clause inserted in Federal Housing laws to prevent the poor from owning firearms for self-defense. He supported Diane Feinstein when she made her infamous statement about banning every gun in the country ("Mr. & Mrs. American, turn 'em all in").

A man who wanted to ban every firearm in the country, yet his personal bodyguards were well armed, sometimes carrying weapons which would be illegal in many states were it not for his political clout. It rarely occurred to him that most of his constituents could not afford to hire personal bodyguards for a trip to the airport or another country. Nor that few of them lived in gated "compounds" with armed security guarding the gates. Not that he really gave a damn about it either.

In 1993, when Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wanted a 10,000 percent tax on 9mm JHP ammo, Kennedy reportedly supported it quietly and tried to convince others to support some sort of massive tax increase on ammunition. Moynihan's absurd tax proposal would boost the cost of 9mm Black Talon (now Ranger) ammo to $1,500 per box (except for police & military uses of course).

No, I will not mourn the passing of Senator Kennedy. Neither will I celebrate his death nor his life. Once the media has had enough of the tearful farewells and the citizens rightfully stop Congress from pushing "KennedyCare", I'll forget all about Teddy Kennedy.

Lastly, I'll sleep better knowing he's not planning more anti-gun stupidity.

Have a comment? editor@handgunclub.com

Guns Near Obama

Armed Men Show at Obama Rally
(Nothing Happens)

The above headline is one you won't see on any mainstream media outlet. Even though it's truthful and describes exactly what occurred, they don't dare run such a headline.

In Arizona, a gentleman showed up at one of Obama's appearances in business attire, openly carrying a semi-automatic pistol and an AR-15 rifle slung over his shoulder. I should point out that Arizona is an open-carry state and you need no permit to do so.

Police checked him out and, finding that he was doing nothing illegal, was cooperative and not making any threats, they let him be. Sure, they and the Secret Service kept an eye on him as he moved around in the crowd outside the venue. Most important, he didn't cause any problem.

But the one thing some media outlets tried hard not to mention was that this man was African-American. Why? You be the judge. It could be that people like Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) claimed that healthcare protesters who were "too nicely dressed", like this man, were "Republican activists" and heaven forbid this man could be Black, Republican and a gun enthusiast without doing something illegal.

Incidents in Tennessee and New Hampshire were also mentioned. In New Hampshire, a man with a legally carried and holstered pistol held up a sign. I've seen two quotes of what the sign read. Either it asked, "Is it time to water the tree of Liberty?" or it said "It is time to water the tree of Liberty". Both are references to Thomas Jefferson's famous quote that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants from time to time.

Liberal commentator David Sirota's recent column tries to claim that by exercising our 2nd Amendment rights at a political rally it becomes "intimidation" or "coercion" and thus "terrorism". While this is typical of most media nitwits, he goes further to try to tie these incidents to the old south and the "Jim Crow noose".

Is this the liberal's idea of "terrorism"? Quoting the founding fathers on a protest sign, at a political event (exercising the 1st Amendment) while legally carrying a holstered handgun (exercising the 2nd Amendment). I want to vomit when I see unadulterated pig excrement like that.

No laws were broken. No one was hurt. Firearms stayed in their holsters where they are safely secured. The rifle remained slung over the man's shoulder. There's no news here. None at all. Not unless it's manufactured.

And, that's just what it is. People who fear guns and fear others who have guns have manufactured a story. Stories like Sirota's claim the mere presence of a gun, legally and responsibly carried, while trying to exercise one's first amendment rights is like... The KKK intimidating blacks. Or like car bombs near voting booths. Or it is like a mob holding a noose to lynch a man.

Which would be funny, if they weren't so serious about it. You can bet some half-brained idiot will try to get his or her congresscritter to pass a law prohibiting people from having guns anywhere near a political event.

I looked up another event where armed men arrived in at a state capitol building and caused an uproar. Step back to May 2, 1967. Ronald Reagan was in his fifth month as Governor of California. The Watts riots were less than 2 years old. And the Black Panthers, who called for a revolution and Socialist takeover were a "radical" group.

You can see the headlines at right. The major difference between the reporting on May 2, 1967, when armed Black Panthers briefly occupied the California Capitol building and events in 2009, is that the Panthers received more sympathetic coverage.

The real purpose of these recent displays are not to intimidate or frighten people. They are to remind the American public that our rights are being trampled and that a citizen trying to fully exercise his rights is a target for government or public harassment and scorn. Exercising the 1st and 2nd Amendment together is, to the media pundits like Sirota, somehow now verboten.

Why is it that these same folks aways loudly proclaim "It's My Right!" when it comes to their bodies, the use of drugs, violent and lurid lyrics in music and other such pursuits? But it suddenly becomes a "public safety issue" or a "societal issue" when a person simply exercises their right to own or carry a firearm? Why is a woman's right to choose, which is not found in the constitution - an inalienable personal right while her right to keep and bear arms, which is expressly written in the constitution, is not?

I guess it is inconceivable to some people that we can exercise all of our rights all the time!

Post Script: These protesters obviously researched their state and local laws before proceeding. I am not advocating anyone do the same thing without consulting a local attorney. You don't want to end up in jail for violating some law you were not aware of.

Have a comment? Editor@handgunclub.com

More on Gun Control

VPC Director takes on Jan Libourel

Josh Sugarmann is the director of the Violence Policy Center, an organizational spin-off of the old Handgun Control, Inc. He is also the "promoter," if you will, of the phrase assault weapon precisely because it is misleading.

