Field and Stream - 2nd Amendment RSS

State Police to Shut Down PA Instant Check System, No Firearms Purchases for 3 Days

Sarah Smith — Thu, 10 May 2012 10:59:25 -0400

--Chad Love

Are you a Pennsylvania resident who plans on buying a gun sometime this month? You might want to check with your gun shop before making the drive...

From this story on examiner.com:
The Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) announced on Friday, that the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), used by the Pennsylvania State Police, will be taken out of service for three days later this month for a full system replacement. Consequently, this will temporarily restrict the purchase of firearms and negate the ability to obtain criminal history checks.

It's that last bit of news that has more than a few people a little ticked off. And it didn’t take long for them to express just how much...

From this follow-up story on examiner.com:

A complete shutdown of the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) by the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) for a period of 60 hours later this month for a system upgrade is "inexcusable," the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today. “Closing down the background check system, and thus suspending all firearms transactions and concealed carry license processing simply allows the [PSP] to obstruct the gun rights of law-abiding citizens,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. “Access to the computers for background checks should not be suspended at all. Surely the [PSP] can find alternate means of processing firearms transactions and permit applications while the upgrade is in progress.”

The system will shut down at 10 p.m. Saturday, May 19 and will remain down until the following Tuesday at 10 a.m.

Thoughts? Reaction? Is it a mere inconvenience, or a de facto (albeit temporary) suspension of the Second Amendment?

More on Preppers

Dave_Maccar — Fri, 04 May 2012 12:10:50 -0400

by David E. Petzal

If you’d really like to depress yourself some evening, watch “Doomsday Preppers” on the National Geographic Channel. The show details the plans of normal, well adjusted people to cope with the aftermath of fiscal collapse, nuclear holocaust, the eruption of Yellowstone, solar flares, and so on.

The New York Times noted with outrage that many of these people were accumulating guns and ammunition in order to defend their 1,500 pounds of MREs and dried brown rice, but stockpiling guns is fine with me. My concern is that most of them seem pretty inexpert with guns. One prepper was counting on a Ruger Number One single-shot which, despite its many splendid qualities, is not what you’d pick to blast the mob at your door. Another managed to shoot off several fingers during a practice session. Yet a third, a resident of the Oligarchy of Bloomberg, took lessons in knife fighting because he was unable to get a gun, ignoring the fact that everyone in the Oligarchy of Bloomberg who wants a gun has one, or several, and when the pistol-waving mob comes to this fellow’s apartment I don’t think that he and his knife will last long.

A dose of reality was interjected into prepping recently when a resident of Washington State, one Peter Keller, shot his wife and daughter to death and then retreated to a heavily fortified bunker which he had spent 8 years digging into a hillside in the woods. The cops found his hole and waited him out. Then, after a 22-hour standoff, they brought in a breeching team and blew the door off his dugout. Inside were copious guns, ammo, body armor, and everything else a good prepper should accumulate. There was also the body of an apparent suicide whom the police believe is Mr. Keller. There went 8 years’ hard work in the time it took a couple of blocks of C-4 to go off.

I have nothing against prepping. I think a certain degree of preparedness is not only worthwhile, but necessary. Hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, ice storms, and Congress are facts of life that are all too real, and we must be able to deal with the havoc they wreak.

But if you have visions of accumulating tons of .223 ammo and dried corn and toughing it out by yourself after Life as We Know It ceases to exist, I suggest you watch a film called Threads, which was made by the BBC in 1984, and shows what life after a nuclear attack is bound to be like. You will not want to be around after the Big One arrives, your 5,000 rounds of 9mm ammo and food dehydrator notwithstanding.

Is the NRA's Political Power an Illusion?

Sarah Smith — Tue, 01 May 2012 11:03:59 -0400

--Chad Love

Is the National Rifle Association's power on the wane? Please don't beat the messenger, but that seems to be the thrust of a recent blog post from the Economist that argues the NRA's influence on national elections is mostly an illusion and that it's also on the wrong side of changing demographic shifts that in the future will further erode its influence.

"...Paul Waldman, of the American Prospect, has recently argued that the NRA's dominance is a myth. He has looked closely at the figures and writes, “Despite what the NRA has long claimed, it neither delivered Congress to the Republican party in 1994 nor delivered the White House to George W. Bush in 2000.” He also argues that NRA money has no impact on congressional elections, as it spreads its money over so many races, and that NRA endorsements are “almost meaningless” as most go to incumbent Republicans with little chance of losing.

The author also claims that despite an increase in gun sales nationwide, most of those sales are going to, well, old white guys who already have guns, and that the number of actual households with guns has been in a steady decline. The author also cites further demographic shifts toward more urban residents and a smaller percentage of the aforementioned old white dudes.

