Idle Threats

From My Cold Dead Hands!

We've all heard the slogan about taking our guns from our cold, dead hands. But is it really that way? How many gun owners would really resist? How many would defy the government? It's one of those questions that cannot be answered directly without experience. But is it true that we don't have any experience by which to judge?

Perhaps not.

In a recent Page Nine email from Alan Korwin, the founder of Gunlaws.com, one of his contributors named "Counterintuitive Man" recently opined the following;

During Katrina, when obedient slavish Americans meekly turned over their guns, handle -- not bullets -- first, to cooperative authorities, the gun show buyers were preparing by stockpiling. The assumption was that authorities were preparing to take the guns from their warm live fingers with either a smile (we're from the government and we're here to save you) or with a tough gritty face, at gunpoint. Not one gun owner fired one shot during the Katrina confiscations, to avoid "news" broadcasts that would have said, "Crazed maniac shoots at peaceful peace officers maintaining neighborhood safety after disaster, and is shot dead in a hail of police gunfire along with his entire family and dog; neighbors thank police for their brave efforts and propose statues; dead gunman may have had mental problems, motive is still unknown, police found 300 rounds of live assault ammunition in his flooded compound bunker; more news at six."

The revolution will not be televised. It will not be brought to you in three parts by any sponsor, and it will not feature guns taken from cold dead fingers.

He does have a point. And a good one.

Aside from all the slogans, rhetoric and chest-thumping, American gun owners remain law-abiding, even in the face of what many of us see as unlawful acts by the government. Internet armchair warriors brag about giving up their guns bullets first, but when police show up, much of that spirit melts away into compliance.

The question is why?

Because American gun owners have faith in their system of government. There is a large percentage of the gun owning public that believes the system will correct the wrongs committed by the government. They would rather fight using the legal system than "turn outlaw" by shooting at police. This speaks well of the average American gun owner - that he would rather argue the legalities before a court than begin taking lives or injuring people.

In a positive light, when the anti-gun lobby makes statements that gun owners can "just flip out" or "just start shooting" over trivial matters, we can point to the lack of resistance after Katrina to show that gun owners are primarily law-abiding. If there was any time where resistance could be excuseable, it would have been at that time, when police were not available to respond to calls.

Before making the brave statement "from my cold, dead hands", think about what such an act will do to your life. The media certainly isn't going to paint you as a patriot standing against the illegal use of power. Nor are gun owners across the country going to hear how you're standing off police because they want to violate the constitution, and then rush to your aid. Not unless people can get the word out quickly and with credibility. Otherwise, the last three words in your epitath could be "film at eleven".

Reasons To Carry

Why Carry?

Because some men are just Evil

I could easily call this column Reality 101 and it'd work. These are real individuals, not actors. This is the real, dirty, gritty life some people live. These are people who will murder you for the coins in your pocket (or $2 in your wallet).

Every once in a while a news story reminds us that there are people in the world who are simply nothing more than animals. They prey on others for their own gain and care nothing about the consequences of their actions.

It doesn't matter that this was a black on white crime. Black, brown, white or purple-spotted, the skin color makes no difference. They could have easily been white kids and my response would be the same. Animals belong in cages.

So it was on the night of June 18th, 2008. Two Texarkana teens, Demarius Cummings and his cousin James Broadnax had smoked some marijuana and were looking for some kind of action. Riding the buses in Dallas, they decided to commit a robbery and boarded a DART train for Garland, Texas. Why go to Garland? Because, as James Broadnax put it...

Cuz that's where all the rich white folks stay at, y'know what I'm sayin'?

Demarius Cummings claims they were not planning on committing murder in Garland, only robbery. They had stolen their aunt's "chopper" (a Kalashnikov rifle) to swap on the street for a pistol, and taken the handgun on the trip. The two discussed killing, but Cummings claims he did not believe it would happen. Broadnax concealed the pistol, and the two boarded the night train to Garland.

Around half past midnight, in Garland, the two teens spotted Matthew Butler and Stephen Swan as they left Butler's Zion Gate Records, a Christian music studio. The two business-men stopped to chat and smoke cigarettes in the parking lot near Butler's car.

The teens approached the two men and asked for a cigarette. Suddenly, Broadnax pulled his gun. Without warning or hesitation, he shot Swann, then Butler. As each man struggled to get back up, Broadnax shot them again, this time in the head, killing them. The killers rifled the pockets of the dead men, getting a whole two dollars, and the keys to Butler's car. They drove Butler's tan 1995 Crown Victoria to Dallas, and hid the pistol.

The next morning they switched the license plates at the home of a relative, pawned a few tools found in Butler's car, and tossed Stephen Swann's ID out the car window as they left in the stolen automobile heading back to Texarkana. There, they were apprehended after a traffic violation.

A bicyclist had discovered the two dead men's bodies lying in a pool of sticky blood and spent shell casings at about 1:00 AM the previous night. Both criminals are charged with capital murder. Bond is set at one million dollars each. Both victims are dead.

The video below is a jail interview of James Broadnax. The video is chilling in that it shows just how callous and uncaring the killer is about his victims and the impact his actions will have on the families of his victims.

Caution: Graphic Language!

Because his life was "hell", Broadnax uses that as an excuse to brutally murder two men to get something he didn't have. Their stuff. He did not give them any chance to survive nor does he show any remorse for killing them.

Reason to Carry #83

It's shocking the number of You Tube videos that show crimes occurring. Type in "sucker punch" in the search bar and you get plenty of videos. But this one I selected below shows just what kind of human excrement exists on our streets and the their attitudes towards others.

The story, as I understand it, is that a production crew was doing a documentary on drugs. When they attempted to interview this man, he went wild and then demonstrated that he wasn't afraid of "nuthin'".

Warning: Very Graphic Language!

I'm sure many of you feel like I do. Had it been my car, his attack at the driver's window would have earned him a 230-grain frontal lobotomy. A touch of chlorine to the gene pool, as it were.

These are the kinds of animals that the gun-control lobby fails to acknowledge. The kind that will kill you for trivial gain. The kind who will take what they want instead of working for it honestly.

The next time you argue with anti-gun types, ask them if to look up Broadnax on You Tube and then tell you if this is the kind of person they seek to protect with new gun laws. Because that's what their laws do by disarming the honest citizens.

Random Access

More Random Thoughts

Today's Diversion: Mars - The red planet's name brings up many thoughts and memories of science-fiction adventures. But Arthur C. Clarke's wise observation that "the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine" rings true. Check out this story and the astounding images from Mars.

The .327 Federal Magnum

After looking at the data, I think the .327 Magnum is the cartridge the .32 H&R Magnum should have been all along. I will acknowledge that H&R had to tone down the performance for their less robust designs. But they could have really impacted the market if they had pushed a bit harder.

The .327 Magnum does a few things that a .357 Magnum revolver won't. First, it has an excellent ratio of energy-to-recoil. That is, the low recoil belies the amount of muzzle energy it puts out. Second, it can put six rounds into the same space as five .357 rounds. This extra shot is comforting as few people have ever complained about having too much ammo in a fire-fight.