On July 9th, he wrote a column in the Huffington Post (apparently one of the few regular outlets for his propaganda) quoting Gun World editor Jan Libourel. He tried to portray Libourel as a "Quisling" or another Jim Zumbo. And why, you may ask, did Sugarmann make this comparison? Because Libourel wrote an editorial piece in which he said "Nobody but a madman would oppose some sort of gun control laws."

Sugarmann tries to latch on to this as somehow supporting the anti-gun lobby's notion that all guns must be heavily restricted. This is, of course, so much bull manure. He points out that Libourel goes on to question the whole concept of heavily armed people fleeing to the hills, living off the land and defending themselves in a sort of Mad Max post-apocalyptic world.

Now, as much as I dislike government interference in our lives, I'll say this. Jan Libourel is absolutely right. There really are certain "gun control laws" that we should have. There are some laws that should exist, and would be constitutional, however they would be to control misuse of firearms. Not the mere possession of them, not outlawing them by "evil features" or even prohibiting them to an entire simple class of individuals.

Under such "gun control" laws, it would be unlawful to misuse your firearm in certain ways. Firing live ammo into the air, for example. Or using a firearm to willfully commit a crime of violence against another person (Assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping, etc.) would all be just as illegal as they are today. The fact is, most states already have statutes that make misuse of a firearm a crime.

Most of the so-called "gun control" laws deal with the delivery, sale and record keeping of firearms. In more restrictive states there are limitations on what guns the State considers "safe enough" to own. And some states claim that certain combination of features makes a gun "banned", while removing just one feature might make it "suitable" for civilians to own. Most of these laws are nothing more than either incremental steps towards ensuring a government monopoly on effective weaponry or politically motivated self-promoting legislation.

Note that we are talking conventional arms here. Not nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. If you want to own a 105mm howitzer and have the cash, go right ahead. But I would suggest that laws restricting the storage of explosive munitions, like artillery shells, would pass muster for public safety and fire-prevention reasons - much like storing kegs of black powder away from densely populated areas. You might have to rent space in a "public munitions storage" area for your shells.

I'd agree with Libourel that you'd have to be a madman yourself to oppose a "gun control" law that prohibited possession of firearms by those adjudicated in court as insane or mentally incompetent. I might even support the concept that convicted felons, after serving their sentences and any parole, could earn back their right to have a firearm by not getting into further trouble with the law for some period - five or six years for example. And that may be limited to only your first offense. Or only to non-violent offenders.

As to the notion that in a disaster or collapse of "civilized" society we will head to the hills and live off the land -- that's twaddle. The only people who will do that are the ones who already have their homes situated in the mountains or rural areas. The rest of us will be stuck in traffic when the other 1.2 million city dwellers decide to relocate. And if tens of thousands of people "head for the hills", you can bet that game animals will become scarce in short order.

Much more likely, I think, would be civil disorder in the larger cities. For two reasons. Larger cities have close-packed people which assists in anger, outrage or protests reaching "critical mass" and also because larger cities usually have TV news stations that will be useful idiots in spreading their message.

In the case of the Los Angeles "Rodney King" riots, some Korean business owners defended their stores (a.k.a. their livelihood) using guns that California now heavily restricts. In New Orleans, several residents guarded their own homes and abandoned neighbor's homes while the authorities floundered with the refugees and arrested old women in their homes to confiscate a revolver.

In the aftermath of a major disaster, when the power has failed and maybe also the water supply, the main interest of people will be in protecting their families and what little supplies they have. Most folks, I think, will be willing to barter and share with their neighbors for the short seven to ten days it might take for things to settle down. In the meantime, good citizens banding together to protect their neighborhood from predators will likely be a fairly common sight.

While I'm on the subject, police officers should take notice that they can be their own worst enemies in the aftermath of a disaster. If you find armed residents guarding their own apartment buildings or condo complexes, trying to charge them for violating local or state laws will certainly get negative reactions from those you're supposed to be helping. Even (or especially) if your mayor is an idiot who demands arresting anyone "displaying" a firearm, holstered or not. Use your legal discretion to determine whether the person is protecting or engaging in predatory activities.

Comments? Questions: editor@handgunclub.com

OUTRAGE!

Couple who adopted 12 children slain

That was the CNN headline of a news story that caught my eye. The more I read about this story, the more outraged I became. The story isn't finished either. Three suspects were arrested over the weekend and more are still at large, says Escambia County Sheriff David Morgan.

What Happened
On July 9th, just around 7 p.m. three men dressed in black were seen on surveillance video approaching the home of Byrd and Melanie Billings in a late 1970s or early 1980s red van about 7 p.m., authorities say. Their home in Beulah is about 17 miles northwest of Pensacola.

Just before 8 p.m. the police received a call of shots fired at the address. When they arrived, they found both Byrd and Melanie Billings dead. Both had been shot to death, one of the couple had been shot in the head.

The Billings have 16 children, twelve of whom are adopted. At the time of the killings, eight of the children, ages from infant to about 11 years-old, were asleep in the home. Police are still searching for the three men and the red van. As yet, the public doesn't know the motive for the killings.

The Family
That Byrd and Melanie Billings were a very special couple is evident. Byrd was a successful business man and the couple owned a number of local businesses, including Worldco Financial Services and Purshu Autos. Their home has nine bedrooms and sits back off the street at the end of a long driveway for the safety of their children.

