A Safer DC: ...I bought my first gun in 1974 after my husband was mugged
in broad daylight just blocks from the White House. My husband was
picking up our 6-year-old son from school when a man approached him and
demanded money. When my husband refused, the man picked up a 2-by-4 and
hit him on the back of the head, knocking him to the ground. The event
traumatized all of us and sent me to a local gun shop to purchase a
handgun. I properly registered the .357 Magnum, according to the
District law in effect at the time, learned how to shoot it, and kept it
safely in my home for the next two years...
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jun/29/for-personal-safety/
DC's New Registration Rules:
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/lib/mpdc/info/pdf/registering_firearm_dc.pdf
---
Now That the Shoe's on the Other Foot...: You may differ on the merits
with the supporters of the District of Columbia's gun ban, who were
handed a major defeat by the Supreme Court on Thursday. But progressives
can't deny this: The conservative bloc on the court is a rogue band of
ideological thugs who care less about strict constructionism and all of
the other conservative legal buzzwords they use, but are all about
furthering a conservative political agenda...
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/rogues-robes
---
Would McCain Push Court to the Right?: ...A victory by the presumptive
Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, would probably mean preserving the
uneasy but roughly balanced status quo, since the justices who are
considered most likely to retire are liberal. A win for his Republican
counterpart, John McCain, could mean a fundamental shift to a
consistently conservative majority ready to take on past court rulings
on abortion rights, affirmative action and other issues important to the
right... (Given his history, the gamble that McCain would appoint better
justices than Obama is one of the better arguments to vote for him. My
concerns are [a] that the confirmation process has become so politicized
that no real conservative would b confirmed and [b] that given McCain's
penchant for compromise he would appoint a middle-of-the road candidate
rather than let the Court function indefinitely with a 4-2 split and a
Kennedy swing vote.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/28/AR2008062802078.html
---
Justice Kennedy Is Running the Supreme Court: Conservatives were,
rightly, thrilled by the recent Supreme Court decision that affirmed our
constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Not so fast. Of the four
important decisions the court has rendered in this term, three of them
have gone the wrong way. Let's first take a brief look at each of these
four cases. Then let us examine Justice Anthony Kennedy's thinking in
these cases. Kennedy was either the deciding "swing vote" or the
determining factor in each one. The only case correctly decided was
District of Columbia v. Heller. Justice Scalia wrote the Heller
decision, which holds that an individual right to keep and bear arms is
guaranteed by the Second Amendment. He is one of four conservative
justices on the court. Justice Kennedy joined in this opinion...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/justice_anthony_kennedy_and_ou.html
As Seen by The New York Times: It was not last year's spectacularly
divided Supreme Court. The term that ended Thursday lacked last term's
gory display of 5-to-4 decisions, with only 11 cases out of 67 decided
this time by one-vote margins. Neither was it the Roberts court, at
least not yet. Although Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was in the
majority in 90 percent of the decisions, more than any other member of
the court, the more liberal justices won their share of the high-profile
cases. The rulings granting the Guant�namo detainees access to federal
court and rejecting capital punishment for those who rape children were
issued over the dissent of the chief justice...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/washington/29scotus.html?ref=washington&pagewanted=all
As Seen by Ted Nugent: It is glaringly obvious that a critical lesson in
history 101 is due in America, for it appears that not only does a
lunatic fringe of anti-freedom Americans dismiss our founding fathers'
clear declaration of independence and succinct enumeration of our
God-given individual rights, but some Americans have the arrogance and
audacity to question whether the right to self-defense is indeed one of
these individual rights. Dear God in heaven, who could be this soulless?
How about 4 out of the 9 so called "Supreme" justices of the land. God
help us all... (Nugent fans may have missed a link to his commentary at
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27217, shared in Friday's
mailing.)
