The Good, Bad and the Weird

Good.
Thrilled that I got a hit from Barrett Firearms. I hope they don't mind folks like me spreading the honorable Ronnie Barret's letter to Hawaii far and wide.

Bad.


I guess I better watch what I write from now on...hey Mohammed, call me back on the other line!!!

Weird.

WTF?!? Google's going to have to explain that hit to me.

The Manfacturing "Loophole"

This is a type of post I am rather reluctant to do. The reason is I don't want to give the enemy forces ideas they may not already have. However, I've come to the conclusion they probably already know about this stuff and are merely biding their time to go after this area as a "loophole" in the gun laws. I'm sure it is on their agenda but other issues have a higher priority at the moment.

With that said...

Everything that might allow someone to own a gun is a "loophole" to the anti-gun forces. If the law doesn't forbid it somehow explicitly or likewise spell it out as allowed in detail, it must be a loophole.

Today we are going to discuss biggest so-called "loophole" going when it comes to guns. Many anti-gun forces toss out the "gun show loophole" as their big one to close. They describe it as a threat to public safety and one that undermines their ability to institute many glorious decades of total gun control*.

Unfortunately for them, they're wrong. Even if they manage to close the non-existent "gun show loophole", they've manage to miss the Big One. Or maybe not. Maybe this one is next on the list when they are done with the gun shows.

For the record, this is not a loophole. What I am going to show you is part of existing BATFE regulations. It is a permitted activity under the law.

For the necessary background, here are the four ways in which one can acquire a gun in this country:

1) Buy One Through a Licensed Dealer (FFL)

Number one is the most familiar one to the average person. It is where you go to a dealer, either at a store front or a gun show, fill out the background check paperwork, pass the check and take your gun home. I've discussed or commented on this process in the past and won't elaborate further here.

2) Buy One Intrastate Through a Private Sale (aka "the gun show loophole")

This is the so-called "gun show loophole" since the myth is that "unlicensed dealers" can sell guns at a gun show without a background check. This is false. There is no such thing as an "unlicensed dealer". BATFE regulations allow a private individual to sell guns from their own personal collection provided such activity is not done as a primary means of business or income.

When those who want to close this loophole talk about "unlicensed dealers", they are lumping in all the vendors at a gun show that aren't selling firearms to make their statistics sound more convincing. Technically, they are correct about "unlicensed dealers" at shows but fail to mention that these dealers are selling ammunition, spare parts, beef jerky, jewelry, books, T-shirts, accessories, cases and militaria and do not require a Federal Firearms License (since they aren't selling guns). They won't tell you that though since it messes up their fraudulent message,

For a private citizen, setting up a table at a gun show to sell a few guns you inherited or don't want anymore is perfectly legal. Do it a few times with regularity however, expect an up-close-and-personal conversation with a BATFE agent. Because then you are "engaging in the business of selling firearms without a license". If it sounds gray, it is. It's a murky line from liquidating a personal collection to becoming an unlicensed (and soon-to-be prosecuted) firearms dealer.

They decide at which point you cross the line from thinning a personal collection to engaging in the business of selling firearms. Anecdotally, I've been told that selling 3-4 firearms a year is sufficient to avoid serious scrutiny.

This activity is perfectly legal and no background check is required. You are required to follow all local, State and Federal laws as the seller or purchaser. You are required to not sell a gun knowingly to someone you believe cannot possess it under the law.

Most importantly, this method applies only to intrastate sales. It is against the law for me to do a private sale to someone who is not a resident of my state. That becomes interstate commerce and when it does, you are required to go through a licensed dealer to perform transfer. There is no exception for this.

Furthermore, I am not allowed to sell guns to a fellow state resident privately if State law says I can't. Some states ban private transfers. Others restrict the types of private sales that can be made. My home state of Maryland, for example, only allows private sales of non-regulated rifles and shotguns. Handguns and regulated firearms (read: "assault weapons") must be transfered through a dealer just like an out-of-state transfer from one individual to another without exception.

As I said, that's the "gun show loophole". It is nothing of the sort since this activity can take place outside of gun shows and usually does. As long as the law is followed, the Government should have no say in how you choose to dispose of your property.

And if you break the law on this (selling to someone out-of-state, to a prohibited person like a drug dealer and so on) and they catch you, you will enjoy an extended stay in a secure Federal housing facility free of charge.

3) Steal or Buy One Through Illegal Means

This is the primary method by which criminals acquire their guns. They simply steal them from law-abiding citizens, usually when they are not home or acquire them through illegal straw purchases via licensed dealers. Buying a gun legally to give to someone who can't have it, such as girlfriend buying it for her crack dealing boyfriend scumbag, is an example of a straw purchase. It is against the law. If the gun controllers want to close a loophole, how about the prosecution "loophole" on such purchases? It is virtually never done. But it is against the law. It just isn't enforced.

A very, very small percentage of guns arrive in criminal hands through unscrupulous dealers. If such acts can be proven, most right supporters like myself would like to see them thrown into a cell for a very long time. Their harm is disproportionate to their numbers and the punishment should be severe. Unfortunately, too many people equate a legal sale to a straw purchaser by a dealer and an unscrupulous dealer selling guns illegally as the same thing. They aren't. In the former, it is the straw purchaser that is the criminal. The criminal is the dealer in the latter. Don't confuse them.

It is not practical or proper to ask a dealer to read the mind of an individual making the purchase. They don't answer the questions as to whether or not you are buying the gun for yourself. You do. If you lie on that form and then sell the gun to someone else who isn't supposed to have it, how is the dealer supposed to know and be liable for your actions?

In conversations I've had with my dealers, all would refuse to sell a gun to someone they believed was making a straw purchase. I've personally witnessed this happen. It's refreshing and pretty normal among firearms dealers.

Regardless, the vast majority of guns land in criminal hands through theft. This is the primary illegal channel.

4) Make One Yourself

This is the subject of this post.

They say pictures are worth a thousand words. Take a look at the following:

Yes, this is a real AK-47. Well, not quite. It is parts from a real AK-47. Specifically, one made 20 years ago and was probably carried by some steely-eyed Romanian conscript waiting for the American Imperialists to pillage the People's land he was guarding near the end of the Cold War.

Here's the shocking part: This is not a firearm. In fact, as far as the law is concerned, this is just a pile of steel and wood and can be ordered and shipped through regular mail without so much as a peep from the Government. Pictures like this make gun banners cry. If some of them believed in God, they might even say God kills a kitten every time someone like me buys stuff like this.

You see, in the USA (and many other countries), the firearm isn't the sum total of all the parts that make up a gun or the bits that make the gun do what guns do like the barrel, bolt, stock, trigger, etc. Here, we consider the firearm the frame (for pistols) or the receiver (for rifles) where the ammunition is held and fed from.

This is a firearm:

This is a DSA FN FAL receiver. Note the cable lock through it. Just following safe storage practices lest someone shoot themselves accidentally.