In a special Christmas story, published Christmas day, 2005, the Pensacola News Journal profiled the Billings family as a story of love and commitment.

They were the proud parents of 16 children. Twelve are adopted -- among them, children of drug users, children who were sexually abused and children with developmental disabilities. Six of the 12 have Down syndrome. Two have died.

In the article, The Journal said: The Billingses' life is paved with challenges, a journey they never expected. But if they could do it all over again, it's the only path they would take.

"Our life, our children, is about choices we have made," said Byrd, 63.

"Holidays are so special." said Melanie, 40. "You never know when you won't have this time," she said.

Today, those words sound almost prophetic.

The children do not wear hand-me-downs. Their bedrooms are suites with bathrooms lighted by chandeliers and with walk-in closets. Byrd and Melanie give their children only the best. To them, all their children are perfect.

Thoughts and Commentary
So we have this very loving couple who have dedicated their lives to caring for children others don't want. They give them a first class home with two parents, a caretaker who helps out and the children are treated like the Billings' own.

Then, in the span of less than an hour, three sociopaths enter the home, one with eight children inside and, before they leave, they kill two extraordinary people. The only good thing is that none of the children were injured.

We can only surmise what happened for almost an hour inside that home. The criminals were likely looking for money or valuables in such a large home. It is likely that they were not gentle or polite in their demands either. Suffice it to say, that those who were there were probably subjected to an hour of terror at the hands of these three men.

It would be easy to sit here and say something stupid, like suggesting if either adult had been armed they might be alive today. That's simplistic and not realistic. With that many children in the home, many of them with Downs Syndrome or autistic, you'd most likely keep any firearms strictly secured for everyone's safety.

It would be equally stupid to say that if guns were banned this incident wouldn't have happened. Such a myopic view ignores the myriad ways three men could arm themselves with axes, machetes and other items to commit the same acts.

No, what I'm going to say is that this incident really proves a point that I have argued with anti-gun zealots for years. And that is that the concept of compliance and non-resistance can be fatal to the victim. Anti-gun lobbyists and police will point to statistics that say compliance is the safest thing to do.

But I posit that non-resistance and compliance puts you at the mercy of the criminal. What if that criminal has no mercy?

That's the big drawback. You may not know until it is too late. The person you are facing is a criminal, someone who does not feel bound to honor the laws of society. If he doesn't feel bound by laws against theft, robbery, rape, murder, et al, then neither are we bound to believe a word he says about us "not getting hurt" or letting us go.

Too many criminals today exhibit sociopathic tendencies. Big, burly 20-somethings that'll beat down a 101 year old woman for the $33 in her purse show their contempt for anyone but themselves. Recently a 20-year-old thug in our bay area beat up and robbed 12-year-old girl. But before walking off with the $9 she had, he used a rock to smash her teeth. Yeah, there are real men for you -- beating up the elderly and children.

The three thugs in the Billings case are another example. If there was even an ounce of empathy or consideration in their souls for other people, they would not have deliberately orphaned those children. But they lack any compassion for others and mercy, to them, is a weakness.

These guys are running a close second to Richard Allen Davis, the perverted sociopathic career criminal who kidnapped, raped and killed 12-year-old Polly Klaas in 1993. Davis was the poster-boy for California's 3-strikes law. Davis also told Klaas he wasn't going to hurt her.

I don't care what color these people are. I don't care what religion they follow (if any). I don't care if they were disadvantaged children. Nor do I care if their parents absused them. Killing the parents of so many children and knowing that they're going to orphan those kids is beyond comprehension.

Sheriff Morgan tells the media that this is a hum-dinger of a case and it has twists and turns worthy of a Hollywood movie. One media outlet surmised that because one suspect turned himself in, he must feel some remorse about the killings.

And, I don't care.

No child deserves to lose both their parents. Not like this. Especially children used to the patient love that comes from those rare few who can handle so many special needs children. Life is hard enough for these kids already. Depriving them of the love they've known is simply an act of sadistic cruelty.

I can think of a lot of creative ways that these three men could meet their maker. So far, the leading candidates are the 3,000-ft helicopter high-dive and being towed behind a boat as alligator bait in the Everglades. But I'm sure the Billings', being good and kind people, would have said the proper thing to do is let justice slowly grind along and do its job.

Condolences to the Billings family and requiescat in pax Byrd and Melanie.

One thing is for sure, though. More people will be willing to show mercy to these killers than they showed the Billings' family.

Comments? Suggestions? editor@handgunclub.com

Gun Shop Aggravations

How Gun Shops Lose Customers

Time to rant a little.

Walk into any store that sells high end merchandise and ask to see something. Watch how the sales person handles their products for a good clue as to their education and experience with the products. Also watch carefully and see how some will abuse products right before your eyes.

Several year ago, while shopping for a new truck, one dealer had plenty of nice shiny Ford diesels several thousand dollars cheaper than any other dealer. But I adamantly refused to buy anything from that dealership.

The reason was simple. The salesman offered a test drive, then promptly showed his ignorance of diesel products and abused the machinery. He insisted on revving a cold diesel engine. Worse was that he kept running the diesel up almost to the redline before shifting.

It's the same when I enter a gun shop and see really sloppy handling of guns. I'm especially annoyed by two things clerks do, it seems, in too many gun shops. Any time I see these behaviors, I know it's unlikely I'll buy a gun from that shop.

First, with a semi-auto pistol, watching a clerk drop the slide from it's locked-open position to the closed position just grates on my nerves. Without the resistance of a cartridge, habitual slamming of the slide can peen the barrel hood or the breechface.