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/06/27/ted-nugent-takes-aim-at-supreme-court-obama-in-gun-crazy-rant/
---
Heller ad nauseum: Several commentaries on the Heller decision can be
found on Eugene Volokh's website. Volokh, being a law professor, tends
to attract contributions from legal academicians.
http://volokh.com/
---
How "Gun Control" Lost: ... In the 1980s and 1990s, as violence raged at
epidemic levels, the preferred remedy of policymakers was to restrict
the manufacture, sale and ownership of firearms. Washington, D.C. had
banned handguns in 1976, and in 1982, Chicago did likewise, prompting
several of its suburbs to follow suit. New York required anyone who
wanted a handgun to acquire a special permit, which was expensive and
hard to get. Meanwhile, the federal government and several states
outlawed "assault weapons" - semiautomatic guns with a military
appearance. It looked as though ever-stricter gun control was the wave
of the future. But the future had different ideas. What happened? Three
main things...
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/SteveChapman/2008/06/29/how_gun_control_lost?page=full&comments=true
---
Gun Laws Don't Reduce Crime: Lurking behind the Supreme Court's ruling
last week that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear
arms were a series of fascinating, disputed and now in many ways
irrelevant questions. Do gun control laws reduce crime? Do they save
lives? Is it possible they even cost lives? Justice Stephen G. Breyer,
one of the dissenters in the 5-to-4 decision, surveyed a quite
substantial body of empirical research on whether gun control laws do
any good. Then he wrote: "The upshot is a set of studies and
counterstudies that, at most, could leave a judge uncertain about the
proper policy conclusion."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=weekinreview&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
---
Oops, Wrong Motorcycle: Armed robbers tried to take a motorcycle last
night from an off-duty officer in the uniformed division of the Secret
Service, but the officer fired a shot to thwart the attempt, a Secret
Service spokesman said. The officer was unhurt in the confrontation,
which occurred in the Largo area of Prince George's County, but the
vehicle in which the robbers fled was later found bloody and abandoned,
the spokesman said...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/28/AR2008062802428.html
---
Arizona Legislative Summary: ...The big push here was in the area of
guns -- who can carry them and where. But at virtually every turn,
lawmakers found themselves at odds with the governor.
? Napolitano vetoed a bill reducing the penalty on those found carrying
a concealed weapon without a state permit, from the current possible six
months in jail to just a $300 fine.
? She vetoed a bill providing for lifetime concealed-weapons permits.
? She blocked a bill allowing someone who feels threatened to unholster
a weapon without fear of arrest.
Legislators themselves rejected two other measures, one to allow guns on
school campuses and the other to let bar owners permit patrons to bring
in their firearms.
The fate of one other measure remains unresolved: allowing individuals
to have a gun anywhere in a vehicle, even hidden, whether or not they
have concealed-weapons permits. That measure, approved on the last day
of the session, is on the governor's desk...
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/246059
---
Phoenix Gun Buyback Nets 100 Guns: ...Cameron Jones, of Mesa, waited
patiently to sell his gun. The 34-year-old National Rifle Association
member owns about 20 other guns and said he wanted to get rid of one
because he didn't use it anymore... (So, this gun owner drives from Mesa
to Phoenix to swap his gun for a $100 gift card. Sounds as though it was
what is affectionately known as a "POS" and was likely worth much less
than $100. Perhaps there is a lesson here for those whose collections
may include Jennings, Bryco and similar pistols and who don't need them
as "exemplar" guns, for teaching or courtroom use.)
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0629buyback.html
---
What's Wrong with This Picture?: ...When most people hear
"semi-automatic weapon" they picture a machine gun pouring out hundreds
of rounds per minute, killing untold thousands of children, elderly, and
puppies. But the phrase "semi-automatic" simply means "one round fired
for every one trigger pull". Here is your quiz. Of the guns pictured
below can you name the ones that are semi-automatics, those that have
one round fired for every one trigger pull, those that Obama says should
be banned?
http://www.commonfolkusingcommonsense.com/2008/06/28/gun-owners-against-obama/#comment-29432
---
Tangentially Related: The Olympics may not be the bastion of pure
sporting contest that people might think. Although the pistol used to
start sprint events in the Games might make good theatre, it may mean
that sprinters in lane 1, nearest the gun, get away from the blocks
faster...He measured the runners' reaction time, and the time it took
them to reach the maximum force they applied as they pushed off, and
also the strength of that force, called peak force. In all cases,
average reaction times were faster for louder bangs. The peak force
wasn't affected by the gun, but in untrained athletes, the time it took
them to reach peak force was shortened if they heard a loud bang. This
was the only difference between the trained and untrained groups, says
Collins...