The lower recoil means that a larger number of people who would otherwise use marginal rounds like a .32 or .380 ACP can now carry something more effective. Who are these people? Most will say women, but there are men who are recoil shy too. Or people with arthritis in their hands for which recoil is painful.

Let's face it. The .357 Magnum is a great, versatile cartridge. But in its most effective loadings, it produces a ferocious blast and muzzle flash accompanied by wrist wrenching recoil, especially in concealable snubby revolvers. The .327 Magnum, though, reduces that recoil and flash considerably out of a 3-inch revolver. I suspect that the noise will be sharp and loud since the cartridge operates at pressures beyond that of the .357 or .44 Magnum.

If you look at energy figures, the .327 Magnum fits neatly between the power of a 9mm and the .357 Magnum. It just about duplicates the power range of the .40 S&W in a smaller, easier to use package. The .327 Magnum produces between 350 and almost 500 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle. The 9mm tops out into the low 400's. The best performing .357 defense load makes about 585 ft-lbs, although full goose gonzo loads will top out around 700 ft-lbs.

Better than a 9mm and about equal to the .40 S&W. That's not bad for something you can slip into your pocket. And the comparisons even get better in short barreled guns. Most of the .357 data is published for 4-inch barrels which means you lose some velocity in a 2 or 2.5" revolver. But all of the data for the .327 Magnum is based on the 3 1/6-inch Ruger SP-101.

When it comes to versatility, the .357 Magnum is still one of the best. Especially if you include the .38 Special loadings. But if we compare all of the .32 caliber loads to the .38/.357 loads, we see the little .32 has quite a bit of versatility. The chart below shows the range of performance between the .32 and .357 caliber cartridges.

As the chart shows, the .38/.357 caliber has a large useful range. However the .32 caliber has about as much useful range, stopping short of the .357. Quite impressive for a small caliber.

If you are already heavily invested in the .38/.357 caliber, with guns, holsters, reloading equipment as well as shooting ability, the .327 Federal Magnum may not offer you much. However, a first-time gun owner or someone who doesn't want the recoil of the .357 Magnum should be well armed if they select the .327. They can practice with mild .32 S&W Long loadings or even .32 H&R Magnums. These equate with shooting .38 wadcutters and .38 +P to practice with.

Cost will certainly be a factor with any new cartridge. There is no economy of scale, which means they'll be more expensive. But a huge number of people buy a gun, shoot about 50 to 100 rounds through it and it sits in a drawer for years. So the expense for many will be minimal. For active shooters, however, reloading will cut expenses considerably. Reloading spent .327 brass to .32 H&R Magnum levels will prolong the brass life.

This little cartridge begs for a single action six-gun too. The performance is like the old .32-20 which means it'll be potent medicine for coyotes and similar vermin. With a longer barrel, at least one article says the factory ammo can hit 1600 ft/sec (in a 6 1/2-inch barrel). That drives the muzzle energy up over 600 foot-pounds. One can only speculate how well it would perform in a small lever-rifle to accompany a six-gun, but the SASS cowboy shooters would flock to it, I'm sure.

If S&W were to bring back their Model 16, perhaps with a traditional looking magnum underlug, it would look like a small-bore Model 19. If it was available in a 4-inch and 6-inch model it might sell quite well. Though my preference would be a 3-inch M&P style Scandium lightweight that would be similar to the old Model 12.

Random Thoughts Today

To understand what a handgun is, we should define it. This definition should do fine:

Entry: hand·gun

Function: noun

Date: 20th century

A compact, portable and concealable one-handed, all-weather personal defense weapon, capable of being successfully employed by men, women and youngsters of varying sizes and degrees of skill, from contact-distance out to 50 yards, against one or multiple attackers, with potentially lethal results, and the sight of which can cause attackers to cease or withdraw.

Yup. That'll do fine.

Guns in the Home

Many gun control laws were passed to increase safety in the home. "Guns in the home are dangerous" we are told. "There is a substantial risk people will be injured in a home that contains a gun" says the VPC. Just where are these homes and who lives there?

I purchased my first handgun 34 years ago, in 1974. My first long gun, a Marlin .22 bolt rifle, was purchased the prior year. In the years since, no one has been injured by any of my guns unless you count cutting a finger on a sharp edge or the morning I dropped my 1903 Springfield on my little toe.

Since purchasing my first gun, I graduated college, worked in 4 different fields, with 13 different job titles in 8 companies, got married, got divorced, had room mates, got rid of them, had girlfriends, including one long term live-in relationship, bought & sold 4 motorcycles, 3 cars, my father died and I lost a nephew, had good bosses and lousy ones, was unemployed for two years and much more. Zero injuries, zero fatalities.

Where's all this danger and risk?

Good News

ABC News reporter and Libertarian John Stossel has an excellent column on the Second Amendment and self-defense in the New Hampshire Union-Leader.

We have seen the collapse anti-gun laws in Morton Grove and Wilmette in Illinois. Other cities are undoubtedly looking at their laws, deciding if they should do something now or wait until a suit is filed. But even better news comes from the Nevada Chapter of the ACLU. Breaking with the National organization in New York, a chapter of the ACLU had publicly stated it's intent to defend the Second Amendment as it defends other constitutional rights. Time will tell if they are as "creative" in defending our right to arms as they have been elsewhere.

I was pleasantly surprised by a Chicago Tribune article on guns and suicide. Editorial board member Steve Chapman's piece is a must read. This is in direct contrast of the Tribune's previous, uncredited editorial to Repeal the Second Amendment. Perhaps Chapman can ask the other editorial board members if they'd like to comment on the U.K'.s problems. After banning guns and suppressing the "Gun Culture", their news media complained about replica guns and Airsoft guns. Now, papers are bemoaning the "Knife Culture" as a serious threat. New laws ban many knives in public. What will be next? The "Cricket Bat Culture"?

Are they really that stupid? (Part II)

Yes - They really are!

Washington D.C. got it's head handed to it by the U.S. Supreme Court over their handgun ban. It was clearly unconstitutional the court said, to deprive people of the right to self-defense and their right to own handguns (as well as other guns).

So here we have the "emergency" D.C. laws, just released by the D.C. city officials. In my view, they are just begging for a federal court to declare them in contempt and inches from having a court declare they have violated their oath of office. See the pamphlet D.C. is handing out here.

The D.C. council needs a swift kick in the ass from the courts. Their "new" restrictions still require guns - to be unloaded, disassembled or trigger locked, except when there is a "threat of immediate harm to a person" in the home.

Acting Attorney General Peter Nickles, said residents could neither keep their guns loaded in anticipation of a problem nor search for an intruder on their property. The porch is off-limits, he said, as well as the yard and any outbuildings.

Well, let's see... Mr. Nickles says you can't have your gun loaded "in anticipation" of a problem. That would seem to rule out a loaded gun on the nightstand or in a secure lockbox (that thousands of people use). Thus, we are back to the situation where one must first see or hear something before loading the gun. By which time it may well be too late.