The second especially alarming thing I've seen is a crop of younger guys who've never handled revolvers, emulating old movie scenes by flipping the cylinder open or shut instead of closing it by hand. Not only does this risk springing the yoke (the arm holding the cylinder) but can burr the center pin that locks the gun closed.

Recently a friend of mine scratched a southern California gun shop off his list because every time the idiot clerk removed a gun from the case, he had his finger on the trigger, violating rule #2 of safe handling. If that wasn't bad enough, when my friend remarked that the trigger of a certain Ruger was too heavy, the clerk took the gun back and, without checking to see if it was loaded, pulled the trigger with the gun pointed at my friend! There is no excuse for such poor discipline. He complained loudly to the store owner, but he'll never be back.

Yet another thing that annoys me and loses customers for gun shops - elitism. Not long ago, I wanted to check out a CZ P01 pistol. I like CZ's, but their traditional safety is too far forward for my thumb to reach without altering my grip. The P01 has a decocker right where the 1911 safety would be. Perfect.

The shop has a dozen CZ pistols and I ask if they have a P-01. Do I get an answer? No."Y'know, the CZ's are cheap guns made on beat up Russian machines." says the shop owner. "If you're looking for a quality 9-mike, you should be looking at this Sig 229. It's quality in every part, not just the ones one the outside." I nod and tell him I'd really like to look at the P-01. Even after I tell him that Sigs feel like a piece lumber in my hand, he won't let up on selling me on a Sig. Thanks a lot, moron!

Then there are the gun-shop ballistics experts. The ones that tell you that you that the nine milly-meter will "just go all the way through" an opponent without slowing him down. Or that a .357 Magnum will "make an exit wound the size of a softball". Neither are true of course, but it's part of the "lore" around handgun ammo.

My pet peeve are the .44 Magnum bigots. For these masochists, for whom heavy recoil is like being kissed by Angelina Jolie, nothing short of a full-bore .44 Magnum load is worthy of the term "Magnum". If you want a gun to hunt deer, cougars, ram or pigs or protection from bears & wolves, their favorite gun is a one-size-fits-all solution. I've even had them tell me it's good for shooting gophers and rabbits! Or home protection in an apartment. C'mon guys, get a clue!

Speaking of one-size-fits-all, let's talk about the Glockophiles. If you want a pistol for any purpose, well, just buy a Glock. Any Glock. While I am an ardent fan of Smith & Wesson products, I don't limit myself to that single brand when recommending a gun for someone else. I watched a younger fellow, who had a list of features he wanted (external ambi-safety, DA/SA, adjustable sights, etc.) at a gun shop and several gun shop commados were trying to convince him how superior Glocks are. Never mind that the Glock doesn't fit his requirements - just by a Glock. I just pointed out a nice FN Hi-Power to him and let him make his decision (he bought it without any urging).

Do you have any pet peeves when it comes to seeking gun advice or shopping in gun shops? I'm sure you do. Let's hear from some shop owners too. I'm positive we'll hear some really bizzare customer stories as well.

Comments? Questions: editor@handgunclub.com

Ballistics 101

Power by the Inch

Ever wonder how much velocity and energy you give up if you select a 2-inch barrel over a 4-inch barrel? We all know that the longer the barrel, the more velocity we can get out of a cartridge. We also know that shorter barrels are the less velocity and power we get.

But have you ever wondered how much you're really giving up by selecting a 2-inch revolver or a 3-inch 9mm? What about using a 3-inch .45 instead of a 5-inch Government model? Well, now you can find out some real-world examples.

In years past, gun writers have promoted, as a rule of thumb, that you lose 50 fps per inch of barrel. As it turns out, that's not quite true, depending on the load's construction. For example, for a selection of 9mm rounds in barrels between two to six inches long, the average variation ranges from 41 to 81 fps.

This information is at your fingertips, thanks to four very inquisitive guys. Jim Kasper, Jim Downey, Steve Meyer and Keith Kimball took it upon themselves to find out and document the question of how barrel length affects velocity. And they've done an outstanding job with their results posted at their Ballistics by the Inch.com.

These gentlemen used a Thompson-Center Encore pistol as their platform and commissioned a gunsmith to make 18-inch barrels in various calibers. From there, after each round of testing, the barrels were cut back by one-inch, recrowned and returned for the next series of tests. This gives us direct comparisons based on the same barrel with the same characteristics as the previous length.

It takes a little more work than just reading their charts to understand the data, however. For instance, how much do you lose by choosing a 3-inch concealable 9mm pistol over a 4-inch "service" pistol? The answer, depending upon cartridge ranges from 99 fps to only 49 fps. The average is 69 fps.

Think your .40 S&W round is plenty no matter what barrel length you're using? If you're using Cor-Bon's 135 grain JHP, you're losing a whopping 100 fps per inch (103 to 138 fps) between a 5-inch barrel and a 3-inch tube.
This type of data is there, but you still have to work it out on your own. The good news is that you can directly cut and paste their data tables into a spreadsheet like Microsoft Excel. That allows you to crunch your own numbers if you're familiar with spreadsheets.

In preparing this article, I used Excel to help analyze some of the data. Since we're handgun oriented, I focused on the two to six-inch barrel figures. When I looked at .38 Special data, some intriguing things stood out. Something unexpected.