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080626/full/news.2008.917.html
---
From John Farnam:
24 June 08
Police UD in SD:
This is from a local newspaper in SD, describing a recent police standoff:
"... a firearm carried by a special-response team-member accidentally
discharged... the discharge did not pose a threat to anyone, because of
the 'manner in which it was being handled at the time,' reported a
department spokesman. He added, 'When you work with loaded guns,
unfortunate events like that happen.'"
Comment: Translated into plain English: "I guess that is just the best
we can expect!"
Amazing the way this civilization rewards mediocrity!
/John
(I'm not so sure if it's a matter of rewarding mediocrity as it is of
maintaining a double standard. In Arizona the "negligent discharge" of a
firearm, within or into the limits of an incorporated city or town can
be prosecuted as felony, a charge I would only expect to see leveled
against a private citizen.)
26 June 08
Military Rifle Cartridges, from a friend in the System:
"Let's look at when the 5.56mm (aka 223) was introduced to the US
Military. It's the 1960s, and we have the draft. Recruits are mostly
city/suburban kids who have little experience with guns. You're given
thirteen weeks to train them, and they're whisked off to Vietnam.
Grudgingly conceding that most of these kids won't be able to deliver
effective, aimed rifle fire, given the Army's fear-based, inept training
philosophy, the Pentagon decides to issue them a light rifle, with an
impotent, light-weight, 150m cartridge that doesn't penetrate anything.
Let snipers and M-60s do the real work. M-16s might suffice for keeping
heads down, but little else.
Now, 1973 comes along, and the draft ends. Slowly, but surely, we get a
small, but professional, Army. These guys are sharp to begin with, and
training is much improved. It is still fear-based, but there is much
more actual trigger-work/bullet-launching, and range technology has
undergone a quantum advancement. The result is that today's soldiers
and Marines really can, once again, deliver effective rifle fire. They
are now eminently capable of using military rifles for their intended
purpose: gunning-down individual, enemy soldiers, one at a time!
Currently, among these professional warriors, this 223 round, which is
still impotent, is causing discontent. Imagine that! These eminently
capable Operators are clamoring for a real rifle, and they can no longer
be kept silent. They're demanding an rifle and cartridge that has
substantial range and that actually shoots through things!
Why is the Pentagon stubbornly resisting? The phony cover-story is
'logistics and cost.' Funny, we seem to be able to get new
jet-fighters, new tanks, new armored vehicles, new ships, but new rifles
in a new caliber are just somehow unobtainable?
The real reason is that our current Army, wonderfully capable as it is,
is still only one-fifth the size it needs to be! We barely have enough
people to carry on the current, relatively minor conflicts in the
Mideast. In the coming world-conflagration, the draft will have to be
re-introduced, much to the chagrin of the Pentagon, and we'll be back
where we started. The current Army will represent merely the core of a
much larger Army
They're content to leave things as they are, because they lack faith in
their own ability to adequately train a new flood of draftees with real
rifles that have genuine, battle-winning capability.
No faith. No Audacity. No boldness. That is the real problem!"
Comment: ... and always has been!
/John
(Without debating the relative merits of the .223 cartridge in a
military environment, let me repeat that for several decades it has had
a distinct role in urban law enforcement and home defense, environments
where limited penetration has been regarded as desirable. The growing
prospects of dealing with terrorists on American soil may be shifting
that equation. For those who are not able to keep two rifles accessible,
in different calibers, an option may be two different rounds for the
same gun. Years ago I opted to keep an M1 Carbine, in a locked case, in
my truck, partly because I could afford its loss more easily than that
of an AR-15. When Cor-Bon came out with their DPX load for the M1
Carbine I decided to split my basic load of 120 rounds [eight magazines]
between the deeper-penetrating DPX load and the limited-penetration
Winchester "hollow softpoint." For those who use shotguns, even a
conventional 12-gauge Forster slug usually penetrates most automobile
bodies.)
26 June 08
After dodging this issued for 250 years, the Supremes finally confirmed
today that the Second Amendment does indeed confer an individual right
to all Americans. It is a great victory, and, by virtue of the leftist
media's predictable downplay of it, we can be assured that they even
know what a landmark this decision really is!