Yes folks, this really is a gun. Under the laws and regulations as they current stand, this is a rifle (specifically an evil, black scary rifle). It doesn't matter that I haven't attached any of the parts to it yet. This is the part that has the serial number and the part that required me to do the background check and go through the waiting period here in Maryland to acquire. It is an example of #1 from my list of ways to get a gun. When you buy an assembled gun, what you are really paying for is the cost of the extra bits and ll the work that went into attaching those bits to the receiver that you are doing the paperwork on.

But this is about making your own gun. You might notice that one thing is missing from the picture of the AK-47 parts above. There is no receiver. You can see the jagged edges of metal where the receiver of the original rifle has been cut away. Once done, this AK-47 ceases to be a firearm that couldn't even be legally imported here in any way for civilian use and becomes a bunch of gun shaped parts that can be bought and sold freely through the mail.

It is legal to turn this pile of parts back into a working gun provided you follow some laws and regulations in doing so.

What?!?

There are two sets of regulations that cover the making of your own firearm. The first is the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA'68). There is an exception in that law that permits those who don't hold an FFL to make their own firearm for personal use. This is important since you may not know an FFL is not required just for selling guns but making them for sale as well. Every gun maker out there like Remington, Beretta USA, DSArms and so on has a Federal Firearms License that gives them permission to make guns to be sold to dealers, who in turn can sell them to you. The GCA'68 is what brought the licenses into being.

Here is a summation of the exception from GCA'68 that permits non-licensees (us) to make our own guns:

A – With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a nonlicensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from making a semiautomatic assault weapon or assembling a nonsporting semiautomatic rifle or nonsporting shotgun from imported parts. An application to make a machinegun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a federal or state agency. [18 U. S. C. 922( o), (r), (v), and 923, 27 CFR 178.39, 178.40, 178.41 and 179.105]

Emphasis mine.

What does this mean? The first highlight part is pretty self-explanatory. It means that you as an individual cannot manufacture a gun for personal use if you are not allowed to own a gun normally. In other words, if you can't go to the gun store and buy a gun through the normal process of passing a background check, you cannot legally make a gun for your own use under any circumstance.

To do so is a crime that will land you in prison.

The second part is more interesting and requires a little explanation.

...prohibited from making a semiautomatic assault weapon or assembling a nonsporting semiautomatic rifle or nonsporting shotgun from imported parts.

This is a somewhat inaccurate summation of the actual law that covers this since the "semiautomatic assault weapon" regulation was repealed in 2004 (18 USC 922(v), the so-called Federal "Assault Weapon Ban"). The law that applies here is 18 USC 922(r):

(r) It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under section 925 (d)(3) of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes except that this subsection shall not apply to—

• (1) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
• (2) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.

The key words are the ones I have highlighted here. The law prohibits someone from importing a gun made outside the USA that the Attorney General feels doesn't have a sporting use. And the Attorney General decides what "sporting use" means. In others, whatever the AG feels about a particular gun. Self-defense or because we like the way a particular gun looks or shoots doesn't qualify. The AK-47 is one of the guns that is considered by the AG to not have a "sporting use".

But, you see, the law only applies to guns assembled from imported parts. So why is it possible for us to walk into a gun store and buy guns that look like AK-47s? That, in fact, are made up from the parts of AK-47s as pictured here.

Because these guns are not imported as the law defines it.

In conjunction with 18 USC 922(r) above, the BATFE publishes regulations that determine how the law is to be applied. The important regulation is what defines an "imported firearm". This is through BATF regulation 178.39. Here it is:

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 27, Volume 1]
[Revised as of April 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 27CFR178.39]

[Page 1149]

TITLE 27--ALCOHOL, TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND FIREARMS

CHAPTER I--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY

PART 178--COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION--Table of Contents

Subpart C--Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 178.39 Assembly of semiautomatic rifles or shotguns.

(a) No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph (c) of this section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
(1) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(2) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Director under the provisions of Sec. 178.151; or
(3) The repair of any rifle or shotgun which had been imported into or assembled in the United States prior to November 30, 1990, or the replacement of any part of such firearm.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term imported parts are:
(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings or stampings
(2) Barrels
(3) Barrel extensions
(4) Mounting blocks (trunions)
(5) Muzzle attachments
(6) Bolts
(7) Bolt carriers
(8) Operating rods
(9) Gas pistons
(10) Trigger housings
(11) Triggers
(12) Hammers
(13) Sears
(14) Disconnectors
(15) Buttstocks
(16) Pistol grips
(17) Forearms, handguards
(18) Magazine bodies
(19) Followers
(20) Floorplates

[T.D. ATF-346, 58 FR 40589, July 29, 1993]

Again, emphasis is mine.

Taken together, 18 USC 922(r) and BATFE regulation 178.39 represent the greatest threat the anti-rights crowed will ever see! What does all this mean?

You keep seeing the phrase "imported parts" in assembling a firearm. Since we are discussing individuals, we are not subject to the exceptions for using imported parts that licensed makers are. We cannot make our own guns using imported parts if that gun is otherwise not allowed to be brought here and sold through licensed dealers.

In BATFE 178.39, I have exposed for you the "manufacturing loophole".

Drum roll, if you please...

If we use non-imported parts made here in the USA and replace them one-for-one for an imported part, once we replace enough imported parts in the gun, the gun ceases to be an "imported" rifle that cannot be sold to one that is considered "Made in the USA" and can be sold like any other gun. This despite the fact that a rifle in the exact same configuration but using Russian steel rather than American steel would be illegal to import for civilian sale.

No one ever said the law has to make sense.

You'll see at the bottom of the regulation above a list of 20 parts that are considered by the BATFE to be the parts of a firearm. These are parts that need to be replaced with USA made parts until we cross the threshold from foreign-made to US made. From the regulation, the key phrase is "no more than 10 imported parts".

In the gun community, this is called the "10 or less" game. Once we replace a significant number of foreign parts with US made equivalents and there are no more than 10 evil, foreign made parts in our gun, it becomes a happy, patriotic, "Made in the USA", red-white-and-blue fine upstanding salable rifle.

What all of this means is if we take a parts kit like our AK-47, buy US-made parts in the proper number and put them together, we have our very own, perfectly-legal US-made AK-47 pattern rifle.

Pretty cool, eh?

But it gets better!

How is our making our own rifle out of US-made parts the greatest threat to safety the gun control world has ever seen? Remember the FAL receiver that was legally purchased and had the paperwork done on? Well, what you may not realize is that the receiver is one of the US-made parts you can use in lieu of a foreign-made one. In the case of the AK pattern rifles, you have to use a US-made receiver since the original foreign one is cut up.

There are US companies that make AK receivers just like the FAL receiver I showed you. Legally speaking, buying one of those receivers is the same as buying a complete AK pattern rifle. Here in Maryland, it would be subject to the 8 day waiting period and "one gun a month" law that the complete rifle would be.