White males, the gun-loving sector of American society, also make up an increasingly smaller percentage of the population. What the industry actually needs is more Latino, black and female gun enthusiasts. But the NRA isn’t delivering these."

Thoughts? Reaction? Rebuttal?

Guns on Film: Can You Answer These 12 Movie Gun Trivia Questions?

Dave_Maccar — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:33:34 -0400

Let's have a little fun. As is the case for many, the guns I grew up hunting with represent my first real world experience with firearms. But from an even earlier age, my interest in guns was definitely peaked by those I saw in movies. Whether it was to find out what kind of gun a hero or villain carried, or just a desire to know how the gun I saw on the screen really worked, movies provided that spark that made me want to find out more. In a way, guns made me a movie nut, and vice versa. I mean, how can you blame me with toys like this beckoning from the aisles of Kiddie City...yeah, I definitely had this one.

If you can relate, or just want to remember some awesome movie moments, click through this gallery of movie gun trivia questions. On the first slide for each movie, I pose a question about a film character that met his demise in front of a muzzle. It might be about the movie, the guns in the movie, or both. Click to the next slide to see if you're right and learn some fun movie gun facts along the way.

Every film in here is at least a decade old, so there shouldn't be any spoilers for anyone. And if you haven't seen the flicks in this gallery...you should probably turn in your man card anyway. Have fun! --Dave Maccar

Petzal on the Trayvon Martin Shooting

Dave_Maccar — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:56:47 -0400

by David E. Petzal

On April 11, Florida Special Prosecutor Angela B. Corey announced at a press conference that George Zimmerman would be indicted for second-degree murder in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. She prefaced this by informing the world that her team of investigators were fearless defenders of the victim, yet mindful of the rights of the accused; immune to political pressure from anyone; compassionate yet strict; enforcers not of public opinion, but of Justice. She did not say that hers was the greatest assemblage of legal minds since the drafting of the Magna Carta in 1215, but that was probably because she forgot. It reminded me of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s quote: “The louder he spoke of his virtue, the faster we counted our spoons.”

In all likelihood, we will never know the complete truth about what happened in the death of Trayvon Martin, but I think I can guarantee that whatever took place, George Zimmerman will go to prison.

He is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of three counts of SWA—Stupid While Armed—and there is always a penalty for that.

Count One: He chose to carry a gun, despite being prohibited from doing so by the Neighborhood Watch, so he was automatically wrong no matter what happened.

Count Two: When he chose to pursue Martin, despite the police dispatcher’s telling him to stand down, he was automatically wrong, no matter what happened.

Count Three, which rises to Grossly Aggravated SWA: He shot someone who was unarmed. If you’re going to do that, and not go to prison, the guy you shoot had better have your spleen in his hands when you pull the trigger.

But how about the No-Retreat (Stand Your Ground) law? Permit me to quote a judge of my acquaintance.

“The No-Retreat law is a defense available in Florida, but it has to be established by the defendant to the jury’s satisfaction—it’s not an automatic ‘get out of jail free’ card.

"And whether or not the defense will succeed will depend on a lot of factors, especially on the defendant’s ability to establish [by evidence other than his unsupported testimony] that he was justified. This is the cautionary part—better make sure that you can back it up if you’re going to rely on the No-Retreat law. Much better to retreat if you can do so safely.”

So what will happen now? A trial will take place. The verdict will be guilty. Everyone concerned will get their time on camera, as will everyone with a cause connected to the case. It will be written and talked about endlessly. And when this sorry, tiresome dance is done, if I were George Zimmerman, I would be thinking hard about how I wanted to decorate my prison cell.

Fear and Loathing at Canadian Customs

Dave_Maccar — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:06:16 -0400

by David E. Petzal

This took place in the 1990s at an airport in one of Canada’s western provinces, and involved a member of that country’s Immigration Service, which is dedicated to making life as hard for American hunters as it possibly can.

I had been invited to this province by a scope manufacturer to hunt whitetail deer, freeze, and see what great stuff they made. By sheer chance, a few weeks previously, Field & Stream had been visited by a minister of Canada’s Department of Tourism who asked the magazine’s help in persuading sportsmen to visit their country, eh? He left a couple of his cards, and I, in a rare stroke of foresight, kept one.

So I got to the Canadian airport and on the entry card, where it asked whether I was there on business or pleasure, I checked off business, because I was, after all, representing the magazine and was the guest of a manufacturer. This was a mistake.

I was waved into an office where I encountered a member of the Immigration Service who asked if I had a work permit for what I was about to do. No, I said, I was going deer hunting, and if there was any actual work connected with the event it would take place later back in the United States.

“Well,” she said, “I can’t let you in without a work permit.”

I smiled. I was faced with the one chance you get in a lifetime where you get to make them sweat for a change.

I took out the Tourism Minister’s card, laid it on the counter, and explained how I came by it.