It seems that the losses when dropping from a 4-inch gun to a snubby 3-inch or 2-inch are much higher than losing an inch between four and five inches. In fact, for the ammo listed, the drop from a 4-inch barrel to the shorter barrels was the highest loss of velocity. This indicates that revolver cartridges are optimized for 4-inch and longer barrels.

Most surprising to me was that some .38 Special cartridges actually gained velocity when the barrel was cut from 6-inches to 5-inches! Both Cor-Bon 110 and 125 grain loads showed this behavior. Now, this could be some quirk of the barrel used, or it could be some odd error with the chronograph, but it remains interesting. Overall, the least loss in the .38 Special occurred by cutting a six-inch down to five-inches. Makes me appreciate my 5-inch S&W Model 10 just that much more.

Check it out for yourself. Look up your favorite cartridge and see what you're giving up by using that shorter barrel. Or perhaps you'll find you won't lose very much velocity by moving from that 5-inch Gov't model to a 4-Inch Commander. They've listed the sixteen most popular calibers, including .357 Sig, 10mm, .41 Magnum and .45 Colt. Even the new .327 Federal Magnum is included.

Ballistics by the Inch

Your comments are welcome: editor@handgunclub.com

Guns Work. Gun Control Doesn't.

Guns Work to Save Lives
Gun Control Does Not

You've no doubt heard that a crazy white supremacist walked into the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. and opened fire, killing security guard Steven Johns. However, unlike other public shootings, this one ended quickly when other security guards returned fire, downing the gunman and preventing him from shooting anyone else.

This hateful bigot intensely hated Blacks and Jews. It is unknown how many people he might have killed in the museum. Considering that the museum is generally busy with visitors, many of them Jewish and school-age children learning about the Holocaust, how many people would a Jew-hating bigot kill if he was unchallenged? How many children might have died? From past history, all we can say is "many more."

This event is similar to the 1991 Luby's Cafeteria massacre in Killeen, Texas. There, another madman entered a crowded public place (using his truck as a battering ram) and began shooting people. This was before Texas had a shall-issue CCW system in place, so the patrons inside were all unarmed. In the twelve minutes it took police to arrive, George Hennard shot 23 people to death and wounded 20 others. It's an easy guess that James Von Brunn could have exceeded that number in D.C.

It is also similar to the August 1999 shooting in a Jewish day care center in which Buford Furrow Jr. shot three children, a receptionist and a sixteen year-old counselor before leaving and killing a postal carrier because he wasn't white. In that case, Furrow told investigators he aborted his planned attack on another day care center when he saw armed security personnel. On that day, the mere presence of firearms saved lives at one day care center.

Yet, the anti-gun lobby ignores the obvious when Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign says, "It is dangerous to force more guns into places that American families expect to be gun-free and safe. It shows that having even more guns in more places is the wrong answer to America's gun violence problem."

Helmke, the Bradys and other members of the anti-gun lobby groups forget that Washington D.C. already has strict gun-control laws. Laws that forbid possessing unregistered guns, the carrying of loaded firearms in public and concealing them on your person. So, easily, the museum killer broke those laws without much concern.

There's more. Von Brunn, is a convicted felon. Thus, he broke other laws prohibiting him from possessing or buying any firearms at all. He obtained his rifle illegally, yet another violation of the so-called gun-control laws. Up to the point just before he fired, Von Brunn had violated at least five laws, probably many more by crossing state and local jurisdictions.

If we followed the advice of Paul Helmke and his ilk, the other security guards at the museum would not have firearms and would have been early casualties. The bottom line is that it was men with guns who shut down Von Brunn's terror attack on the museum.

Your comments are welcome: editor@handgunclub.com

Gov. Rendell Piles it higher and deeper

A lesson in nonsense

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell showed up on CNBC's "Swawk Box" show recently in a segment titled "Gun and Ammunition Sales Spike". (click see the video.) Unfortunately, the purpose of his appearance was not to talk about why people were buying up guns and ammo, but to push bringing back the so-called "assault weapons" ban.

Before pursuing his comments, let's all remember that this so-called "assault weapons ban" has been modified from the earlier ban. It is much more inclusive about which weapons it bans.

Worse, some of the wording is intended to make it apply to "generic" (unnamed) guns with certain features. Adding certain accessories to a semi-auto rifle could turn it into an evil gun and you'd face felony charges. In addition it names new guns that were never banned -- the venerable M1-Carbine, the Ruger Mini-14, any rifle used by the U.S. military.

It has little to do with safety and everything to do with keeping the government in control of firearms that are the most effective in a serious battle.

The Governor's comments should give everyone pause. It's an excellent example of deliberate, decietful misinformation and political arrogance. But I trust readers can judge for themselves; the video speaks volumes.

Rendell claims, in his own words, that firearms like the AR-15 and AK rifles are at once;
- Difficult to operate
- Jam easily
- Fire at short range
- Are not effective (for home defense)
- Put out a ton of fire all at one time
- Are very powerful
- Bullets will "blow through" a police car from over a block away
- Have only one purpose; to kill and to maim

And my favorite part is that after he says all this, he then says these guns belong "only in the hands of the police and military." Say what?

Is Rendell saying he wants police to have rifles that are only good for killing and maiming people? That's what he wants for his police officers? If their only purpose is "to kill and to maim" then why in the hell are we saying these are okay for police to use on civilians?

Or is Rendell saying that only police and military personnel should have to suffer with a complicated, hard-to-use rifle that frequently jams, isn't very effective but is powerful enough to blow right through a police car? Why is Rendell allowing his state to even purchase crappy guns like this?