But there's nothing in the law that says you have to buy a pre-made receiver. Hold on to your seats, folks because here it comes...

You can legally manufacture your own firearm receiver and assemble a gun upon it without any paperwork whatsoever!!!

That is the "manufacturing loophole". Provided you are not prohibited under Federal or State law, as mentioned previously, from buying a gun in the configuration you want to build, you are free to make it yourself without any Government involvement in the process at all.

For an AK-47, the material cost to do this is about $20. Take a look:

This is a future AK-47 receiver. And like the parts kit, you can order these through the mail without any paperwork at all. The reason is because, unlike the FAL receiver, this is not yet a firearm legally speaking.

Other BATFE regulations define the point at which a receiver is considered complete enough to require a serial number and be subject to all the regulations that govern guns sales. For all intents and purposes, any receiver or frame with a level of completion of 80 percent or less is not considered a firearm under the law. As such, they can be bought and sold through the mail freely.

Above is a Tapco AK flat. You'll notice that it has all of the necessary holes drilled. But an AK receiver is square. For AK's, this is an 80 percent receiver. In order to turn it into a legal firearm, this receiver flat must be bent in a press, be heat treated for strength and have some additional finishing work done on it. As a general rule, the BATFE considers a receiver at 80 percent when it would require about 20 hours of additional work to make it finished and ready for assembly.

Why would people do this? There are many reasons.

Contrary to popular gun banner belief, people generally don't do this to avoid government scrutiny and potential gun registration. You've got to be pretty dedicated to want a gun the Government knows nothing about and go to the effort of making it.

Which becomes pointless if you sit here and broadcast your intentions to the world as I've just done here.

The two main reasons to do something like this are pride and economy. People do this to get a gun that is truly theirs. Not some member of a production line with whatever cosmetics the owner wants to throw on but a one-of-a-kind, unique to you firearm. Admittedly, the homebuilt gun may or may not shoot better than the off-the-shelf equivalent but unlike the one bought in the gun store, the owner will know every inch of the gun and take pride in the love (and sometimes blood) shed on their newest member to their collection.

The other is economy. Done properly, a homebuilt firearm generally costs from 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of its new equivalent. Your time might equate to it costing more but most folks like me don't consider their personal time into the cost of an acquisition.

Done right with the cost of the parts kit and all of the US made parts needed to make it legally compliant, a AK-47 pattern rifle will cost $180-$250 in total parts to complete. Given that a basic, no-frills AK-47 semi-auto Romanian (which is what I've pictured here) will run retail around $450, this is a good deal.

There are some caveats to this activity. One, you had better be very aware of the laws that govern the making your own firearm. I've given you the big ones here. But you as the builder are responsible for ensuring you are in compliance with your State and local laws. If your area bans AK-47 pattern rifles, then it is not legal for you to make one.

Follow the rule of "If you can't buy it here, you can't build here either.". Maryland is pretty straightforward on this despite the BS nature of our laws. I couldn't imagine being a home builder in California.

Another is you have to be the one doing the work or have that work done under your direct supervision. This is very, very important when making your own receiver. If you buy an AK flat and give it to your buddy at the machine shop to bend and heat treat for you, you're both in violation of the law for engaging in the manufacture of a firearm without a Federal Firearm License.

At a minimum, you have to be standing over his shoulder telling him what to do while he's doing it. Even then, you might find yourself unwanted attention if you didn't thoroughly document your work. I go one further and reverse the roles and have him tell me what to do and never have his hands touch the receiver at all.

Or do it yourself with no one around. For the paranoid, videotape your manufacturing so you can prove you and only you were the one involved. If you ever find yourself crossing swords with the BATFE over this, you'll lose no matter how in the right you are. Avoid it at all costs. Document, document, document. On that topic, save the packages and receipts for your US-made parts so you can prove you didn't use a foul Commie trigger instead of a free American one. It may mean the difference between freedom or a jail cell. A $2 piece of metal isn't worth it.

Lastly, you cannot sell your homemade firearm under most circumstances. There are exceptions. Legally, you are not required to place any markings like a serial number on your gun. I would strongly advise you to do so, preferably in a permanent fashion. The reason is you don't want to be explaining to a park ranger or the police officer that just pulled you over coming back from the range why your AK-47 rifle has no serial number on it. You might be in the right but you might be spending several hours or days as a guest of the local constabulary until they check it out.

Make up a serial number and get it engraved or stamped onto your new toy. An embossing kit is cheap and well worth it. Some folks stamp their full names and addresses onto their homemade guns. If you ever plan to put a silencer or short-barrel onto it in the future, you'll need to do this anyway. At a minimum, a unique sequence that you can use for identification and insurance purposes.

The law says you don't have to. Exercise some common sense and do so anyway. It will reduce the pucker factor of any Government official you may come into contact with over your newest member of the gun cabinet.

Now do you see why this is the greatest threat the gun banners have ever seen? One, these are untraceable firearms. To them, if the Government isn't involved, it has to be a loophole. Two, it goes against their notion of "guns are complicated and must be controlled". If you're good with hand tools, you can build your own gun on a kitchen table.

Three, you can't uninvent this technology. This goes against their long-term goal that if guns are banned, eventually guns will disappear. Not as long as there are parts kits and hand tools around. Or pieces of pipe from the hardware store for that matter. Google "home made gun" sometime. You'd be amazed how easy it is with a little skill to make crude firearms. Hell, Afghans and Pakistanis routinely turn out complete revolvers and real full-auto AK-47 rifles from mudbrick huts given enough time. As long as we have the tools, we'll have the means to arm ourselves.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to imagine what would happen if guns were banned and the means to make them goes underground. Shootings was a secondary effect of Prohibition with rum runners protecting their lucrative business. Imagine if the guns themselves was the lucrative business? I think it would make the Prohibition period seems downright peaceful.

Home gunsmithing is rarely talked about. But it does exist. I've gone from gun neophyte to building my first rifles in the space of only a few years. It is well within the grasp of any dedicated hobbyist. If you're shooting on a budget, it can be a way to enhance your collection at less cost.

Forget about the gun show loophole. It's nothing. This is the "gun grow loophole". Be aware of this though because if they ever close the "gun show loophole", this one will be next in their sights.

Off to bend some receivers and build a baby killing death machine!

* A reference to the British sci-fi sitcom "Red Dwarf", a personal favorite from the episode "Back to Reality" where there are election posters in the background that read "Vote Fascist for a 3rd glorious decade of TOTAL law enforcement!". Pretty much sums up far left thinking on how they would be really running things.

Thank You Again, Ronnie Barret!

Courtesy of Kim du Toit comes this letter from Ronnie Barrett in response to Hawaii's proposal to ban the .50 caliber rifle. Here is Mr. Barrett's letter reproduced in its entirety in case the link disappears:

Dear Chief Correa:

I am Ronnie Barrett, President of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc. In 1982, I invented a rifle and started producing it in my gravel-floor garage. Through hard work and financial risk, my company has grown into a brand that is known around the world for its products and services.