Seems like a denial of self-defense rights to me. Especially when you consider that D.C. is seeking to limit residents to only revolvers and derringers and that most citizens aren't going to be able to legally practice with speedloaders.

And what does Nickles mean by "search for an intruder on their property?" Does that mean I must remain in whichever room I've loaded the gun? What about my children? Or what about my 85 year old mother watching TV downstairs? Or does Nickles simply mean that going outside with the gun is prohibited? Can I shoot the man on my front lawn about to throw a molotov cocktail at my front door?

To qualify to register a gun in D.C., besides the usual lack of felony convictions (and D.C. adds indictments) you must not suffer from a physical defect which would make it unsafe for you to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly. Such as? About the only think I might think of here is someone who has no fingers or who is blind. Does arthritis count? What about someone with Parkinson's?

Also, you must not be found negligent in any firearm mishap causing death or injury to another human being. Amazing what "dangerous" things the D.C. council can fabricate out of nothing. I wonder if they will include such "mishaps" that occurred in a war-zone?

To obtain a handgun in D.C. the new regulations require;

• Proof of residency (D.C. Driver's license)
• Criminal Background Check
• A written examination or test
• Pay a fee ($48)
• Fingerprinting
• Provide two (2) passport sized photographs of yourself.
• A ballistics test of the firearm
• Good vision
• No semiautomatic pistols allowed

The first four requirements are, at this juncture, "reasonable" for those who are control freaks. But I do have issues with their restrictions, as would most of you.

For purchases of a new firearm, the purchaser already undergoes an NICS "prohibited person" background check. And a new handgun will not have had a chance to be used in any crime, so both the background and ballistic checks are a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Fingerprinting is a gray area. I object to it from the standpoint that it is largely unnecessary. It'll cost you $35 to be fingerprinted. It treats those wishing to exercise their constitutional rights as a criminal.

Paying a fee should not be necessary to enjoy one's constitutional rights. Poll taxes are illegal. You cannot tax or require a fee to speak out or go to church. D.C. will charge a $13 fee per firearm to register it. So it will cost you an extra $48 to exercise your right in D.C.

A written test for which there are written study materials might be acceptable. But if California is any example, both the test and study materials will contain propaganda, such as "Unloaded and locked firearms in the home save thousands of lives every year." If a lot of people fail the test, we'll know it's merely a method to deny their rights.

D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the entire process could take "weeks or months." This is despite the fact that the pamphlet issued by her own department say it will take 14 days. Which is it "Chief"? Let us know when you get your lies straight.

"Weeks or months", of course, is unacceptable. A right delayed is a right denied. Especially in the case of a new handgun. In the meantime, the handgun sits where, exactly? At what point does the District become responsible for damage, loss or lack of care? One can imagine it taking 3 months to get through the process, only to find your new, $721 gun covered with rust due to poor air conditioning or neglect by the district.

I wish I could suggest that some D.C. residents "test" the program by purchasing some odd caliber guns. Submitting a .38-40 or .41 Magnum might make testing expensive or difficult for the department. And it might delay their procedure unacceptably. Is anyone moving to D.C. who owns a nice old .455 Webley or perhaps a .41 Long Colt revolver?

Are they really that stupid?

Anti-gun Liberals Defy Law & Logic

Few things get under my skin like government officials who ignore what the law or courts say. To say that I'm mad is an understatement. I'm mad at the District of Columbia (D.C.) and the City of Chicago for similar, albeit slightly different reasons.

Washington D.C.

Kathy Lanier is the chief of the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Following the Supreme Court's overturning of the District's handgun ban, the Chief's office reportedly sent out a memo to District residents. In that memo, the Chief stated;

...automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.

What are they smoking in D.C.? I've read the Supreme Court decision several times and the D.C. statutes that were struck down. The high court never refered to anything but "hand-guns" and, while they did not address every D.C. statute on the subject, the court clearly indicated handguns could not be banned. This would include the subset known as semi-automatic handguns. Once again it appears that if you give an anti-gun Democrat an inch, they'll take a mile. In this case, the District is clearly ignoring a major component of the decision by claiming only revolvers can be registered.

I'm hoping that the District is brought before the D.C. Court of Appeals almost immediately to explain why they think they can ignore a Supreme Court ruling. I also hope that "contempt of court," when it is the highest court in the land, is the same as violating one's oath of office.

If Lanier sent the memo without approval of the District's council, she should be fired and forever barred from ever enforcing any law whatsoever. If she has no respect for the high court, she can't enforce our laws. Likewise those involved in approving the memo should also be fired and banned from holding similar offices.

Supreme Court Victory!

WE WON BIG!

A review of the Supreme Court Decision

Now that we've had time to digest more detail from the Heller Supreme Court case we can say it was a much bigger win than we originally thought.

First, what you've heard and read in the media is mostly crap. The media's spin on it has, to date, indicated the court ignored "long standing" precedent or made a "radical departure" from previous courts. Some media outlets were claiming this decision was "Judicial activism at its worst." None of this is true or correct.

Perhaps worst of all, is the concerted effort to convince Americans with a "not much has changed" attitude. For certain, the media has been hyping the fact that "we can still regulate guns" or the Supreme Court "says the type of common-sense gun laws we've had are constitutional." That's so much bovine scatology.

Let's start with what the court did decide. You'll see that there are some interesting wins for patriots and gun owners. Here are the highlights;

• Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.
• The 2nd is an "enumerated constitutional right" and should be receive the same scrutiny used for other enumerated rights.
• The right is not connected with militia membership.
• Expansive view of "arms".
• An implied right to carry openly.
• Incorporation is much more likely than not.
• Possession of "arms" which are "in common use" (M-16's not considered in common use – yet.
• The court admits it did not attempt to clarify the entire scope of the rights guaranteed.

In the majority decision by Justice Scalia, he does an artful job of defining the meaning of every part of the 2nd Amendment. What are arms? Who is the militia? What does "to keep and bear" mean? He also dives into the history of the right, extending from England into the colonies and into a new American nation. He builds one argument upon another to show the right was understood to belong to the individual, whether or not he was a member of the militia.

The right is well defined as an individual right which means it belongs to every man, woman and child.

Secondly, the court recognized the Second Amendment as one of the enumerated constitutional rights in the Bill of Rights. The court said the D.C. ban would fail "under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights…." From this, we learn the court can use the same tough standards on gun laws as it does with laws restricting freedom of speech or the right to privacy.

This is a major part of the big win. If the court holds government restrictions up to "strict scrutiny," very many gun laws will likely be overturned. Even a lesser standard called intermediate scrutiny may well overturn a large number of gun laws, especially those designed to make purchase or ownership burdensome for the citizen.