Do politicans think we are all this stupid? You have to believe that the rifle fires a lot of "short range" bullets, but those bullets have enough energy to "blow through" a police car from a block or more away. Or that police agencies from NYPD to LAPD and their SWAT teams intentionally picked a difficult to use and jam-prone rifle?

What this really points out is that politicians, and many gun control proponents, are clueless when it comes to firearms. It also points out that politicians, like Rendell, will say almost anything to paint a frightening image of firearms to the public.

We get our share of truely idiotic statements here in California from the lamestream media. We have politicians who repeat the tired, discredited Brady Campaign talking points.

What can we do about it?
This is the easy part. Whenever you see or hear misinformation about guns in the media, complain! Write to the media outlet. Write a brief but polite "feedback" comment taking the source to task. Brief, easy to read comments that get the point across are better than long winded diatribes or personal attacks on the speaker.

The reason for doing this is that there are a lot of folks who will read the comments left for a particular on-line newspaper article. More comments we create that refute and discredit the misinformation, the better chance we have of changing public opinion.

Your comments are welcome: editor@handgunclub.com

2nd Amendment Applies to States

Landmark Decision by 9th Circuit Court

April 20 - SAN FRANCISCO - A landmark decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco today said that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government. Previously, the courts held that the amendment was a barrier to only federal laws, not state laws. The decision is a major victory for gun-rights advocates.

The 3-0 decision by judges Alarcón, O’Scannlain, and Gould in Nordyke v. King will have far reaching effects on state and local gun laws. The decision puts many state and local laws under the magnifying glass in the same way as laws limiting free speech or searches and seizures. The ruling currently affects only the nine states in the 9th Circuit – Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington.

The court found that the right to own firearms was "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" which allows it to be applied to the states and local governments through the 14th Amendment's due process provisions.

Nevertheless, the decision also upheld the ban at the county fairgrounds, saying that governments may impose restrictions on "sensitive places" such as courthouses and schools.

The decision may play a part in a challenge to restrictive gun laws in Illinois by the Second Amendment Foundation, the NRA and other gun groups. That case is still in progress in the 7th District Court and today's decision could influence its decision. Today's decision may add weight to the pro-2A arguments in the Chicago case and bring about incorporation in the 7th district. Any disagreements between circuit courts would have to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

Second Amendment constitutional law is still in its infancy, much like First Amendment laws were at the beginning of the twentieth century. This decision will result in more challenges to state and local laws to define the scope of the amendment's protections against government intrusion.

# # #

What does this mean to me?

This is only the first step in a long process. Eventually the Supreme Court will have to resolve the conflict between the 9th Circuit's decision and other circuits that have different opinions. Until the high court makes that determination (or another circuit agrees with the 9th), only the nine western states in the 9th Circuit can have their gun laws challenged under the 2nd Amendment.

Within the last year, we have won two major victories. The Heller case defined the Second Amendment right as a fundamental individual right, like that of free speech or the right to a lawyer. The Nordyke case says that the 2nd Amendment also applies to the states because it is deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the Republic. This integrates the 2nd Amendment into our legal system the same as your other constitutional rights - at least in nine western states.

Since both Heller and Nordyke find that the right is fundamental, challenges to state and local gun laws can be challenged on a "strict scrutiny" basis. If we challenge certain gun laws in this manner, the government must show a compelling government interest that is crucial and that the challenged law is both narrowly tailored and the least restrictive to the rights of citizens.

For instance, the Illinois firearms owner ID (FOID) card might be challenged as not being narrowly tailored and least restrictive. This is because the intent of the card was to stop criminals from obtaining firearms through legal channels. Yet, repeated studies show the majority of criminal firearm acquisitions are made illegally through black-market "street" sales. Thus the argument that forcing law abiding citizens to not only maintain documents to exercise their rights but pay an annual (or periodic) fee to do so, is not the "least restrictive".

Other laws that may be challenged are those that delay the exercise of your rights. One-gun-a-month laws can be likened to limiting free speech in the same manner. Waiting periods could also be compared to having to wait several days to obtain a lawyer or read a newspaper.

Don't expect huge, sweeping changes to occur overnight. It's taken 40 years for the anti-gun crowd to get this far. Our duty is to tread carefully with each challenge to keep building up our rights. We can anticipate it will take more than just a few years to overturn some of the worst legislation.

Your comments are welcome: editor@handgunclub.com

Ammo News and Sales

Sellier & Bellot Sold
On April 1st, CBC announced the acquisition of the 184-year-old Sellier & Bellot ammunition company in Vlašim, Czech Republic. CBC or Companhia Brasileira de Cartuchos (Cartridge Company of Brazil) also owns Magtech in the USA and MEN – Metallwerk Elisenhütte GmbH in Germany. CBC was founded in 1926 and sells ammunition in over 70 countries worldwide. The Magtech and Sellier & Bellot companies will continue to operate under their own management and brands, CBC said.

ATK Purchases Eagle Industries
Alliant Techsystems, Inc. said it has acquired Eagle Industries Unlimited Inc., a maker of tactical nylon gear for military and law enforcement customers. Privately-owned Eagle, which is based in Fenton, Mo., will add more than $80 million to Alliant's sales in fiscal 2010 and be a slightly positive addition to its annual earnings. Terms of the deal weren’t disclosed. Most readers of this column will know ATK better as the owner of Alliant powders, Federal Cartridge and CCI/Speer. ATK's government arm includes makers of solid-rocket propellants and other products. Eagle makes gear such as weapon holsters, bags, rappelling equipment and vests.