What began for me as a personal sport shooting rifle has evolved into one that is used by many sportsmen throughout the country, the United States military, law enforcement agencies and by nearly 50 American allied countries around the world.

Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, like all U.S. small arms defense contractors, has a combination of civilian, police and government defense sales in order to sustain its business life. This is the only way we can stand ready when products are needed in both peacetime and during war.

Simply put, the small arms defense industry in America would not survive if not for commercial sales, which are a significant part of our business. Unless the government is ready to bring back its manufacturing arsenals that were finally closed in 1968, it needs to guard and protect the privately-owned businesses that provide these essential products.

The act of a governmental entity banning commercial sales of legal firearms, such as my .50 caliber rifle, not only violates the basic principles of the United States Constitution, but also puts national security at risk by ending the delicate balance between the government and the private sector. Furthermore, it sets a precedent that endangers the future of other vital defense contractors.

How important is this particular rifle? In 2004, the United States Army named the Barrett M107 Rifle as one of the Top 10 Greatest Inventions for helping our brave service men and women do their jobs. The free enterprise system allowed me, a civilian sportsman and manufacturer, to perfect that rifle and get it into the hands of those who use it to defend freedom.

I am, of course, aware that you are receiving exaggerated and untrue information that is originating from the Violence Policy Center. For many years The VPC has claimed an urgent need to ban powerful rifles by predicting some attack will soon happen that would result in preposterous destruction. Well, as much as they promote the attack idea, they don’t happen, as this is not the type of weapon our enemies are using against us.

VPC’s call for urgent action is in hopes that no time will be spent in factual research that easily reveals the irrationality of these exaggerated claims. All of these tactics have failed to work in Washington, D.C. Now, the VPC’s plan is to continue this deception at the state level.

I was in law enforcement myself for several years. There is something that bothers me, and I believe it should bother you as a police official. Sir, your general testimony and statements must be based on factual evidence. All police work in this great nation must be firmly grounded in facts, collected evidence, and the solid truth.

Throughout history, when police work was contaminated with innuendos, fabrications and fear tactics, the society was doomed. Now, I must ask you how many murders can you report that were committed in your jurisdiction with a .50-caliber rifle? How many robberies? How many .50-caliber rifles have you found at crime scenes? The answers should be the true facts; anything else is the destroyer of our society, our great republic.

It is the law. Barrett Firearms Manufacturing cannot sell our products to those who break the law even though the officials responsible may not yet be indicted. Barrett will not support a state or local government that is obviously in violation of the United States Constitution thereby jeopardizing the safety and security of its citizens.

Be aware there are more companies that will respect this position. If Hawaii or any state bans the sale of the .50-caliber rifle, we will immediately stop the sale and service of all Barrett products to that state’s government agencies. We will also welcome all small arms manufacturers to take the same action.

Ronnie G. Barrett is the President of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.

I'm sure this will draw the VPC into another unwarranted attack on the great Mr. Barrett. ;)

I have nothing but admiration for Ronnie Barrett. He made a stand on California, has reiterated that stand and is willing to carry through on any state that would deny citizen's their rights.

Thanks again, sir! You make Americans proud!

New Calibers We'd Like to See

Guns are constantly evolving and over time, we come up with new and specialized calibers to perform certain tasks. Better range, more velocity, more impact energy which all translates into more deadly, serves-no-purpose-but-to-kill lethality.

With that in mind, there are some new calibers we'd like to see on the market...

The .195CAT. Cats need love too and they're smaller than poodles.
The 6.9PSH. When the 6.8SPC just isn't scary enough.
The 7mm OMFG. For when your shoulder demands more than the 7.62x54R can give.
The 9.5mm FCK. Choice of drug dealers everywhere.
The 11.5mm OFCK. Choice of DEA agents everywhere.
The 14.7mm HLYSHT* . For when the .50BMG just isn't cutting it.

Inspired and courtesy of Robb and Weer'd Beard.

* Highly Lethal You Should Hide Thyself. What did you think it meant?!?

Weber on Gun Control

I'm a big science fiction and history fan. A couple of years ago, my best friend introduced me to David Weber. He is a well-known science fiction author who is most recognized for his Honor Harrington series of books. This series takes place in the future and is based on ideals and concepts from the Horatio Hornblower fiction. It has elements of space opera, high drama, massive battlefleets, politics and a variety of characters, their motivations, history and machinations and weaves them all together.

The series has appeal to me because it ties together two systems of government I am familiar with. The protagonist Star Kingdom of Manticore is based on the British Empire and all of its political institutions. The antagonist Republic of Haven, depending on where in the series you are, is at times a declining welfare state, a Stalinist/Totalitarian "People's" government and ultimately a representative Republic not dissimilar from the United States.

Like most science fiction, especially that involving conspiracies and bigger-than-life heroines, there is a assortment of deadly, high-powered weaponry of unbelievable destructive power. There is a ton of it in the "Honorverse" (as the universe these books are set in is known as). A lot of the themes and concepts within are recognizable to us as natural extensions of present technology, doctrine and tactics. In fact, most of the military institutions portrayed within the books are based on existing ones complete with all their traditions, foibles and idiosyncrasies.

Unlike a lot of authors who simply have the violence and weaponry used to commit it simply present as par for the course, Weber has gone to the trouble to explain a lot of the underlying concepts and issues that he presents in his books ranging from politics to ethics. One of the areas that he touches upon is the issue of gun control.

From all indications, Weber himself appears to have rather libertarian leanings if his essay on gun control in the Honorverse is any indication. To those in favor of government regulation of guns (or any other aspect of our lives), I can tell you now that you won't like this.

The essay starts off:

Gun control in the Star Kingdom of Manticore would probably make the NRA very happy. I wonder why that is?

And here's why...

There are no real restrictions on the small arms available to private citizens (small arms in this instance being defined as non-energy, projectile-throwing weapons) at the national level. As far as the Crown is concerned, if you can afford it and you want to lug it around, you have a constitutional right to do so. At the same time, the royal ministry of justice comes down like a hammer on anyone who misuses or abuses any weapon. Energy weapons are somewhat restricted in availability. The position of the Crown and Her Majesty's Government is that projectile weapons, especially with the lethality of pulsers and tri-barrels, are sufficient for most self-defense means and constitute sufficient firepower to give even minions of a tyrannical central government pause. Energy weapons are regarded as falling in an intermediate stage between weapons of self-defense and weapons of mass destruction. Private citizens can own them, but unlike the owners of projectile weapons, they are required to pass a government-designed competency test and to be bonded. Moreover, unlike projectile weapons, energy weapons must be registered.

(Emphasis mine).

This pretty much sums up a lot of libertarian views on gun control, mine included. It clearly separates the notion of possession from the notion of use. Something a lot of present-day gun banners can't seem to get straight in their heads. I know a lot of gun rights advocates feel the same way as Weber does.