Addressing those who claim the "arms" protected would only be muskets or flintlocks, Scalia shreds that notion with comparisons to the 1st and 4th Amendments then says the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Before you whip out that order form for an M-60 machine gun, let's go a bit further. The court accepted the definition of "militia arms" from the 1939 Miller case, to wit "arms which are in common use at the time". Right now, the court is willing to say that arms in common use are most handguns, shotguns, bolt, pump, lever and semi-automatic rifles of the type you could purchase in a large gunshop. The court also says that weapons which are "unusual and dangerous" are not protected.

At this moment, the court will need more convincing that an M-16 or M-60 is "in common use" (or could be if it weren't for legal restrictions now in play). Further, they would want to see that it was relevant to both a militia purpose as well as some civilian purpose (which could give rise to a new form of competition - machinegun matches!). Likewise, the court would need serious convincing that sawed off shotguns or weapons firing explosive projectiles were somehow necessary.

All of us would be celebrating much harder, except for one small fly in the ointment. This fly is named "incorporation". Right now, the 2nd Amendment only limits Congress, not the states. Right now, Illinois could pass a complete prohibition on all handguns and do it "constitutionally" because the 2nd Amendment does not (yet) apply to that state.

Confused? Don't worry. This decision comes from an 1875 Supreme Court case called United States v. Cruikshank (92 U. S. 542). The case involved racism, murder and other crimes. In overturning the indictments of the whites charged with killing blacks, the court held, among other things, that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States and specifically the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government.

It would take the passage of the 14th Amendment to correct this situation and apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Over the years, the court has embraced "selective incorporation". Rather than settle the matter all at once, the court has "incorporated" only those rights which have been challenged, such as the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments. The 2nd Amendment has never been said to apply to the states.

For this to happen, a state or local law has to be challenged as violating the 2nd Amendment. The court can then decide if the 2nd Amendment is of such fundamental importance to the rights of individuals that it deserves protection from State laws. The challenge for this is already underway with the lawsuit against Chicago's gun ban, by the NRA, Illinois Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

This decision has opened the door to establishing the full scope of our rights under the Second Amendment. We will see quite a few lawsuits challenging gun laws in the next few years. Laws that don't put people at risk of serious jail time will be challenged first, such as one-gun-a-month laws. Those with large fines or jail time usually require someone to be charged with the crime first. Few "law abiding" gun owners want to be the test-case and for good reason. Who wants to be in jail while their appeal slowly grinds along?

Chicago - City of Corruption

Chicago Alderman Skirts Gun Law

That the city of Chicago is corrupt should come as no surprise to anyone living near that metropolis. I first became aware of politics around the age of six, listening to my parents discussing the reports of voting "irregularities" in the 1960 Presidential election. Some seventeen years later, I would make friends with a former Chicago resident who casually informed me that his parents had paid a judge to get felony charges against his brother dismissed. "It was cheaper than paying a lawyer to do it." He said. "That's how things work in Chicago." His father was in the construction business and was "connected", as he put it, inside city hall.

So it comes as no surprise to see more corruption coming out of Chicago. This time, Alderman Richard Mell is showing how Democrats run the city. Apparently there are two classes of people in Chicago - the privileged elite, like Alderman Richard Mell and everyone else.

Here are the facts, as reported in a Chicago Sun-Times article. Chicago has mandatory annual firearms registration. If you forget to register your guns in any one year, they become unregisterable.

"You have to re-new your registration certificate annually 60 days prior to the current registration [deadline]. If you don't do that, the firearm is unregisterable," said Law Department spokesperson Jennifer Hoyle.

Mell said he first realized he was in violation of the re-registration requirement about a year ago. He claims he previously gave this task to "an aide" who, he said, apparently dropped the ball. When he tried to re-register his guns belatedly, the Chicago Police Department's Gun Registration Section refused to bend the rules. Mell appealed that ruling to the city's Department of Administrative Hearings but decided to re-write the law instead."When we looked at the law, we saw the possibility of winning [the appeal] wasn't gonna happen," he said.

Unlike other Chicago gun owners who have been prosecuted for failing to register their guns, had guns confiscated or have had to move their guns out of Chicago, Mell wants to write an exemption for himself by opening the gun registry for just one month.

And he has the backing of Mayor Richard Daley too.

Even FOP President Mark Donahue has questioned the proposed change as a "double standard".

"We have retired police officers who have a right to carry concealed weapons across the country, and they're being barred from registering their weapons in Chicago. We've taken one of these cases to Circuit Court. Dick Mell has taken his case to the City Council," the union president said.

"Whether he knows it or not, the mayor, by this agreement [to endorse a temporary gun amnesty] is establishing a double standard. One for members of the City Council, the other for everybody else."

So if you want to see a picture of Alderman Mell, just look in your dictionary next to the word hypocrite.

Smith & Wesson Model 10

a.k.a. Military & Police Revolver

I recently picked up a like-new Smith & Wesson Military & Police revolver, more commonly called the Model 10. For those of you born after police switched to semi-auto pistols, this was the most popular police revolver of all time. Not because of it's "stopping power" and not because of fancy "tactical" features. Because it was simply the basic .38 Special revolver. And, of course, it was cheap.

The M&P started life in 1899 with the idea of a swing-out cylinder for faster loading and reloading. This was a big advance over single-action revolvers with their loading gate. It was also a stronger frame & action than the break-top revolvers like the Schofield and smaller .32 caliber pistols.

Between 1899 and about 1942 the M&P went through some relatively minor changes to improve the model. During WW-II, an internal safety lever was added to prevent an unintentional discharge if it was dropped. It was just this sort of accident aboard a U.S. Navy ship that spurred the new feature. And that feature still exists in S&W revolvers today.

In the post-war years, many police departments issued the M&P as the basic weapon for police officers. S&W wasn't the only brand in police holsters to be sure. Colt also marketed several models to police departments, touting Colt's superior accuracy or the heavier duty frame of the Official Police. The marketing battles between the two companies rivals that of Coke vs. Pepsi or Ford vs. GM. And it was not unusual for some aspiring police officers to avoid applying at agencies using the "wrong" brand.

The M&P has, historically, been the most popular, best selling revolver in the S&W line-up. In addition to police guns, many of the 1 million "Victory Model" guns - essentially an M&P with a parkerized finish and a lanyard ring - were purchased after the end of the war. Many of these were bought for simple protection and many others were the basis of some "project" the owner had in mind. Between 1946 and today, when the average citizen walked into a gun shop looking for a handgun to protect his family, most likely it was the "plain Jane" M&P that went home with him. It's simple, well balanced and fires a cartridge that is "good enough" to do the job. But most of all, it didn't break the household budget.

The M&P revolver has served both police and the military for over 100 years. The term tactical cannot be applied to the M&P. There is no-thing "tactical" about it. As you can see in these photos, this is about as simple as it gets. Perhaps the right term for it is high speed, low drag simply because there is nothing to get in the way of the simple process of shooting the gun.