“Now,” I said, “since I can’t get in without a permit, and since I have no intention of taking out a permit, I’d like someone to escort me to the baggage claim so I can pick up my rifle, and then to the ticket counter so I can go home. And when I get home the first thing I’m going to do is give Minister So-and-So a call and tell him about our little adventure here. And the second thing I’m going to do is write about this and keep everyone out of Canada that I can. And finally, I think that your life next week is going to be a lot more interesting than it is this week.”

Frantically, the immigration person dragged out a huge book of regulations. I watched smiling, and encouraged her by telling her that she’d better find something in her effing book that would let me into Canada. Finally, she did. I congratulated her on keeping her job, and went on the hunt as scheduled, where I froze, and shot a monster eating whitetail with only three points on either side.

But this happened only once in 40 years of flying with guns. The rest of the time, I have had to put up with various officials’ crap until they became bored with me and moved on to the next hapless traveler.

The Gun Nut Nation Survey 2012

Dave_Maccar — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:42:59 -0400

Sound off, Gun Nuts. Tell us what you love about today’s rifles and shotguns. Tell us what you hate most about the perception of gun owners in the media. Tell us about your hopes and fears concerning a certain election this November. Tell us about what makes you a Gun Nut in the following survey—a collection of questions about the politics, economics, and state of Gun Nut Nation. The results will be published in the July 2012 issue of Field & Stream. Thank you for participating.

Support Builds For NH Man Who Fired Warning Shot at Burglar

Sarah Smith — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:31:42 -0500

--Chad Love

A New Hampshire man is facing prison time because he fired a warning shot at a burglar that he not only caught, but held at gunpoint until police could arrive.

From this story on CBS news:

A man who caught a suspected burglar in his neighborhood over the weekend now faces criminal charges himself. It all started Saturday afternoon, when police were called to two homes on Ten Rod Road because someone had broken into them. Officers found 61-year-old Dennis Fleming holding off the suspect with a handgun. Fleming’s home was one of the two that were robbed.

Twenty-seven-year-old Joseph Hebert was arrested and charged with two counts of burglary. But it didn’t end there. Police later found out that Fleming had been looking for Hebert for about half-an-hour after the robbery. No one was hurt, but that was enough for police to charge Fleming with reckless conduct for firing his gun in a residential area.

But the story doesn't quite end there. Fleming's case has caused a groundswell of support from self-defense advocates across the country:

A New Hampshire man charged with a crime for capturing the man who robbed his home is getting support from around the globeDennis Fleming’s story has been retold all over the country and it was even picked up overseas by the London Daily Mail. The pressure is building on authorities to drop the charge. “I don’t want to be a poster child for gun advocacy or anything like that,” says Fleming. “It’s not what I’m looking for.” Dennis Fleming may not want to be the poster child, but, gun advocates from all over the county have rallied to his defense. He’s surprised by the support he’s gotten ever since he tracked down a burglar and fired a warning shot.“I know it’s touched a nerve with a lot of people. I have people come up at Walmart, and say ‘you did great I saw you on TV’, ‘I saw you in the paper’.”

Those same people are leaning on Tom Velardi, the Strafford County attorney. He’s still trying to decide whether to prosecute Fleming. Velardi says, “I’m trying to look at what the law says we should be doing, apply some common sense to what the law says we should be doing, and come up with a solution that I think will protect people in Mr. Fleming’s situation as well as the community at large.” At issue is whether Fleming acted to defend his community or if he put people at risk. The group Gun Owners of New Hampshire is taking donations for his legal defense. “Mr. Fleming was simply doing a responsible thing,” says Penny Dean of GONH. “He was holding a person he believed to be a burglar for the police and he’s been punished for that.”

Thoughts? Reaction?

The .50 Cal AR-15 Muzzleloader From CMMG

Dave_Maccar — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:02:44 -0500

by Phil Bourjaily

The AR 15 continues to prove its versatility in all kinds of ways – even ways that leave you scratching your head and asking “why?” For instance, I heard about the AR 15 muzzleloader upper at SHOT and looked in vain for it, finally concluding that it was a Mythical Creature and not a real AR accessory. Since then, I have found these two videos that prove its existence.

And, to give the people at CMMG Inc. credit, the .50 upper is cleverly designed. As you see in the video, the magazine holds extra pellets and bullets for handy reloading, and the gun will handle a three-pellet (150 gr.) load of pyrodex.

Besides the complete lack of traditionality, I don’t have any problem with this, except that you would have to explain why you were carrying an AR 15 during muzzleloader season to any game warden who happened to spot you.

New Remington Versa Max Tactical Shotgun

Dave_Maccar — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:52:27 -0500

Remington has introduced a tactical version of its popular Versa Max shotgun. Check out this video for details.