The "energy weapons" restrictions closely parallel the present restrictions that exist on machine guns today with the difference being that they are not effective banned through onerous taxation. Rather, they require government-mandated training, the owner to be insured and they are registered with the government. I wonder how the gun control crowd would react to those requirements in a modern context? It would certainly meet their prong of "proper training" but I think they would screech anyway at the prospect of what they see as "weapons of mass destruction" in the hands of mere citizens.

Interestingly, the fictional Star Kingdom is not unlike our present CCW system as illustrated below. You have to wonder if they pulled this straight from their own historical archives on the pre-space United States circa 2008:

The Constitution of the Star Kingdom specifically guarantees the right of the citizens to be armed, and where small arms are concerned, the entire Star Kingdom is under a "shall-issue" system. Local municipalities can -- and do -- pass local ordinances which restrict where and how weapons may be carried, however. For example, in the City of Landing, chemical-powered projectile weapons can be carried by virtually anyone, although the City requires licensing and the successful passing of a basic competency test before they can be carried concealed. Pulsers, on the other hand, are restricted to police officers and bonded security forces as carry weapons within the city limits and may not be carried concealed at all under normal circumstances. In addition, there are certain areas in the city where private citizens are not permitted to bring weapons. Such places would include courts of law, government offices, etc. No municipality, however, under the Constitution, may legally tell a citizen that he/she cannot possess any non-energy weapon he/she wishes, including pulsers, within his/her own home.

That last paragraph sounds eerily like the circumstances of a certain gun case going through the Supreme Court right about now.

What is also interesting is Weber has a very enlightened view of firearm safety training:

The Star Kingdom does not mandate a Kingdom-wide weapons training curriculum, but the policy of the Crown has always been to strongly encourage local school boards to make such courses part of the required curriculum at what we would consider the middle school and high school levels. The position of the Crown is that since the right to be armed is enshrined in the Constitution, it only makes sense to ensure that every citizen has basic safety and marksmanship training. There is, however, an enormous degree of local autonomy when it comes to making decisions about school systems for specific communities or duchies, and by tradition, the Crown cannot dictate what a specific local or regional curriculum will include. In effect, though, the degree of emphasis the Crown has placed on certain courses -- history, weapons safety, etc. -- has been more than sufficient to ensure virtually 100 percent acceptance of them, which means that almost all citizens of the Star Kingdom have received at least basic weapons instruction.

In my opinion, this is how we should do things today if it again wasn't for the cries of the gun controllers that knowledge of guns and their function would equate to their violent criminal usage. They reject out-of-hand the notion that a child who knows how a gun works and removing of its forbidden nature would be more likely to act in a safe manner around it or more important, summon help that could.

That is the whole idea behind the Eddie Eagle program. Weber's concept carries Eddie Eagle beyond those roots and marries them the exposure high-school kids received to guns in the form of 1950s era school rifle teams. Can you imagine all high school teens receiving basic weapons instruction and shooting familiarization as part of regular classes just like English or Math?!?

I would draw your attention to the very progressive attitude highlighted in the emphasized portions above. The notion that since the keeping and bearing of arms is a citizen's right, it behooves the citizen to actually understand the nature and exercise of the right. I think a lot of folks would agree that if we exercised such a civic-minded approach in our society today, we'd all be better off. Knowledge is power.

When you reduce guns to a tool with all its benefits, dangers and limitations rather than an object of fear and mysticism, they fade into the background like any other tool. Only in our current society do we place a disproportionate emphasis on the misuse of guns versus knives or baseball bats. If we applied the same regulations to bat ownership due to blunt force trauma and assault that we do to guns, there'd be no Little League.

Like with all fundamental rights, Weber covers the punishment for irresponsible exercise of the same in a manner that I think virtually every rights advocate today states as a universal truth:

Although the Star Kingdom's Constitution enshrines the right of the citizen to be armed, and specifically prohibits the government from infringing that right (except, as noted above, in the case of energy weapons), there are a great many ways in which an individual citizen may lose that right. All of them involve criminal or criminally negligent actions on the part of the citizen, and the criminal and civil liability penalties for the misuse or abuse of personal weapons, from old-fashioned edged steel to energy weapons, are severe. One might almost call them draconian, because most of them entail hefty periods of jail time (at a minimum) in addition to the subsequent permanent loss of the right to possess weapons.

Again, punish the person wielding the tool, not the tool itself.

And most importantly, not the body of citizens-at-large for the criminal acts of a few. The final paragraph sums up the view of rights in the Star Kingdom quite succinctly:

Basically, the Star Kingdom believes in punishing individuals for their actions rather than depriving entire groups of law-abiding individuals of their rights.

This is what we advocate every day. The old mantra of "Guns don't kill people; people do.".

I know very little of David Weber's personal beliefs or views but I suspect as I stated earlier he is not unlike a lot of us who cherish individual rights and freedoms and see the exercise of this liberty as a good thing. That despite the occasional bad thing happening.

Weber's work is the one of the few places, despite the military background of the characters in the books, where carrying a gun and its usage is perfectly normal and not out of place. It is a universe where a twelve year old girl carries a gun to protect herself in a rural environment as a matter-of-course and the sight of a weapon on the girl wouldn't bat a eyebrow on any citizen. I don't think we are anywhere close to that yet but I certainly agree with the sentiment. Many of us do but that training is limited to our families and tend to be confined to enlightened localities at best.

Alas, a gun banner would seize on this concept of kids receiving mandatory gun training and having the ability to carry one as local circumstances dictate as gun freaks wanting to arm everyone. Which, of course, isn't not what we want to do. Simply that we feel that everyone should have the choice to be armed if they wish, regardless of environment, and to be responsible citizens when they do so.

Which Weber addresses as well which effectively mirrors the present dichotomy between urban vs. rural environments:

This would not necessarily be the case for someone born and raised in a more urban area. Most of those areas continue to enshrine the right of the citizen to be armed and to use lethal force in self-defense under circumstances which make it appropriate, but the environmental threats are much less extreme and so the majority of the citizens feel no particular need to go around armed to the teeth.

Read the whole essay (despite the fact I've covered most of it here). It is a quite an interesting read and I think applied to our present-day society, we could lay the foundation for the freedoms that Weber exposes in his futuristic one.

Big Guns

Some of us are caliber enthusiasts. We like guns with big bores that fire fast, heavy, powerful rounds. For those who are, there can really never be "too much gun". Some might opt for recoil pads or wussy recoil absorption systems (think Barret .50BMG rifles here) but we take pride in foot-long black bruises on our shoulders from guns that kill on both ends.

We'll trade velocity for bullet weight. As long as it is moving fast enough and resists being deflected by the wind, we're happy. Plus, bigger equals more range. Range is good.

While I get some stuff in order, here is a look at a classic big bore. She's old, older than my oldest rifle but not by many years. A true classic that has served generations with distinction even as newer technology came along.

Absolutely beautiful! Who wouldn't trade a .50BMG for 10 14 inch guns firing a 9800000gr round at 2700fps? Unfortunately, not many of them available surplus and it is an NFA item.