The photos presented here are of the M&P I purchased recently. It was made in 1969-70 by the serial number and it is in like-new condition. The blued finish is still glossy and deep, just the way it came from the factory. The primary reason I purchased this one is that it sports a 5-inch barrel instead of the more popular 4-inch or 6-inch tube. The first gun I ever learned to shoot was an old WW-II Victory Model with a 5-inch barrel. My father purchased it in 1948 by mail-order for a grand total of $28.75. It had been reblued but still carried the lanyard ring and US Property markings. This one is about 20 years younger, but it still feels the same.

If you are new to handguns and looking for something to protect your home or business, don't overlook the Model 10 M&P revolver. It's not fancy. It's not "tactical". It's not a magnum powerhouse. But it does have a proven track record. When something works for over 100 years it is worth serious consideration. Used specimens can usually be found in your local gun shop for a much more modest sum than you'd pay for that 9mm tactical tupperware pistol or even a brand new Model 10. Depending on condition and what part of the country you are in, you can find a Model 10 for $195 and up. Even a pristine gun like the one I found doesn't sell for more than $350 here in expensive California.

With its virtues and simple elegance, everybody should own a Model 10 M&P.

Philly Mayor Nutter - Appropriately Named

Philadelphia Mayor Michael A. Nutter claims the N.R.A. owes an apology to the family of a Philly police officer slain with a Chinese made semi-automatic rifle. You can read the news article in the Daily News here.


"I think it's insane," Nutter said. "The fact that we put forward a piece of legislation to prevent the sale and use and transfer of assault weapons and have a Philadelphia police officer assaulted on the streets with one, I think makes it pretty clear to anyone who is confused about this issue that there's no reason for any citizen, any person other than in law enforcement or in the military to have such a weapon."


While Nutter wants to ban certain rifles on Philly streets - and no doubt enforce it vigorously to show us he's a "law and order" mayor, when it comes to obeying laws of government, Nutter ignores those that get in his way.


Nutter signed five local anti-gun bills in Philidelphia, including one to outlaw possession and sale of certain semi-automatic rifles (those scary and evil-looking military-style rifles of course). The problem, however, is that his newly signed laws are, themselves illegal. The State, not the city, has jurisdiction over gun laws in Pennsylvania. Nutter should be lobbying Harrisburg to pass any new gun legislation, not issuing dictatorial fiats.


And because the NRA has obtained a temporary restraining order on the grounds that the State, not the city, has jurisdiction over firearms laws, he's blaming the NRA as being partly to blame.


He added: "There's no legitimate argument by the NRA, they need to get in the real world where the rest of us live and come to grips with these kinds of issues. They owe an apology to the family for their staunch opposition over many, many years blocking legislative support for these kinds of matters."


So, Nutter is blaming the N.R.A. for his failure to follow the law and get legislation enacted for his city. It's so very typical of political leaders to push the blame to someone else rather than face up to their own failed policies.


At least one former Philadelphia police officer sees the reality. In an opinion piece Michael P. Tremoglie nails it right from the get-go with the title - Who Freed the Cop Killers? Tremoglie hits it squarely on the head. Each of the three cop killers were repeat offenders and each of them should have been serving out their time in prison. Instead, they were released on parole early, despite records of parole violations in the past.


And now, Nutter has joined with Governor Rendell to issue a joint statement to ask Congress to ban assault weapons again. Of course, he says it's the NRA's fault for opposing useless, ineffective laws that don't stop criminals. In the statement, Nutter claims "The mission of the NRA seems to be to frustrate efforts by legislatures around the United States as they attempt to pass reasonable gun control measures designed to make our streets safer."


Message to Mayor Nutter: It's not the guns, it's the criminals who cause crime.

Farewell Charlton Heston

Like most Americans I watched Charlton Heston on the big screen and recognized in him not only the power of his screen presence, but his dignity and honesty. That he was a champion for civil rights, standing with black leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King, well before it was popular with most Americans says volumes about his personal integrity. On the screen, Mr. Heston's performances often left us breathless with his powerful portrayals and deep, resonating voice. Off screen, he was something of a private man, always reading something either historical or informative. He lent his support to civil rights as well as saying that gays and lesbians had rights (but not more rights) too. Quite radical stuff for the times. As President of the National Rifle Association Mr. Heston's dignified persona and his firm belief in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms helped the NRA's public image at a time when it was being battered by the left. Of course, his famous speech at the 2000 NRA Annual Convention was seized upon by the anti-gun lobby. In this speech, Heston, in response to those who sought to ban gun, raised a musket over his head and said, I have five words for you, from my cold, dead hands! This twist on an old NRA bumper-sticker (you can take my guns from my cold, dead hands) resulted in a standing ovation from the NRA membership. Sadly, it is this one line that the left and anti-gun lobby focuses on to describe him. Charlton Heston was much more than that. He was a complex man, a thinker, a principled and disciplined man, and dignified. Heston, I think, would have been comfortable with men like Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Madison. And that, my friends, is why we should celebrate his life and mourn his passing. As for me, I have another Smith & Wesson on the way to my collection, a simple Model 10, which Mr. Heston has helped guarantee I can still own. Thanks, Chuck. We'll miss you.

Heller v. D.C.

The Supreme court has heard the Heller case oral arguments and now we are waiting for the justices to render a decision. The latest issue of Pistols and Revolvers has a more in-depth discussion of the oral arguments. In summary, it looks as though a majority of the court believes the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and not some quasi-state militia power masquerading as a right. The real issues are the way the court evaluates gun-laws and how narrowly or broadly they interpret the right to keep and bear arms.

Beginner's Corner

For many shooters, tight groups and accuracy is the ultimate skill. Other shooters only care about being "good enough" to defend themselves. This month's Beginner's Corner discusses the use of the sights during a self-defense encounter. See what is important about using your sights when it comes time to defend yourself.

Next Month

I don't need to tell you that the price of ammunition has skyrocketed. It's getting absurd when even the cheap stuff approaches 30 cents per bang. So we're working on an article to help you cope with rising ammo prices. It should be in shape for next month's P&R. In the meantime, if you've found ways to cut your ammo budget without sacrificing quality, drop us a line at editor@handgunclub.com. We'd love to hear your tips and suggestions.

Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment Case

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on a purely Second Amendment-based case, D.C. v Heller. This is the much anticipated case to determine if the Second Amendment guarantees and individual right or some sort of quasi-right of a State.

The case involves Washington D.C.'s 1976 gun-ban that prohibits registering new handguns after 1976 and requires any firearms stored in the home to be unloaded and locked up or partially disassembled. The plaintiffs challenged the law as a violation of Second Amendment rights and the District's Federal Court of Appeals agreed. This sets up a difference of legal opinion. Both the 5th Circuit court and the D.C. Court have taken the stance that the Second Amendment guarantees and individual right. This is opposition to the other Federal courts who adhere to the "collective" rights theory (that the right is a State's right to have a militia). Now it's up to SCOTUS to settle the issue.