SHOT Show 2012 Sneak Peek: 12 New Guns From Range Day

Dave_Maccar — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:54:40 -0500

Looking Back in Nausea: 2011 in Review

Sarah Smith — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:15:29 -0500

by David E. Petzal

As 2011 lurches into history like a smelly old wino, I take MAC in hand to review some of the lows of the year.

You Can’t Get it Right All the Time: In the 1960s the Department of Defense decided that all future combat was going to take place at 300 meters or less and, now that the distance has increased again to 500 meters and over, is scrambling to come up with guns and ammunition that can hack it at long range. We, of course, are paying for all this.

What’s next? Tac Nukes? Some weeks ago, Mayor for Life Bloomberg referred to the New York City Police as “my private army.” People assumed he was joking. I don’t. NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly has coyly announced that the NYPD has the technology to shoot down airplanes, presumably to avoid a repeat of 9/11. Commissioner Kelly did not say what kind of armament was involved. It could be missiles, or it could be 30mm cannon on Mayor Bloomberg’s private jet. The NYPD averages one hit per 72 rounds expended with its handguns, so the mind reels at the havoc it can wreak with this kind of firepower.

The Inmates are Running the Asylum: Operation Fast and Furious, in which the BATF deliberately put 2,000 guns into the hands of bad guys. Of these, 600 have been recovered. One was used in the murder of a Border Patrol agent. The other 1,400 are still out there.

And Then There’s the TSA: On December 27, at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, a TSA agent confiscated two cupcakes “…because of their gel-like frosting.”

Don’t Bother Me with Reality When I’m Hysterical: Commentator Rachel Maddow believes there are all-plastic handguns that can pass through metal detectors, and says so shrilly at every opportunity.

Mixed Signals from Texas: On the one hand, Governor Rick Perry shot a coyote that menaced his puppy while the two were out for a jog. That was good. On the other hand, while on a nilgai hunt, I saw an Eastern diamondback—a 6-footer at least—glide across the sendero, and the driver of our vehicle, on strict orders from the ranch owner, refused to turn it into a good snake. This is not only bad, but a brazen violation of The Code of the West.

What Most You Fear Is Drawing Near: I can remember when the Republican candidate for President was General of the Army Dwight David Eisenhower. Boy, have we come a long way. Unless something changes dramatically, Barrack Hussein Obama may very well get a second term.

And Just to End on a Positive Note: Several times a year I get to meet West Point cadets and I invariably wonder how our country, which is increasingly fat, weepy, and stupid, produces people like them. Can there be hope after all?

Gun in Girl's Purse Went Off in a Wyoming Starbucks

Sarah Smith — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:02:28 -0500

--Chad Love

Here's one from the "Would You Like That Frappuccino Leaded Or Unleaded?" files. Customers at a Cheyenne, Wyoming Starbucks got a surprise recently when a young girl's purse gun went off--in her purse.

From this story in USA Today:

Police in Wyoming say nobody was hurt when a small gun that was inside a girl's purse fired while she was in a Cheyenne Starbucks. The bullet went through a chair and into a wall and narrowly missed several customers. Police say the mishap occurred while officers were at the coffee shop around 7:00 a.m. on Monday. They found a gunshot hole in the purse and a small, Derringer-type, double-barrel .38 Special inside.

Authorities say the girl is under age 18 and didn't release her name. She was cited for underage possession of a firearm. The Wyoming Tribune Eagle (http://bit.ly/uwHpuP ) reported that the girl's father had given her the gun and encouraged her to carry it for her protection. According to police records, she hasn't had any formal firearms training.

Accident, or something else? After all, this is Cheyenne, Wyoming we're talking about. Maybe it was just a warning shot for that dude who, rather than just order a cup of coffee, takes five minutes giving instructions on how he wants his shade-grown, free-trade soy latte...

Rot and Evil and the Military Channel

Dave_Maccar — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 12:32:58 -0500

by David E. Petzal

Like many of you, I’m addicted to both the History Channel and the Military Channel. Were it not for them I would have to learn canasta or take up calligraphy while I wait for the end to come. The Military Channel still runs some good stuff, but I’m seeing it drift farther and farther from bullets and bayonets and more toward show biz.

The first example of this is a program called “An Officer and Movie,” in which a war film is played and the host, the actor Lou Diamond Phillips, quizzes a combat veteran about what the movie purports to show. The concept is a good one, but the films are some of the lamest military flicks ever made (Heartbreak Ridge? Spare me.) Mr. Phillips is no military authority, the officers are given no time to say anything important, and the questions are innocuous. Aside from that it’s fine.