I couldn't resist sharing this. This is the USS Texas, the world's last dreadnought.

I must get back to visit and appreciate her properly.

Kentucky Shame: Non-Citizen Has CCW Rights Restored

Courtesy of reader Brent comes this little article out of Kentucky about a Federal judge overturning a Kentucky law that prohibits non-citizens from carrying concealed weapons.

As Brent mentioned to me, he thought I might be interested and I am. This would have had a direct impact on me if I chose to carry in Louisville, Kentucky during the NRA Annual Convention. What may shock you was this suit was brought and won by the ACLU!

The crux of the article:

The ACLU challenged the citizenship requirement, saying Kentucky lawmakers should not have passed the law.

The sheriff's department and state police would have to approve Say's license application.

Say argued that no federal law requires U.S. citizenship for people to be licensed to purchase, carry, transport or carry a concealed deadly weapon, and neither should state law.

This is correct and was properly struck down. There is no provision in Federal law to deny firearms rights to non-citizens provided the non-citizens meet the proper criteria. Essentially, the non-citizens must be US permanent residents (aka Green Card holders).

Yes, non-citizens have the same gun rights as US citizens.

We can carry concealed firearms with the proper permits.

We can hold Federal Firearms Licenses and engage in the business of manufacturing or selling firearms.

We can be Federally licensed collectors (FFL03 C&R).

We can own NFA firearms including machine guns provided we pay the tax and it is permissible to do so wherever we live.

There is nothing we can't do with firearms that a US citizen can.

This disturbs some people. There are those in the gun community who feel only US citizens are deserved of firearms rights. I find this attitude interesting because it is attacking the very people whom you want to take pride in the United States and be worthwhile citizens! Allow non-citizens to exercise firearms rights is important. It allows us to develop ties to American culture and history that is unique to nowhere else in the world. By exercising these rights, we become more American and more likely to uphold and defend American ideals in our lives.

Yet, some US citizens see themselves above folks like me. You don't need to read between the lines to figure out what I think of that.

I'm glad this fellow has prevailed. I was honestly unaware this was even happening. God help me if it hadn't and I had been questioned by a Kentucky officer while carrying as a non-citizen under a Virginia non-resident permit.

That would have been most unfortunate. I will have to print this out and keep it with me while Louisville!

Life Changing Events

This one's personal and it isn't about rights or guns.

You read about people having terrible things happen to them and you think, "How horrible! It must be tough on them." and then you think no more of it. It's abstract. You can sympathize, sure, but you really aren't affected by it. In the back of your mind, you're thinking you're glad it wasn't you. It's simple human nature.

Yesterday for me, the abstract became the real.

My dog, Foster, was diagnosed with Type II diabetes. Very severe diabetes.

Normal people and dogs have blood sugar around 100mg/ml. Foster's was 405mg/ml.

I am now in the middle of what charitably could be called "a major change in lifestyle".

I now understand what having your world come crashing down around you means. It is at times like this that you truly come face-to-face with what you're made up of inside.

This started a little over two weeks ago. We noticed Foster was drinking a lot of water and wanted to go outside to pee. Originally, this had been normal. He had been taking steroids for a paw infection and we had been weaning him off them per vet orders. One of the side effects of this drug is the effects just described. However, he was off the steroids long enough and yet was still continuing with this.

So we called the vet. His instructions were to bring him in as soon as possible for a blood test for kidney problems or diabetes. His frequent going to the bathroom was a possible sign of both. On Tuesday, we took him in for a blood test, an ordeal in and of itself. One day later we got the results.

That was yesterday.

This is the first time I have ever heard my fiancee cry. Because it was bad news. So bad, in fact, our instructions from the vet were simple: You must bring him in immediately to get this under control. Or else.

The "Or Else" was emphasized to us standing in the exam room being shown how to draw insulin and stick him with it. The vet was brutally frank: "If you don't find a way to do this, he'll be dead within a couple weeks.".

There are two camps of people with pets and I've lived in both. The first is those who love animals, are compassionate but have limits because they are animals. My parents fall into this group. I've had pets in the house since I was an infant. We've always had a dog and a cat. But no matter how much my folks loved our pets (and they did and do), there was always the knowledge that compassion and unconditional love can only go so far. They would do much to help them, to relieve pain and suffering but in the end they could only go so far. The calculus of cost vs. quality of life begins to come into play. Sometimes, a pet isn't worth the hundreds or thousasnds of dollars it would cost especially if it was old. This was generally the criteria in my house growing up but once in a while not the only one.

I fall into the second camp. Foster is more than a pet: He's a four-legged child with a limited vocabulary. For my fiancee, there is no quibbling. He is her child. He has been her one constant companion for the past seven years. People have been there and gone from her life but Fossie has always been there.

Devastation does not even begin to cover this. It tears your heart out.

I'm living in a new world today. They say there are times you have to buckle down and do what is right no matter how hard it hurts you. This is one of them.

Suddenly, we have to give Foster twice-a-day insulin shots. To a dog that normally requires heavy sedation and a muzzle even while under said sedation to even allow the vet to come anywhere near him. Now, we have to go near him with a needle twice-a-day without the benefit of such.

Shot #1 was not a good harbinger of things to come. The vet explained everything to us, I held Foster with his muzzle on and the vet did it quick and fast.

Foster lunged at the vet snarling and caused the vet to instinctively kick back. The only thing we could take away was the hope that with Mom and Dad in familiar surroundings he would be more managable.

My fiancee couldn't do it and I understand perfectly why. To both of us, we are hurting him. And unlike a human child, the furry one can't talk to us and we can't explain to him why we are doing this to him. All we can do is go forward with the knowledge that if we don't, we'll lose him due to our own fear and cowardice. Still, it's gut wrenching. How many of you can sit there with a needle full of insulin and prepare to stick your own child in the arm for their own good without some degree of terror and trepidation? Or not feel sick to your stomach, knowing you were causing them pain?

So I did it. Which was easy and hard. I hate needles no matter where they are. To have to deliberate do this to my boy shook me greatly. But I did it because I have to. He'll suffer if I don't and my fiancee needs to know he was and will be alright.

He still lunged at me.

It's gone a little easier than I thought but only time will tell how difficult this will be. We've had to change everything. His food has changed. Treats are out and the ones he is allowed have to be sugar-free. We have to measure his blood sugar levels and give him the insulin on clockwork intervals after he eats. Every day, twice-a-day, for the rest of his life.

This is not a plea for sympathy. This was no one's fault. It is one of those things that just happens.

If anything, we're fortunate. At the blood sugar levels they found in the blood test, dogs normally go blind. Quickly (as within days). The fact he could still see was nothing short of a miracle. It could have been kidney disease which would have been fatal. Certainly not the best outcome but out of a list of bad options, we're still ahead of the curve.