As previously reported, the D.C. administration's stance is an arrogant one of "whatever the amendment guarantees, it doesn't apply to us, so we can make any laws we want." And their arguments amount to one of social expediency - crime is way to high but if we ban handguns it will bring social order. One can easily see the "slippery slope" to this argument. If social utility is the measure, then why not fight the war on drugs by eliminating the 4th Amendment's protections against random searches of people and their homes?

The Supreme Court, apparently not satisfied with the phrasing of the issue to be resolved, re-wrote the question (as it sometimes does to broaden or narrow the issues to be argued) with specific wording. The question to be argued before the bench is now worded as follows.

Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

This question will require the justices to decide whether a person must belong to some form of "state-regulated militia" to be protected by the amendment. This gets right to the heart of the question of militia-membership, as argued by anti-gun groups.

Political pundits have long learned to avoid predicting with the Supreme Court will decide. But I do think there is a good possibility that the justices will lean towards a plain-reading of the amendment and its guarantees.

I say this because in the last two decades a number of scholars have researched the history of the Second Amendment, both legal and political, and created a large body of support for the individual rights model. And these have survived the filter of peer-review by other scholars and academic reviewers. This is in direct contrast to some works by anti-gun "researchers" who refuse to disclose their sources or, as in one case, so fraudulently distort history that he was forced to resign from a prominent university.

A number of scholars and academics who previously supported the collective-rights theory have "switched" to support the individual rights model. More telling, however, is none of the scholars has switched from an individual rights view to the collective view. Even Harvard's Lawrence Tribe, often considered an authority on the constitution by SCOTUS, has embraced the individual rights model, although he still retains his belief that gun ownership can be tightly regulated.

What will it mean if the Supreme Court throws out the Washington D.C. laws as violating the Second Amendment? It will depend on the wording of the court's ruling, of course. But unless the court completely rejects the individual rights model, every future challenge to a gun-control law will be on firmer legal footing and judges will not be able to ignore the Second Amendment.


Recommended reading:
To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right
Dr. Joyce Lee Malcolm; ISBN-13: 978-0674893061

Random Bits

D.C. vs. Parker Supreme Court Appeal

Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die. -- District of Columbia Attorney General Linda Singer commenting on the Appeal of the D.C. v Parker decision.

We gather the District of Columbia's legal staff isn't quite sure what rights the 2nd Amendment guarantees, but whatever it is, it doesn't apply to them!

---

Opinion Polls shows support for gun rights

This is bad news for the likes of the Brady Campaign, Jesse Jackson, NYC Mayor Bloomberg and others.

Zogby International early this month found in a poll of 1,020 Americans that 66 percent of the American voting public sees no need for new gun control laws.

A recent Internet survey by the Washington Post's freely distributed Express revealed that 85 percent of 1,658 poll respondents favored allowing college students who have permits to carry guns on campus.

---

California Senator would disarm disaster victims

In discussions of civil unrest, such as that following hurricane Katrina, California State Senator Jack Scott (D-Pasadena) said he would be pleased if the governor would order confiscation of firearms in the home. California NRA members posted a short video on YouTube slamming Scott.


While California doesn't have hurricanes, it does have earthquakes and it doesn't take too much imagination to envision how ugly things could get if most of the 6.8 million residents around San Francisco Bay were suddenly thrust into chaos. I would think his response would be no different if the emergency had a societal cause -- like the Rodney King riots - that spread beyond a limited area.


In either case, police resources would be stretched very thin, even with whatever National Guard units that could be deployed. Neighbors who could band together to protect their own neighborhoods would be intentionally stripped of their ability to defend against looters or malcontents by an illegal decree.


That Senator Scott would ask the Governor to divert scarce, overworked police resources from stopping crime to confiscate lawfully owned firearms just shows he is from another planet. Voice your opinion to Senator Scott at http://dist21.casen.govoffice.com/

---

Katrina Kountdown

It has been two years since New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and his police illegally confiscated legally owned firearms from N.O. citizens. Despite the efforts of lawyers, the city has refused to return the guns to their owners and continues to stonewall efforts to do so. The real question is when will either the Federal judge or the Second Amendment lawyers grow a pair and demand the arrest and prosecution of Nagin and his bureaucrats for willful civil rights violations (2nd, 4th and 5th amendment rights).

Nagin made his effrontery worse by showing up for the "civil rights march" for in Jena Louisiana. Apparently, the only civil rights Nagin is concerned with are those that will give him favorable press coverage.

---

Woes for Gun Control

We note the resignation of vehemently anti-gun Broward County (FL) sheriff Ken Jenne amidst a corruption investigation involving federal tax evasion and mail fraud charges. Looks like the Brady Campaign lost yet another spokesperson for their cause.

And then there is this about CeaseFire

The Illinois Auditor General released a 28-page audit of the CeaseFire violence prevention group detailing misappropriation of funds, receiving money outside of the parameters of payment agreements and having work started by its partners without written agreements. See the article here.

---

Oregon Teacher Challenges Campus Gun Prohibition

An Oregon teacher is challenging the anti-gun policy of her school board. The teacher has a valid carry permit as well as a restraining order against her ex-husband. She fears for her and her daughter's safety, as many women in similar circumstances might. Oregon law prohibits local governments, that would include school boards, from restricting possession of firearms by concealed firearm permit holders. Despite this, however, the so-called "educators" in the school board claim they can ignore the statute because... well, because they can.

"It's our responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for our students and a safe working environment for our employees," schools attorney Tim Gerking said in an interview late last week. "We feel that would not be fostered by allowing folks, whether they have the authority or not, to bring weapons onto campus, in particular firearms — loaded firearms."

If what Mr. Gerking says is true, then shouldn't he insist on disarming police officers, when they enter the campus too? Even though they have "authority" it would be logical that cops leave their guns at the station rather than bring them onto campus. Or are the police exempt because they are somehow imbued with magic powers?

---

Engraved Firearms

Over the years I have seen firearms engraved in dozens of different ways and styles. Some don't appeal to me based on the style or the execution, but some just take my breath away. While the expense of most engraved guns means many folks don't shoot them very often, a couple of engravers I have spoken with say they always appreciate seeing one being fired or carried. It means the craftsmanship is being seen by others and the gun isn't just a piece of rarely seen artwork. One engraver who offers his services is just finishing work on a S&W Model 27 revolver and the work is breathtakingly handsome.

The work shown here is by Wayne D'Angelo who used to engrave guns for Smith & Wesson as well as Colt. This is the appearance before sending the gun out for rebluing.

This is classic "bank note" style engraving that really enhances the look of any handgun. This full-coverage job turns a run of the mill 3 1/2" barreled Model 27 into something unique and eye catching.

Want to surprise a loved one with a new gun but you want it to be extra special? Consider engraving. You don't need use full-coverage to set it apart from the mass-produced guns out there. Simply engraving your loved one's name along with some embellishment that represents them, their favorite sport, a university logo, their military service unit or something similar will make for a treasured gift. If you are interested in engraving services you can see more at Wayne D'Angelo's website http://dangeloengraving.com/.