If the Military Channel would like to do something meaningful, how about having Colonel Jack Jacobs host the program? Colonel Jacobs (USA, Ret) won the Medal of Honor in Vietnam and does military analysis for MSNBC. How about running movies like Attack, a film that stars Jack Palance and came out in 1956. It deals with cowardice under fire, and has some distinctly unpleasant things to say. Or Decision Before Dawn (1951) which was the first postwar American film to show Germans in a sympathetic light, and is about loyalty to a cause, and what it can do to you. Neither film makes for easy watching, and I’d love to see one or both on “An Officer…” but I won’t hold my breath.

The most recent disappointment came Wednesday night in the form of “Triggers.” This show, hosted by one Wil (with one “l”) Willis, purported to be about the Colt Model 1911. However, if you’d like to learn something substantive about the Colt Model 1911, you’d better buy the book Small Arms of the World, because you won’t get it here.

Mr. Willis wears a muscle shirt to show us he has muscles. (Dr. William Atwater has never felt the need.) but if he is responsible for the script, he needs to lose the shirt and grasp the concept of a coherent line of thought. This program is all over the place. Its tone and content seem to be lifted intact from Spike TV, which runs programs on who would win in a fight to the death between a samurai warrior and Justin Beiber).

“Triggers” starts with Sergeant Alvin York, segues to a comparison of the wheel lock and flintlock, includes a fast-draw segment with the Peacemaker and a shootout between that gun and a Trapdoor Springfield, takes in the virtues of the Luger, and on and on. When in doubt, Mr. Willis and guests shoot stuff to no apparent point.

The show could have asked some good questions: For example, it points out that in the 1890s, the Army dropped the .45 in favor of the .38 Special, which quickly proved inadequate. Why? Was the Army stupid? (Answer: yes. Our small arms procurement has never been particularly good, except for some notable successes such as the Model 1911 pistol, the M-1 rifle, and the M2 machine gun. Our introduction of the M-16 to combat was a case study in military incompetence. At the end of World War II, the U.S. ignored the German Sturmgewehr, the first assault rifle, but the Soviets did not. The result was that they developed the most successful infantry rifle of all time—the AK-47—and we did not.)

Then in 1985, the Army did the exact same thing, replacing the Model 1911 with the 9mm Beretta M9, which no one seems to like very much, and which is just as inadequate as the .38 Special. Why? Is the Army stupid? (Answer: yes.) Mr. Willis allowed that special ops units still use the 1911? Why? No answer.

Perhaps “Triggers” will improve. I hope so. Meanwhile, three pieces of advice for Mr. Willis: Lose the muscle shirt and pay some attention to your storyline. Fire whoever does the graphics. A Colt Model 1873 is not a Colt Model 1860 Army. And finally, the velocity of the .45 Long Colt bullet is around 750-850 fps, not 1,200 fps.

Video: FPS Russia vs. .44 Magnum vs. S&W .500

Dave_Maccar — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:54:38 -0400

by Phil Bourjaily

A while back we talked about relative recoil of the .44 magnum and the S&W .500. Here’s a video on the topic from none other than “FPS Russia,” who has become a viral hit due to his ability to procure all kinds of weaponry (dragon’s breath, mortars, the AA12 shotgun, an APC with a M2 on it) and shoot things while keeping up a foulmouthed running commentary in a fake Russian accent.

At any rate, in this video FPS Russia doesn’t swear much, and the comparison here between the .44 and the .500 is instructive, even though you can’t actually feel the recoil. You can tell that the .500 is louder, and that a bigger fireball comes out of its muzzle.

The most telling indicator of the difference recoil, though, is the size of the two groups. The .500 group is bigger, despite being a five shot group, not a six shot group as with the .44. I would bet the difference is increased shooter error, brought about either by more recoil, or just as likely, a slight flinch in anticipation of all the fire and noise the .500 generates.

The Best of the 2011 Gun Nuts Target Photo Contest

Dave_Maccar — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:37:32 -0400

We asked you to shoot a special target in our magazine and take your best photos for this year's Gun Nuts Target Photo Contest. These are the 50 best submissions (editor's choice), including the winner, who will receive a brand new S&W .22LR M&P Rifle.

Petzal on Shooting Snakes, Bullet Packaging and NYC Police Shooting

Dave_Maccar — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:07:21 -0400

by David E. Petzal

- A while back, I advised that if one sees a venomous serpent crawling along, the proper response is to open fire. This was wrong. A crawling serpent presents hardly any target at all. If it’s a pit viper, such as a rattlesnake, the proper response is to fire a shot just ahead of its nose, which will cause it to coil. Then you have something to shoot at. Aim at the base of the reptile. I recommend high-velocity quick-expanding bullets. If the serpent is a cobra, a mamba, a krait, etc., which does not need to coil, drive to the nearest airport and leave.

- I figured out what happens to the people who flunk out of industrial design schools—the go on to profitable careers designing boxes for .22 ammo. A few weeks ago I got sick of boxes that crack, shatter, delaminate, rip, and otherwise implode and got three Rubbermaid food containers at a hardware store.
The bottoms are translucent plastic and the tops are a strange shade of maroon. Two are just big enough to hold 50 rounds, and the third will take 300 or so. They’re cheap, strong, waterproof, and don’t open accidentally.