This morning, 36 hours later, was the first time he didn't drink his water bowl dry, get me up several times overnight to be let out or pee on his indoor pads. I'm hopeful that is a good sign and that we will be able to regulate him without much difficulty. What I fear is low blood sugar going forward. The condition he is in is bad enough. It can do permanent harm. But it would have taken time to kill him. Low blood sugar can kill within minutes (humans or animals). That is my new terror, waking up in the middle or the night or in the morning and he's in a diabetic coma and unresponsive.

I can't dwell on that. That is in the foggy future. All we are doing now is going day-to-day and making sure he's happy, getting him healthy and that he is the same dog he's always been.

He's hoping for good days ahead.

Calling the Ball

Sebastian and Uncle have been following this pretty hard. I've been following the SCOTUSBlog live blog of the events.

I think Heller will win. I predict a 6-3 decision in favor. I'd also like to state on the record that if the decision goes 9-0 in favor of Heller, I will take my entire team out for a celebratory lunch or dinner on me. Just getting that out there.

On to my insignificant predictions since I am certainly no expert on the subject and I defer to others on this to help shape my opinion.

I believe Alito, Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas will fall in favor of Heller.

I believe the following will be the outcome of the case:

The Second Amendment will be upheld as an individual right and not subject to ties to militia or military service. This is the key. We need to get this "collective right in service of a militia" garbage slammed into a deep and everlasting grave. With that, we have the foundation stone to roll back gun laws.

The DC gun ban will be struck down as being draconian. The Court will find that the District went too far in not carving an exception out for functional rifles and shotguns for the purposes of self-defense. They will rule that such legislation is a de-facto ban and cannot be held as Constitutional. Keeping arms is not sufficient if you are unable to bear them.

The DC ban on handguns will likewise be struck down as the lack of permitting new registrations is an overly broad infringement on an individual right to arms. More importantly, especially given Alito's questions on how the DC law could survive any standard of review given they ban the possession and use of the most common tool for self-defense, I do believe that handgun bans will be found to be Unconstitutional.

What I think this means is handguns will become, either directly (I hope) or indirectly (ala Miller) a Constitutionally protected class of arms. If so, let the challenges commence. Watching Daley and Bloomberg mess their Depends will provided much entertainment.

I think the Court will sidestep or simply ignore any issues regarding a full standard of review citing that those issues were not directly raised and defer such issues to future cases to decide the bounds of protection of an individual right under the 2nd Amendment. I'm sure it will be either creative and flowerly or simply absent.

I think the dissent will make for interesting reading.

I think the Court is going to rule narrowly solely on the questions raised regarding an individual right and strike down the DC laws. Despite the Solicitor General's protestations, I think raising issues of standard of review in order to protect Federal gun laws was premature and will likely backfire in the long-term. I think the Court will see this effort as tangential to the issues at hand and in the end set them aside for the future.

I'm not doing a victory dance yet but I think we've taken the first step towards reclaiming our liberty.

Many thanks to Alan Gura and Robery Levy! You've done us proud!

Tomorrow's The Day!

I thought about getting in line for Heller vs. DC tomorrow. Don't have the holiday hours to do it though. I am looking forward to hearing the results and reading the transcripts. Then we can begin the next two or three months of true nail biting.

I've already warned my manager that I'm going to be as bouncy as a jackrabbit tomorrow. I've been keeping him abreast of the case so he understands why.

Off to the vet tomorrow to get blood drawn from the dingo. Poor Foster apparently has canine diabetes. So we've spent the weekend adjusting to that news. Better than kidney disease though. Still, it's tough and we don't know the depths of the problem. If I have to give him insulin shots, I better start investing in chain mail and Kevlar. I'll need it.

Too much hopping around in my head right now. I hope to comment tomorrow.

Friday Gun Grabber Math

One of the figures you see get bandied about by the "I Hate Guns" crowd in their efforts to see these dastardly devices of Evil Incarnate removed from our potential glorious Utopia is the one where having a gun in the house makes it 20 times more likely to be involved in gun violence against a family member than an intruder.

Bear in mind that this is first-grade gun banner stuff. Only graduates further along in the School of Hoplophobia are allowed to use big words like "public safety", "for the children" and "collective good".

In citing this "figure", they conveniently ignore the fact this figure has been debunked, is in fact supposed to be "43 times" not "20 times" and when regurgitated, it is at best, a form of statistical masturbation. You know the kind of math I'm talking about. The kind where you work the figures hard enough to coax out the result you desire.

I've been seeing this "logic" repeated over and over on left-leaning forums against guns and I found myself thinking about what my base probability for violence in my home would be.

The thinking is if you have a gun in the house, you will very likely to become a victim of it or a victimizer with it. Such as shooting your child in the dark of night as they sneak in after curfew and mistake them for a burglar. Or be checking a strange noise in the basement, hear a mouse fart and put one through the ceiling and into your baby's crib. You know, that kind of thing.

People believe this is a commmon place occurence. Head shaking...

Anyway, you start to wonder. At a minimum, I can place an upper bounds on the probability of my shooting a family member. Worst-case, my value is 100 percent, meaning I've just plugged Mom or my fiancee. Well, if I am 20 times more likely, then my base percentage of shooting a family member is 5% with a gun versus not having one in the house. If we use the accepted 43 times figure, this drops to 2.32 percent.

Anyone see the mathematical disconnect in this gun banner bullshit?

If there is no gun in my house, my probability of shooting a family member by mistake falls to zero. If so, how can I be X times more likely to pop a cap in my future mother-in-law when zero times any number remains zero?

Idiots. I learned that stuff in math class real early on.

And yet, they vomit this "statistic" out like it was Holy Writ.

So explain to me, enlightened one, with the presence of a loaded .45 in arms reach most of the time why I haven't knocked off my future Mom, my loving fiancee and finished off the dingo in one sordid night of hellish violence?

I'm waiting...

And does this statistic takes into account the number of arms present? Do they act as multipliers in the equation? If so, then it is inevitable that I simply must shoot a family member. There simply can be no other outcome. There are too many guns, too much ammunition and the possibility of me mistaking the shadow of the furry red head for a 6 foot, 250 pound burglar for an intruder whom I shoot in a panic when he fails to respond to my order to freeze, me having left my handy LED flashlight on the nightstand where I keep my gun in my eager panic to engage in wholesale slaughter. It has to be unavoidable.

Right.

The whole "you are N times more likely to be..." reasoning anywhere is fatally flawed because it can't and doesn't apply uniformly to those who fall into the affected class. Just because I might be X times more likely to suffer some horrible penalty does not mean I will. It just means my set of initial conditions have been averaged into those of others in the same position and extrapolated this number (generally out of their nether regions) for those who had the bad thing happen.

This type of math is used in science to buttress a potential position, nothing more. It doesn't make it accurate or any more likely.

Yes, these are the things my mind wanders off to in search of lunch on a wonderful 60 degree afternoon when I'd rather than be in the grass at Quantico behind my favorite distance rifle, 200 rounds in the box, one hot in the chamber, a target at 400 meters and me with a grin a mile wide as I squeeze on the trigger.