No, Wayne hasn't paid us for this plug nor do we have any arrangement with him. An artist's work speaks for itself and Wayne's work speaks volumes.

Gun Control Is A Failure

Living in California as I do, you might presume that I get a number of opportunities every month to discuss gun control. You'd be right. But I'm no longer arguing that we have rights guaranteed under the Constitution or that some new law is not needed.

I'm now arguing that gun control is a complete failure.

Why am I doing this? Because it's true. All one has to do is compare the number and types of crimes since 1968, when the Gun Control Act originated, to those prior to 1968. Not only that, with each new law, politicians have promised us that the new law would "reduce crimes with guns" and would make life safer for all of us. But, like campaign promises, it hasn't happened.

Since passing the sweeping 1968 Gun Control act, under public pressure after the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, Congress has layered ever-increasing restrictions on the manufacture, distribution, sale, ownership and use of firearms.

Among the laws peddled by the anti-rights Gun-Control Lobby have been age limitations, ammo restrictions, waiting periods, zoning restrictions, special security requirements, the banning of the mythical "assault weapon", limits on magazine capacities, limits on exercising your rights to once-a-month, gun-free zones, gun licensing, owner licensing, gun registration, outright bans and others.

None of these restrictive laws, individually or collectively, have shown any significant impact on crimes committed against people or even crimes committed with guns. A government report showed that the so-called "Brady Bill", touted as a "significant step" in reducing gun crimes, had no measurable effect on crime. We have also seen how so called gun free zones have turned school campuses into defenseless victim killing zones.

"Yes, but..." begin the anti-rights crowd when they go on the defensive. They will tell you that existing laws didn't go far enough or that the laws were compromised in legislative sessions. They'll tell you that if only they could enact comprehensive control (read as piles of red tape) the numbers would show they are right. Really?

Great Britain has, since 1997, had a defacto ban on almost all firearms, especially handguns. Yet, as the 20th Century closed, the UK began arming it's famous "Bobbies" with guns for the first time in over 100 years. One story in the British media described the "gun problem" by saying that in the last ten years there have been more reported gun crimes than in the thirty years before the ban. So much for a utopian gun control example.

Only one set of laws shows any appreciable statistical impact on personal crimes. Not too surprisingly, these laws are not restrictive, but liberally permissive in the classical sense. These laws allow citizens with clean records to legally carry concealed firearms after taking the state mandated training. While restrictive laws do little or nothing to impact crimes against people, these "shall-issue" concealed carry laws can be shown reduce crimes against people. Why? Because criminals are no longer sure their victims are defenseless. A victim who fights back is fighting for their life, which the criminal threatens in robbery, rape and other crimes. And they fight to win. Because of this, it is the criminal who is at a disadvantage, not the citizenry.

So, what should we be asking our legislators to do? We should be tell them to focus on controlling criminal behavior instead of trying to control access to inanimate objects. We should also make it clear that criminals can not profit from their illegal actions should they be injured during a crime. If they step "outside the law" by instigating the crime, they waive their rights to civil suits against their victims. To further discourage repeat offenders we should implement three-strikes laws for felony convictions to keep the serious criminals off the street. Three-strikes laws have been remarkably effective in reducing crime because repeat offenders are most likely to commit multiple crimes before being caught.

The Gun-Control Lobby continues to push against a door marked "pull", never quite realizing that, even after 40 years, pushing just isn't going to open the door. At least, not until they realize they have been pushing in the wrong direction.

Happy Birthday to Me!

For decades I have been a fan of the .41 Magnum cartridge. It started in the mid 1970's when I purchased a Model 58 plus a duty holster and a box and a half of ammo from a coworker who had just transitioned to a Colt Commander. For those not familiar with the Model 58, think of a heavy-barreled S&W Model 10 Military & Police on steroids.

The photo at left is from an on-line forum and depicts an early Model 58 in fabulous condition.

That Model 58 stayed with me for almost 30 years until a burglary in 2004 and it was one of 4 guns I really wanted to get back. So far, no luck there.

In January of this year, I found a Model 58 with goodyear grips and wearing a nickle finish in a bay area gun shop. Since these are scarce as turkey lips, bought it. Just handling it brought back fond memories and shooting it showed that it was just what I had come to love about the gun. With the "Police" loading - a 210 grain bullet at just under 1,000 fps - it delivers over 450 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. That's between 20% to 30% more power than .45 ACP or .38 +P. The only problem was that it had a nickle finish. Beautiful as it is, I'm not a big fan of nickle guns. The constant worry that the finish can be chipped, the shiny finish can reflect light at a critical moment, either into your eyes or enough that your opponent can locate you in the dark and cleaning them requires a little more care to avoid scratches.

Then, last week a friend of mine emailed me to inquire about a blued Model 58 he'd seen in a local gun shop. It was an older gun with an "S" serial number prefix and he said it had a mild case of rust-freckling on the backstrap and part of the frame. So I drove 80 miles to look it over. With gas prices here hovering around $3.30 a gallon, a Model 58 is one of the few guns I'd drive my green gas-hog pick-up truck to see.

In the ambient lighting of a gunshop it didn't look too bad. But I pulled out my Surefire 6P flashlight and the Xenon lamp revealed the true extent of the corrosion. Sadly, the gun didn't only have rust-freckling but some larger areas of corrosion under the triggerguard. It appeared that it sat in a drawer at one time, probably near a bathroom where moisture from the shower could reach it. But none of the rust appeared to have pitted the gun...yet. Reluctantly I paid a princely sum for a gun in this condition, but with nearly new specimens hitting the $800 range (or more!) I thought this might be a decent shooter. If necessary, I could always clean it up and send it to either S&W or Ford's custom gun refinishing for a professional job. And I justified all of this by reminding myself that my birthday was coming up in four days.

Not that I'll be able to have it on my birthday, however. California has a ten day waiting period. Thus, I'll pick up this S&W hand-cannon the day before Independence Day. But those ten days are agonizingly slow, especially since I feel like a kid with ten days until Christmas. I can only imagine how it feels to someone who is waiting those ten days because they need a gun now. I wrote previously about Global Warming and I can make a lot of comments about the stupidity of attempting to "fix" it. But it seems to me that California should repeal this 10-day waiting period and use NICS because of Global Warming. Why? It would elminate a second trip to the gun shop - especially ones far away - and lower pollution while saving oil! If most states can rely on NICS, why can't California? (Yes, we all know it is really to inconvenience gun owners and has little to do with "safety".)

Once I get this previously owned and slightly neglected Model 58 out to the range, I'll update here with a range report. For those of you who are fans of the .41 Magnum and the Model 58 in particular, read Payton Miller's article in the June issue of Guns & Ammo on this gun.

Global Cooling?