- And finally, from the Oligarchy of Bloomberg comes a New York Times story (Sept. 9th issue) of another NYPD fusillade. Eight of New York’s Finest were involved. They fired between 2 and 16 rounds each for a total of 73 shots. Total score: two hits resulting in two dead perps and, possibly, a third hit which may have killed an innocent bystander. Then came this paragraph:

“John Cerar, who was in charge of the department’s firearms and tactics training from 1985 to 1994 said the number of shots fired—73—and the number that missed their mark—all but 2—was not unusual.

“He said the fact that two police officers were shot made ‘for more frayed nerves’ which he said decreased accuracy.”

Anything I could add would be superfluous.

A Word to Gun Nuts Readers

Dave_Maccar — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 13:04:58 -0400

by David E. Petzal

It is my duty to inform you that my post of September 1, “Party Poppers for Libya,” contained not a single word of truth. It was political satire, nothing more. A number of you astutely pointed out that it was only a single click off reality, despite its preposterous premise, and you spoke better than you knew.

I was provoked to write it by a White House press conference at which Jay Carney, President Obama’s Press Secretary (a nice young man, but badly out of his depth, sort of like his boss) opined that bombing--the NATO airstrikes on Quadaffi’s hired goons--did not constitute war. This was something straight out of Catch-22. And rather than giving him a chorus of “BUUUUUUULS**T!”, the gutless toads of the Washington press corps simply went on to the next round of inanity. If rocketing and bombing is not war, it’ll do till the war comes along. I invite Mr. Carney to place himself in the middle of an air strike and see if his opinion is not changed.

So I felt it was no less than a matter of honor to produce an outlandish tale of my own and attribute it to the Executive Branch. I realize that I have damaged my credibility with some of you, but remember that I tell the truth far more often than anyone holding political office, or running for it.

And by the way, to Rob: “….we, his slathering horde…” is a very nice turn of phrase. A tip of the hat.

Back to guns.

Party Poppers for Libya

Sarah Smith — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:24:02 -0400

by David E. Petzal

What with all the excitement over Hurricane Irene, you may have missed the following press release from Martha’s Vineyard on 8/23:

“The President, in a gesture of support for the brave freedom fighters of Libya, has ordered the director of the Lake City Arsenal to alter some of our existing stocks of 7.62mm, 5.54mm, and 12.7mm Soviet ammunition for firing in the air as a means of celebration. The United States not only recognizes the right of different cultures to express themselves in ways different from ours, but believes they should be able to do it safely, without the risk of injury from falling projectiles.

“The Lake City Arsenal will remove the bullets from this ammunition, replace the powder with a propellant designed for pyrotechnics, and replace the original projectiles with new ones made from light, biodegradable plastic that cannot cause injury and is not based on animal fats. This will result in increased flash and report, while at the same time eliminating the risks inherent in firing conventional ammunition into the air.

“We hope to have the first shipments on the way to Libya by the end of the month.” No precise figures were given for the number of rounds to be converted or the expense for the conversion and shipping, but a reliable source estimated that the total for the three cartridges would “…not exceed 1.7 million” and that the cost to the taxpayer, including air transportation, would “….certainly not be more that $445 million…”

The Sorry Case of a Gunless Great Britain

Dave_Maccar — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:57:54 -0400

by David E. Petzal

One of the reasons I enjoy going through old copies of Field & Stream is that they bring back to life little bits of history that would otherwise be forgotten. One of these is the fact that in 1939-1940, Great Britain begged American shooters and hunters for rifles—any kind of rifles. Until England won the Battle of Britain in the fall of 1940, it looked very likely that Adolf was going to send his merry men in feldgrau across the Channel, and His Majesty’s Home Guard—a sad joke in and of itself—was practically gunless, the British having already gone a long way down the road to self-disarmament.

That trend has continued over the past 70 years, and in the past week we have been treated to nightly tapes of widespread rioting, looting and, even in gunless England, killing. The mobs could break into any store they choose, serene in the knowledge that the police couldn’t stop them and that the odds they would be shot by an irate store owner were virtually nil. And the laws in Great Britain being what they are, any merchant who did treat a looter to a dose of shot would almost surely go to prison.

Will the British learn from this? Not likely. Any more than the dimmer-witted Americans who insist that if only we didn’t have so many guns around, blah, blah, blah…

Tales Told By Fools: Why The Media Can't Get Anything Right About Guns

Online Editors — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 15:15:54 -0400

by David E. Petzal

Imagine a newspaper story on automobiles in which the writer confused camshafts and driveshafts. Or a piece on investing in which the words “stock” and “bond” were used interchangeably. Or one that referred to Marines as soldiers (which will get you a punch in the mouth from any self-respecting Jarhead). Not likely, you think. No reporter is that ignorant or that careless. Wrong. They are when they turn their attention to guns. Cartridge and bullet are used interchangeably, clip and magazine mean the same thing; submachine gun and machine gun are synonyms. And it gets worse.