Here is a summary from one of our instructors, who is also a judge:
"... they declined to specify a 'standard of review' to be used in
determining what restrictions are ultimately allowed. They simply said
the existing DC law was unacceptable under any standard.
In one footnote, however, Scalia implied that the 'strict scrutiny'
standard will apply, much as it does in cases involving other
specifically enumerated rights. That will be wonderful, but absolute
clarification will have to wait for a later case.
Dissenters argued for a standard, best described as a murky 'balancing
test' that would have approved nearly any restriction.
Point being: if a future, leftist Court makes that decision, we could
still get screwed! The devil is in the details, and many of the details
won't be decided for years to come."
Comment: We can never relax, as tyrant-wannabes, who believe we
Americans exist only to serve them, are always seeking public office.
However, we all need to realize what a crushing defeat this decision is
for leftists everywhere. Their wet-dreams of herding all their unarmed
political opponents into concentration camps will have to wait!
/John
(David Kopel, Stephen Halbrook and Alan Korwin wrote an 659-page book,
Supreme Court Gun Cases: Two Centuries of Gun Rights Revealed, to show
that the Supreme court has not ignored the RKBA for most of our
nationhood. A sequel, devoted to the Heller case, is forthcoming.)
---
From Tom Perroni: (List member Tom Perroni operates a training academy,
based in Virginia [
http://www.perronitactical.com/].)
Training the Immediate Action Drill
The purpose of this article is to share information with all shooters
that I feel may save your life in a Gunfight.
What do you do when you pull the trigger on your fully loaded semi auto
handgun and instead of a bang you get a click? This may not be a
problem on the range while you are training however if you are in a
gunfight and this happens you need to know what to do!
We have a saying in the Tactical Training community:
In a gunfight you will not rise to the occasion..... You will default to
the level of training you have mastered.
The answer to the above referenced question: What do you do when your
fully loaded semi auto goes click instead of bang should be: Conduct an
Immediate Action Drill.
Please not what I teach is "A" way to operate or train not "THE way to
operate or train.
How do you properly execute a (IAD) "Immediate Action Drill"? The first
step is to define what an IAD is....Their are (3) components of an IAD
they are as follows: TAP, RACK, FIGHT.
Tap-Rack-Fight- This process clears malfunctions and /or jams and
effectively "resets" the firearm.
TAP means to smack the bottom of the magazine firmly enough to lock it
into place or dislodge any bind in the magazine.
RACK is a cycling of the slide to eject any hammered /or dead casings or
to re-chamber a new cartridge following a malfunction.
FIGHT means being prepared to commence or resume fire as required by
accessing the situation. (These maneuvers must be able to be executed
subconsciously and effectively at any time.)
This drill is also known as Tap-Rack-Bang or Tap-Rack-Ready, with either
being appropriate depending on the situation. The Bang vs. Ready part
isn't a component of the analysis here (as it may be policy dictated and
therefore moot for debate), but rather how to most effectively train the
first two parts.
The biggest issue that I see in the training environment seems to be
failure to tap the magazine resulting in sequences of
bang-click-rack-click-rack-rack-click-rack-rack-rack-click, all of this
with an instructor yelling at them to seat the magazine.
I have no hard data to support this however I was taught by my father
that 70% to 80% of the time when you pull the trigger on a semi auto and
get a bang and then a click it is due to the fact that the magazine was
not seated in the handgun correctly to begin with.
The way that I have trained this drill on the range for many years was
to load inert (dummy) rounds into loaded magazines sporadically with
live rounds; this causes the shooter to perform the IAD spontaneously
during drills as the inert rounds come up. This method works well to
force spontaneous IAD's, but I have found that it fails the less
proficient/disciplined shooter in that it is possible to get away
without the Tap. This causes the shooter to begin reinforcing a bad
skill set, which shows up during a real malfunction as a
Rack-Click-Rack-Click-Rack-Click.
The way that I know teach this is by having the shooter fully load the
magazine with live rounds. Then insert the magazine into the semi auto
rack the slide putting a round in the chamber (Condition1) then I tell
the student to point the weapon down range press the magazine release
and allow the magazine to protrude slightly so that it is not seated in
the semi auto, I then tell the shooter to hold the magazine in place
with the pinky or little finger. Then I instruct them to bring the
weapon to low ready or retention position on the command fight or threat
to fire 3 rounds this will cause a bang then a click ...If the shooter
does not TAP, Rack, Fight they will not get a second bang.