Ammo Shortage?
We've heard from everyone that there is a shortage of ammo going on. And if you have been out looking for ammo, you know that the shelves in many of your normally reliable suppliers are as bare as Mother Hubbard's cupboard. Even the Internet sellers are having a hard time.

I did a survey of seven (7) on-line ammo sellers. The results are almost frightening! I checked all calibers from Ammoman, Ammunition To Go, MidwayUSA, Cheaper-Than-Dirt, Natchez, Outdoor Marksman and Midsouth Shooter's Supply. One of my favorites, Ammunition to Go has most of the popular calibers in stock, but the type and quantities may be limited.

In the survey, I didn't include specialty ammo such as Glaser Safety Slugs, Air Freedom fragmenting or Magsafe. These are available to those who want them, but their extreme cost is almost prohibitive for stocking up.

If you own a .380 ACP, forget it. I couldn't find any ammo for it, even on some other sites. Excluding Ammunition To Go, the hardest to find of the common cartridges are:

.32 ACP (only at Ammo to Go)
.380 ACP (almost none available)
.38 Special (limited supplies and loads)
.357 Magnum (limited supplies and loads)
.45 ACP (very limited supplies)
.45 Colt (almost none available)

What's Available?
For those of you shooting "oddball" calibers, there is some good news. You can still get ammo. Although you may object to the price, it's still out there. In small calibers, .25 ACP, .30 Luger, 7.62 Nagant and 7.62 Tokarev are still well stocked.

In the midrange calibers, .38 Super and .357 Sig are still available and some locations have 10mm. And when it comes to Big-Bores the news is generally good. Except for .45ACP and .45 Colt, the .44 Special through the .500 S&W Magnum are generally easy to come by. It seems that .45 GAP is sitting on shelves along with 5.7x28mm.

The Reasons
First and foremost, it seems the election of Barack H. Obama and Joe Biden is the primary driving force. Both politicians are staunchly anti-gun, despite the rhetoric they support the 2nd Amendment (a dubious claim).

Industry sources say that between July and September of 2008, sales of pistols and revolvers were up 23.6% and ammo sales rose 8.4% over the same period the year before.

This trend has continued right up through February. Using background checks as a benchmark, firearm sales compared to the same month in the prior year, jumped 42% in November, 24% in December, 29% in January and 23.3% in February.

And it follows that those who buy new firearms will want some ammunition for them. Maybe lots of it. And that's apparently what is happening in the real world.

National Shooting Sports Foundation senior vice president Lawrence Keane, when interviewed by AP, said "We've heard from all across the country that there is a tremendous shortage of ammunition. From the manufacturers, that their customers are calling them trying to get supplies for inventory, and that the manufacturers are going full-bore, pardon the pun."

The buying of firearms over the worry that the Obama Administration would move to limit gun sales and the subsequent buying of ammo and components has led to shortages. And for some, a new president coupled with a sudden shortage of ammo spurs panic buying in large quantities. The current demand is so huge, manufacturers can't keep up.

We're probably selling ammunition right now at a 200 percent increase over normal sales," said Richard Taylor, manager at the Firing Line in Aurora, Colo. "We've probably got over 4,000 cases of ammunition on back order currently. But we just don't know when we're going to receive that," Taylor told KMGH. "Y2K was just like a little blip on the radar screen compared to this. I mean, it's just phenomenal."
Rich Wyatt, owner of a firearms shop and training facility outside of Denver, told Human Events' columnist Kaminsky that even "old ladies and young people and liberals" have been buying ammunition from him.

Wyatt's position seems to be that the new president sparked the ammunition buying frenzy with careless words from the campaign trail, such as when he said small town folks in Pennsylvania "cling to guns or religion" during hard economic times. "Barack Obama is right about one thing," Wyatt said. "We are clinging to God and our guns, and I defy him to try to take either one from us."

Thanks, Rich. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Resources for on-line ammo sales:
Ammoman
Ammunition To Go
Cheaper Than Dirt
Midsouth Shooters Supply
Midway USA
Natchez Shooters Supply
Outdoor Marksman

Your comments are welcome: editor@handgunclub.com

Learning From History

German Chancellor Calls for Raids on Homes

This headline reads like something out of the 1930's or 1940's. But sadly, it is a modern headline, highlighting the frightening parallels between the early 20th Century and today. The German Chancellor's remarks were in response to a school shooting in Germany earlier this month that left 15 people dead. The headline comes from Peter Neidek's Dissent Blog on PrisonPlanet.com.

Monday, March 16, 2009 - Today, German Chancellor Angela Merkel demanded even tougher gun control measures relating to storage of firearms and ammunition in Germany. With an audacity that defies belief the former East German communist also called for unannounced raids on homes and offices of registered firearm owners. In an interview with the Deutschlandfunk Merkel said: “We must do everything to prevent children’s access to firearms.” As a further consequence of the recent mass shooting in Germany Merkel wants citizens to be more alert and pay particular attention to young people.“