When the M-16 was first issued during the Vietnam War, Americans were informed that it was deadly because its bullets tumbled through the air, creating terrible wounds when they hit. Anyone who has ever thrown a football knows what a crock this is. Apparently, news reporters do not throw footballs.

In a recent article in The New York Times, a reporter quoted a police officer as stating that a Smith & Wesson revolver went off when it was dropped. The handgun was made in the 1970s, so there is a problem: No Smith wheelgun of post-World-War-II manufacture can go off unless the trigger is pulled. Even if the revolver was cocked, it’s highly unlikely that it could fire. It sounds like the police officer told a Great Big Fib, but the reporter did not know enough about the subject (or, probably, anything about the subject) to call him on it.

In the 1990s, a newspaper Sunday supplement ran an article on gun control that used the term “ballistic footprint.” This was a new one to me so I called the magazine and asked the editor in chief what it meant. He said he had no idea but that he would check with his staff. He did, and no one else had a clue, either.

We are treated to almost-daily accounts of assault weapons that are supposedly being purchased at American gun shops and sent south of the border through an elaborate system of straw men, couriers, intermediaries, etc. But as the American Rifleman points out in its excellent article on the subject in its July issue, drug cartels are huge businesses with unlimited budgets. Why would they go to the trouble of buying two or three or a dozen guns in the U.S. when they could call their friendly arms merchant and get a pallet load of guns, still in the factory cosmoline, delivered right to their doors?

So why, when someone says “gun,” does a journalist’s common sense head for parts unknown?

First, there is a strong tendency among people not to challenge conventional wisdom. As proof of that, I offer the fact that from AD 200 until roughly 1850, western medicine was based on the teachings of a physician named Galen. Galen did not know that blood circulated, or that the heart pumped it. He blamed disease on an imbalance among four bodily humors (black bile, yellow bile, water, and phlegm), and drew his conclusions about human anatomy from dissections of monkeys and pigs, not humans. But for nearly two millennia, Galen was more revered than Oprah.

So we tend not to question, and from the unanimity of thought on the subject in the media, I believe that J-school students and cub reporters learn, very early on, that the following is the Revealed Truth:

1. Guns are inherently evil.

2. There is no reason to own a gun in 21st century America unless you hunt, and if you hunt there’s clearly something wrong with you.

3. The United States would be a better country if no one had a gun, including the police.

4. American gun owners--all 80 million of them--are homicidal knuckle-draggers and mouth breathers.

5. The majority of Americans yearn for more gun control, but cannot get it because of the National Rifle Association.

6. In its 140 years of existence, the National Rifle Association has never been right on any issue.

7. If “reasonable” gun controls make it nearly impossible for a citizen to buy a firearm, there’s nothing wrong with that. Never mind the Bill of Rights. Some rights are Clearly Wrong.

8. And, most important: If a journalist acquires “information” that aligns with Numbers 1 through 7, there’s no need to check it, because it is obviously true.

Number 8 is a b***h, and we will come back to it.

Now, let us go to our second cause, the American educational system. It does not do such a hot job of teaching math or science (or American history, or geography, or English), but it gets high marks for political correctness and non-encouragement of student skepticism if that challenges PC.

Let’s take as an example the MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow, who has degrees from Stanford and Oxford but does not seem to have mastered the concept of independent inquiry. On her broadcast of January 11 of this year, she posed a hypothetical question: If an undetectable plastic pistol were made, one with no steel, that would go through a metal detector, should people be allowed to carry it? In the course of her rant, she claimed that a) It’s possible to make such a gun and b) that during the 1980s, Glock acknowledged that it had the technology to do so.

This runs contrary to what I know, so I enquired of my gunsmith friend John Blauvelt, who is a graduate of the Glock Armorers’ School. Here’s his take:

“X-rays of Glocks always show the outline of the gun, and the cartridges, and the 50 percent of the pistol that is metal. As for building a pistol with no metal:

“No one has come up with strong-enough springs that can be made out of plastic, such as the springs to power hammers or strikers or hold the breech closed.

“Barrels still have to be made of steel. There have been experiments with ceramics to mold barrels, but while ceramics are hard and long-lasting they’re too brittle to contain the force of a cartridge.

“Making a plastic slide with enough mass to resist the breech opening of a semi-automatic pistol would require a truly massive slide. Maybe possible, but certainly not practical.

“There are unsubstantiated rumors that the CIA and KGB have guns that can get through metal detectors. The rumors state that they are manually operated, or single-shot, and are disposable. But they are just rumors.”