"Climate is what we expect. Weather is what we get."
--Proverb

Everyone seems to want to do something about Global Warming. I have noticed a trend in the media to press very hard to remind us that we have to do something and we have to do it now. In the meantime, quietly, in less well-known publications, the so-called "settled science" is springing leaks left and right. I read this National Post article out of Canada that claims we are in for a period of global cooling, not warming. Curious, I found that there is plenty of information on how sunspots affect our climate. What does this have to do with guns? Consider that at least one California city has raised the issue of taxing any products that put carbon into the air. This includes toner cartridges for your laser printers, production of carbon-fiber products and, of course, your charcoal BBQ. Sooner or later, one of these bureaucrats will realize black-powder is charcoal based. Never mind that its use is so small as to be insignificant on a global scale, once the bureaucrats can find a way to tax gun products out of existence, they'll certainly try.

Thrust, Parry, Riposte, Touché!

18 June 2007
Living in California, I get to hear a lot of anti-gun opinions. It usually does no good to try to argue with facts, to point out the history of the RKBA or legal issues. But it sometimes works to make a witty comeback that sticks in their minds.

I found these on the web and just had to share them with our members.

Guns are only made to kill.
Sure makes 'em handy for self-defense, doesn't it?

Even if one child were saved, banning guns would be worth it.
Uh-huh. But wouldn't it also be true that if a gun saved a child's life, having guns would be worth it?

Only the military and police should have guns.
Tell that to someone who survived the "purges" by Stalin or Chairman Mao, or Cambodia's killing fields, or the Holocaust.

Guns cause crime.
The Earth is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, blacks are inferior to whites... oh, we aren't discussing myths and falsehoods?

I don't believe in guns.
Apparently, neither did Nicole Simpson.

Why do you carry a gun?
Because it gets all scratched up if I drag it behind me.

I don't know why you need a gun.
Ever hear of someone being killed in a robbery? Well, there ya go!

Guns should be banned.
We tried banning booze once too, look how well that turned out.

Father's Day 2007

17 June 2007

I hope all of you had a good Father's day. Those of you who are fathers, I hope you were able to spend quality time with your children, letting them know how blessed they make you feel. I also hope those who could, called or visited their fathers and let them know you're thinking of them. Nothing warms a parent's heart like hearing from their kids, unless it's hearing the love in their voices.

I visited my dad on Father's day at his resting place in Golden Gate National Cemetery. Dad left us in October of 1983 and there are few days when I don't miss him. I think back on the things he did for me, from teaching me basic gun safety to help with my geometry homework. He taught me to play golf, to respect your elders, be courteous to ladies, avoid trouble when you could and defend yourself when you must. We weren't a big "outdoors" family, unless you include golf. Many weekends were spent trying to knock a little white ball into a hole with tools ill-suited to the purpose. When I started shooting I learned that shooting is a lot like golf. The only person you really compete against is yourself. More control, don't tense up, focus, concentrate.

My dad was not perfect and I'm well aware of his faults. But he made up for those faults by teaching my older brother and myself things we needed to know. I don't miss the lectures I received for misbehavior, nor his stern look when I tried to wiggle out of yardwork. But I do miss him. A lot.

So I visited my mother after visting dad. Now in her mid-eighties, mom keeps our family - one that now includes two beautiful great-grandchildren - firmly rooted. We talked about dad, some of the personal moments they had, how she worried during his around-the-world flight in the Air Force, and how he, unknown to us, worried about taking care of his family. It's been 24 years since he left us, but he will always be a part of us. If I can leave you with any thoughts at all, it would be don't wait for Father's day to be important in your child's life, do it every day.

Random Thoughts

15 April 2007
Guns purchased for self-defense are like your car insurance. You may be a safe driver, always wear your seat-belt, double-check your blind spot and pay careful attention to your driving, but you still buy auto insurance. You pay large sums of money to protect yourself and your assets just in case something happens, even if it isn't your fault. Likewise, many people spend large sums to purchase a gun for self-defense and then spend almost half the gun's price in ammo to practice with it. The gun, like insurance, is there to protect the owner, their family and their assets, just in case something happens.

----- o -----

Speaking of costs, a neighbor of mine, here in California, wanted to know how to purchase a handgun. It seems a family member is something of a black sheep and will be getting out of prison soon, something he and his wife dread. He wanted to know how much it would cost to buy a decent 9mm pistol and practice enough to be comfortable with it. When I told him to expect to shell out between $900 and $1,200 I thought his eyes would pop out. I explained he should expect to pay about 1/2 to 2/3 of the price of the gun in ammo and range fees to practice, plus the cost of cleaning supplies, and a lockbox (he has two nice kids). When he got through sputtering, I told him the good news - he only has to pay that much once, not annually like his insurance. The on-going costs of ammo, range fees and cleaning supplies amount to less than about $200 a year for non-competitive shooters.

----- o -----

I have to admit to being biased in favor of the older Smith & Wesson revolvers. Not only did my family own a Victory model, but my first duty and carry guns were S&W's. Lately, however, I've been trying to find S&W target grips for a couple of my revolvers and they seem to be scarce in supply and expensive. I see all sorts of after-market standard or "Magna" grips, but few grips patterned after the factory "target" grips. I think someone is overlooking a profitable market here.

----- o -----

In a gunfight, the most important thing to do is to score effective hits. The second most important thing is to make hits. Why is this an important distinction? Because the human body is a remarkable resilient design, able to take some serious damage before it quits. Most of us have been taught to fire center-of-mass (COM) to stop an attacker and targets reflect that concept. We have seen instances where people are hit center-of-mass and still keep going or even survive. A shot to the lungs, which occupy most of the chest, are not immediately incapacitating (Andrew Jackson carried a musket ball in one lung for over 30 years). Even a shot to the heart may not cause rapid incapacitation because the muscle can sometimes close up around a puncture with little leakage.

Look at a diagram of human anatomy and it quickly becomes clear that center-of-mass is a narrow, vertical line between 4 to 6 inches wide, from the head to the pelvis. In this area are the spine, heart, and the major veins and arteries of the body which transport blood to organs and muscles. In self-defense, you want to hit an area about as wide as the subject's neck anywhere in this vertical zone of the body. Preferrably higher, but certainly on this center of mass line

Because the spine and major arteries are closer to the back, when shooting at an angle, you need to imagine your target's position relative to the body. At shot centered on the sternum from a 45-degree angle can miss the critical zone by several inches.

Springfield's EMP-9

9 April 2007
I finally managed to get a look at the new Springfield EMP 9 pistol yesterday and I'm impressed with this small pistol. It's a scaled down version of the 1911, chambered for 9mm with just the right number of "add-on" features. Balance, ergonomics and handling qualities are very good. This thing is about the size of a Kahr K-9 pistol and feels lighter. There are only two shortcomings with this pistol. Because it is a smaller-than-normal 1911, parts won't interchange with standard 1911 parts. I guess this is to be expected due to the size. However, I'd suggest purchasers procure replacement extractors, springs and a firing pin in case the gun is discontinued. Why would it ever be discontinued? That's the second shortcoming - price! My retailer had it listed at $1,105 and said that he had gotten this first one on a discount! Nominal retail price is $1,250. It's a nice gun, but for that price, I can buy a pair of other 9mm pistols.