Although Merkel characterized these raids as "unannounced visits by state authorities" I have no doubt that the German media of the 30's would portray a visit from the Geheime Staatspolizei in a similar manner.
German firearms laws are some of the most restrictive in Europe. Before even applying for a firearms permit you have to have a perfect attendance at a gun club for a year. The permit also requires guns stored to be locked up and the access to the guns controlled by the owner. If you actually use your firearm in defense, someone had better be bleeding first. Profusely.
Such home visits are diametrically opposed to the basic principles of a free and Democratically run government. In such governments the citizens are to be left alone unless there is a reason to believe they are involved in some crime. How much harder would it be for Merkel to call for these "visits" to be confiscations?
Also keep in mind that German law does permit "inspections" of the permit holder's storage of his firearms, but refusing such an inspection is grounds to revoke the ownership permit. To be fair, such visits are usually arranged a few days ahead of time, but the law does not require such. Imagine a sleepy-eyed resident answering his door at 3 a.m.
"Guten morgen, Herr Hoffmann." Says the policeman with a smile. "You vill show us your guns now, ja?" Of course, the police can make a swift inspection or they could decide to take their time and check each serial number and inspect each firearm.
Such invasive tactics are precisely why gun owners in America have consistently been against forced registration and government record keeping of firearms owners. In Germany, such a list is literally just a computer-command away. In the United States, such capability is supposed to be difficult. Although, as I pointed out in an earlier blog post, Illinois Senator Bobby Rush has introduced H.R. 45 that would repeal the prohibition on creating a gun owner database.

Have a comment? Email us at: editor@handgunclub.com

New Challenge May Have
Far Reaching Consequences

Civil rights attorney Alan Gura, the attorney who successfully argued the Heller case, has filed a new federal lawsuit against the District of Columbia. The lawsuit seeks relief from D.C.'s onerous and odious handgun registration scheme on behalf of three DC residents. Under the statute adopted by the DC Council last December, D.C. now bans many ordinary and common handguns based upon silly criteria such as the color of the gun.

The district's modified handgun registration scheme specifically uses the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale as a scheme to limit the types of guns district residents can own. Using the California scheme, a handgun bought today, which is on the list, may be unavailable to district residents if the manufacturer fails to pay a fee to extend the "certification" beyond it's expiration date.

The California roster requires certification of all handguns sold by "model." California has interpreted that to be the stocking-number (SKU) of the gun. Thus, two otherwise identical guns except for one wearing finger-grooved rosewood grips versus plain walnut are "different" guns and each must be approved separately. Guns with different finishes can be allowed, but only if the manufacturer submits a form attesting that both guns are identical except for the color of the finish.

Which brings us to plaintiff Tracy Ambeau Hanson, who tried to register her Springfield XD-45, only to be told by District bureaucrats that "her gun was the wrong color."

"Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions," Gura said. A handgun protected by the Second Amendment doesn't need to appear on any government-approved list either. "The Springfield XD-45 is approved for sale in Washington," Gura noted, "so long as it is black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly 'unsafe'."

In another ironic twist, Paul St. Lawrence's gun was rejected, even though it is the same model gun owned by Dick Heller for whom the Supreme Court ordered DC to issue a registration certificate less than a year ago. And Gillian St. Lawrence found that her gun was rejected merely because the manufacturer decided not to pay a fee to keep the gun on the California list.

The requirement to register guns is a constitutionally suspect prior restraint of the right to keep and bear arms to begin with, but to add restrictions based on cosmetic features, such as color, smack of arbitrary and capricious laws. The kind that led to the American Revolution.

If the handgun roster scheme is struck down as unconstitutional, it will impact not only Washington D.C.'s 580,000 residents, but the over 33 million Californians who are currently choked by the same law.

Public Impressions

Gun Videos Can Work Against Us.

Among all of the stuff on web sites like You Tube there are a lot of people posting videos of themselves shooting their favorite guns or someone else shooting a gun. The problem is, many of these videos form a negative commentary about guns, gun owners and how people handle guns.

Before you post a firearms-related video on You Tube or some other site, ask yourself what it shows about you or the people in the video. It might seem funny to watch someone's girlfriend fire a .500 Magnum and fall on her backside. But I've see videos where the shooter gets hurt because they weren't told about the recoil or they were being stupid. Worse yet, some videos show people drinking while shooting or doing things that will leave debris littering the landscape. If in doubt, just don't post the video.

Some Excellent Videos
It's time for some fun & education too. There are also some excellent training videos out there if you look. Some are better than others and some are more detailed that others. For those people still looking to buy their first handgun, Gun Talk Radio's Tom Gresham has some advice on buying your first handgun.

We have had a few people with revolvers ask some basic questions about using speedloaders. One video you can watch that shows the basic use of the speedloader is from Talon Training Group. As a basic primer on using speedloaders it's a good start.

There are several video segments produced by the Thunder Ranch training center featuring shooting expert Clint Smith.

For those new to handling guns (and for some folks in need of a refresher) watch Clint's description of the three places for a handgun when carrying or using a handgun. It's just under 2-1/2 minutes.



Clint's demonstration of the TAP-RACK-BANG drill is a six minute video clip that will introduce some folks to the concept and clarify it for others. If you've ever encountered a "jam" with your pistol at the range, Clint shows how you should handle the situation during combat. He's clear and concise and I think you'll enjoy the video.

Ladies & GunsMore and more women are enjoying shooting sports and defensive pistolcraft. You don't need to be a powerlifter or a size 12 to shoot, as shown by this young woman from somewhere in Asia (I think). Looking at the groups she fired, I wouldn't want her mad at me.

And while not strictly handgun related, even some very senior citizens can have a bit of fun shooting. This "little old lady" was having a blast with a German MP-40 SMG! I love her comment at the end! Go Grandma!




Do you want to comment? editor@handgunclub.com