How about the alleged claim by Glock in the 1980s that they could make an all-plastic gun?

On May 15, 1986, testifying before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Billie Vincent, FAA Director of Civil Aviation Security, said: “Despite a relatively common impression to the contrary, there is no current non-metal firearm which is not reasonably detectable by present technology and methods in use at our airports today, nor to my knowledge is anyone on the threshold of developing such a firearm [italics added].”

So where does Ms. Maddow get her “information”? Your guess is as good as mine. I’ve e-mailed her, asking that question, but I doubt I’ll get an answer. My guess is that she heard it from someone, or read it somewhere, and it fit in with her nightmare fantasies, so she accepted it without question. She apparently didn’t learn at Stanford or Oxford that if you want to get at the truth, you don’t assume anything.

Or it could be that she’s not interested in getting at the truth.

I also called Glock, and asked if the technology did exist to build a no-steel handgun, and if the company had claimed that it could way back in the 1980s, but I never got an answer.

So why should you care about Rachel Maddow and those like her? Because people listen to them, and take them seriously. This is why it’s almost impossible for the NRA to get a fair hearing in much of the media. It’s why Mayor for Life Bloomberg gets so much mileage out of his anti-gun crusade. It’s the reason that Wayne LaPierre, when he said that the BATF had acted like jackbooted thugs, was pilloried in the press, even though he was right.

And, when the polls open, the people who listen to Rachel and take her at face value go to the polls...and vote.

Last Chance to Enter the 2011 Gun Nut Target Photo Contest

Dave_Maccar — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:44:36 -0400

This year's Gun Nut Target Photo Contest has generated some awesome pics so far, but time is running out for you to enter for a chance to win a Smith & Wesson M&P15-22 .22LR Realtree APG HD Camo rifle!

First, check out this gallery of some of the great entries we've already received. Then, turn to page 65 of the July, 2011 issue of Field & Stream, rip out the special target and shoot it up. You can use any type of firearm, from a .410 to a .458, a handgun to a muzzleloader, and at any distance.

When you're done, take a creative photo like these readers did and submit it. The deadline is August 31, 2011, so get shooting!

Click here to enter the contest.

You can also take a look at the 50 best photos from last year's contest.

Chicago Gun Range Ban Struck Down in Fed. Appeals Court

Dave_Maccar — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 10:24:17 -0400

--Chad Love

Citing an infringement of citizens' Second Amendment rights, a federal appeals court has struck down the city of Chicago's ban on gun ranges.

From this story on Bloomberg.com:
A Chicago law banning firing ranges in the third-largest U.S. city probably harms gun owners’ Second Amendment rights and must be temporarily blocked, a federal appeals court ruled.

The Chicago-based court’s decision today comes in a case challenging a city ordinance restricting handgun possession to inside the home, mandating an hour of range training as a prerequisite to gun ownership and barring those ranges from operating within its borders. The Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance was passed by the city council after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago’s outright ban on civilian handgun possession in 2010.

A lower court judge last year denied the challengers’ request for an order blocking enforcement of the firing-range prohibition.

“The plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against the firing-range ban,” U.S. Circuit Judge Diane Sykes said in the ruling. “The harm to their Second Amendment rights cannot be remedied by damages, their challenge has a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and the city’s claimed harm to the public interest is based entirely on speculation.”

Reaction? How do you think the notoriously anti-gun City of Chicago will react?

Announcing the 2011 Gun Nut Target Photo Contest

Dave_Maccar — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:22:42 -0400

To Fla. Physicians: Stick To What You Know, Leave Guns Out of It

Dave_Maccar — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:29:10 -0400

by David E. Petzal

Florida’s Governor Rick Scott signed a law last week forbidding pediatricians to ask kids if their parents have guns in the home. The impetus for the law came when a Florida pediatrician allegedly refused to treat a kid when he learned that said urchin’s family were gun owners. (This was probably illegal as hell, but no one is talking about prosecuting the doctor.)

Florida’s legislators have already been called toadies of the NRA and dealt all the usual insults, but I can see their point. Let us say that Dr. Rubella questions little Timmy and learns that his daddy has a handgun.

What does Doc Rubella do? As it happens, Florida has a safe-storage law that says if you leave a gun where a kid can get at it, you can get 60 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Does he call Dad in for counseling? Does he tell little Timmy that pop is probably a psycho and to leave home at once for his own safety? Does he phone the cops and call in a pre-emptive SWAT strike? What if the gun is safely stored? How would the doctor be able to tell from a kid’s description? When you study pediatric medicine is there a course on what constitutes safe gun storage?

Given the hysterical fear some people—including doctors—have of guns, I would prefer it that physicians stick to what they are supposed to know about and leave the guns out of it.