I have also been taught to do the drill using masking tape it seems to
keep the (unseated) Glock & SIG magazines in place. You simply wind the
tape around the magazine a couple of times. Then make sure you do not
fully seat the magazine. When tapped, they seem to seat deeply enough to
give the desired result.
Last but not least when I teach magazine changes of any type I tell my
students to seat the magazine by tapping it and to rack the slide
whether it was a speed, tactical or emergency reload. This accomplishes
two things one it insures that the gun is always loaded with a round in
the chamber (Yes I know that if you had a round in the chamber you just
lost one round) It also reinforces TAP, RACK, FIGHT.
I also teach my students that when conducting dry fire practice this is
also a perfect time to practice the IAD. It not only reinforces TAP,
RACK, FIGHT it allows you to practice trigger control. By resetting the
handgun so that you can get another trigger pull.
Please also note that the TAP, RACK FIGHT is conducted in the
Manipulation Position- This is the basketball sized area directly in
front of and slightly below your chest. This is the area that you will
manipulate the gun in. This includes but is not limited to Jams, and or
malfunctions, speed or emergency reloads, or tactical reloads, or
chamber checks. This is NOT a position to hold the firearm in while
waiting to shoot or for situation assessment.
In my opinion as an Instructor I feel that this should be added to any
shooters training program if they are carrying the firearm for self defense.
Stay Safe & Shoot Straight!
Always remember : "Conflict is inevitable; Combat is an option."
" Always start out in Condition Yellow"
"Smooth is fast....Speed is fine but
accuracy is final"
(Another approach, so long as you have a spare magazine [hint, hint], is
simple to reload. In this, more universal technique, which is best
performed behind cover, I prefer to rip out the current magazine, tilt
the ejection port downward, rack the action three times, slap in a new
magazine and work the action one more time to chamber a fresh round.)
---
From AzCDL:
It's official - The Legislature adjourned "Sine Die" on Friday, June 27,
2008 at 10:09 PM. The general effective date for legislation passed
during the session is 90 days after Sine Die.
One casualty of Sine Die may be HB 2389, the AzCDL requested Vehicle
Carry bill. When we sent out our "contact the Governor" Alert, we had
been contacted by the bill's sponsor and told that HB 2389 had passed
"Final Read" in both the House and Senate. The next step should have
been the Governor's desk. However, if the Legislature adjourned before
transmitting HB 2389 to the Governor, then HB 2389 is dead. Right now
the Legislature's website is not reflecting that HB 2389 was sent to the
Governor. This could be an oversight, since everyone at the Capitol had
other things on their mind, like adjourning before the weekend, and the
website may not have been updated. We won't know the fate of HB 2389
until Monday. We're keeping our hopes up and will let you know more
after the weekend.
Meanwhile, HB 2626, a law-enforcement related bill with a pro-rights
provision on open-carry, is sitting on the Governor's desk. Now that
the Legislature has adjourned, she has 10 days, instead of the usual 5
days, to make her decision. We'll let you know the fate of HB 2626.
We now have about 6 months to get ready for the next legislative
session. AzCDL is already working on proposed language for next year's
bills. With the NRA annual convention coming to Phoenix next year,
expect greater participation from the NRA in the 2009 legislative
process. Next year has the potential for being a banner year.
However, next year's success depends heavily on the outcome of the local
September primary and November general elections. As we mentioned
before, the Arizona House of Representatives is poised to become
controlled by an anti-rights majority, unless we all show up and vote.
Don't let your possible ambivalence towards your choices in the
Presidential election keep you at home on Election Day. Don't throw
away the potential for 2009 to see major inroads at restoring our
rights. Vote!
Information on pro-rights legislation in Arizona can be found at the
AzCDL website:
http://www.azcdl.org/html/legislation.html
These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League
(AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots
organization. Join today!
AzCDL - Protecting Your Freedom
http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html
Copyright � 2008 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights
reserved.
--
Stephen P. Wenger, KE7QBY
Firearm safety - It's a matter
for education, not legislation.
http://www.spw-duf.info