I better be careful if I do. Never know when a family member might be behind the berm!

Safe weekend everyone!

Ridiculous Laws, Ridiculous Brains

Here in the Free State of Maryland we have one of those soft, huggy-feely, make-me-happy kind of laws with regard to guns. Lately, there have been a few incidents with folks and this law.

It is the law in Maryland regarding the possession of magazines for firearms.

Here is the law in question:

4-305. Detachable magazines - Prohibited.

(a) Scope of section.- This section does not apply to a .22 caliber rifle with a tubular magazine.
(b) Prohibited.- A person may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a detachable magazine that has a capacity of more than 20 rounds of ammunition for a firearm.

Source: Maryland Code 4-305

It seems some folks have encountered numerous misconceptions regarding this law.

The first involves AIM Surplus. It seems lately that their sales staff have developed a mystical connection to a legal interpretation God somewhere on high. They were offering good deals on AK pattern rifles and some folks here in MD decided to order one. Like all good citizens, they asked if the folks at AIM would substitute the two 30 round magazines with two 20 round magazines. The clerk replied and I paraphrase, "Yes, but we can only ship one magazine. More would break Maryland law.".

Huh?

Our intrepid Marylander proceeded to quote the above statute but the staffer remained adamant. Our citizen indicated he would call back after contacting the owner of AIM Surplus.

Let me explain something here. The prohibition on capacity only applies for capacities greater than 20 rounds. It is not an upper bounds of the total capacity of all the magazines put together. I could call up magazine makers around the country and order a semi load full of AR, AK, FAL, HK, M1A and PRI 6.8SPC magazines with capacities of 20 rounds or less and the only question that should be asked of me by the vendor will be the instructions to the truck driver of "Where do you want them?".

Oh, it gets better.

Another fellow on the Maryland Shooters Forum placed an order for 30 round AK magazines and wanted them delivered to his college address in South Carolina. AIM responded by holding the order because he had a Maryland billing address. They contacted him with the following:

We received your order but before we process we need to ask if the mags will remain in SC and not be taken back into MD. We will hold the order pending your reply.

Thanks

Steve

Sales, AIM

To which our fellow replied:

The mags will be staying in SC with my girlfriend. I will not bring them up to Maryland. However, you should probobly know that in Maryland the sale or transfer of magazines over 20 rounds is illegal but importation of mags into the state by a resident of the state is legal. According to Maryland firearms laws and the Maryland State Police it is perfectly legal for a resident of Maryland to travel to another state where sale magazines over 20 rounds is legal, buy the magazines and then take them back to Maryland. This is according to the state law and the Maryland State Police.

AIM canceled the order anyway. Seems they didn't believe him.

Not that it mattered because he was correct.

It's a shame because AIM will never receive my business because of this. It seems they can't read.

There is nothing illegal about the possession of magazines larger than 20 rounds in the State of Maryland. I use the word "possession" because it is the word that is missing from the law. It seems based on the history of this law that the word was deliberately left out by the Maryland Legislature during its passage in order to provide an "out" for owners of said magazines already in the State. How nice of them.

It had an unintended effect. Note that the prohibition applies to sales and transfer of the 20+ round magazines only within the borders of the state itself. It is mute on magazines acquired out-of-state. It seems AIM doesn't understand the distinction. I've read numerous accounts of them "not getting it".

It is perfectly legal for a Maryland resident to drive to Virginia or Pennsylvania, purchase magazines in any capacity desired beyond 20 rounds and transport them back into the state. They are not "transferring" them since they are already in their possession. I'm trying to find the letter from the District Attorney's office that confirms this.

AIM isn't alone in this. Numerous businesses seems to misinterpret this and assume Marylanders can't have 30 round magazines at all. And it isn't just out-of-state businesses either. The shop I deal with for in-state transfers suffers sometimes from the same delusion. I know because it happened to me.

I was drooling over a PS90 with an ok price tag and I was asking whether the gun was a seven day wait or a regular NICS check. Since said rifle is not on the regulated firearms list (a rant for another time), it was cash-and-carry. My main point of inquiry was the magazine since the PS90 usually comes with 30 or 50 round magazines and I was wondering about the one on it.

This one was a 20 rounder according to the salesman. It appears to have been blocked down to 20 rounds. In talking about whether he could get additional 20 round magazines for this rifle, he made the comment, "You can get the bigger ones out-of-state but don't get caught with them here. You'll do 5 years for having them. It's illegal to have 30 round magazines in Maryland.".

I nodded politely and bit my tongue because what I was going to snap back with was "If that's the case then I'm looking at over 60 years in prison right now.".

Sigh. Is it too much to ask, as Law Dog discusses, to actually know the laws of the state you are doing business in? Especially those regarding firearms if that is you primary business. I get really tired of this sometimes.

Now, it is the right of places like AIM to not sell to me as a matter of CYA. I understand why they do it given the nuttiness that are the firearms laws in the so-called Free State. But it doesn't excuse the fact that they are wrong. Marylanders can own magazines of any capacity desired provided they were not acquired here. If they don't want my money, I'll be happy to find someone who does.

The question of magazine capacity for me was #2 when I spoke to the Firearms Licensing division of the Maryland State Police before I moved here and the answer they gave me was "If you are already own them, it is legal for you to bring them into the State.".

Bottom line: High capacity magazines are not illegal in the State of Maryland. It is only illegal to make, sell or give them away to residents of the State within its borders. That's it.

Is it really too much to ask to know what you are talking about? If you don't know the law, just call the Maryland State Police. Or click the link I provided at the top. It has all of Maryland's firearms laws right there.

Off to find a Beta C-Mag this weekend. Grrrrrr.

Mental Insights

You can tell a lot about a person's thought processes and interests based on what they read or are getting ready to read. Here's what's waiting for me when I get home:

• Dreadnought by Robert Massie
• Dead On: The Long-Range Marksman's Guide to Extreme Accuracy by Tony Noblitt
• Understanding Firearm Ballistics by Robert Rinker
• Historic Battleship Texas: The Last Dreadnought (Military History of Texas) by John Ferguson

I'm currently reading Robert Massie's "Castles of Steel" about World War I naval combat. I am starting to develop a strong interest in large steel ships that can throw Volkswagens 10 or 15 miles. Especially in the World War I era where rangefinding was done through stereo optics, electronic intercoms and mechanical time/distance devices were supercomputers and all represented high-tech of the era. Wireless radio was mind-boggling and just seeing widespread usage.

No computers. No GPS. No laser rangefinding. No clean gas turbines or nuclear power. Stacks that belched smoke and blinded visibility harkening back to the combat in the age of sail. Back when the word "Dreadnought" meant the ultimate weapon of a nation.

It's a fascinating time.

The purpose of the gun books should be obvious.

Happy reading time ahead!

How Can You Justify This Rudeness?

This is a rant.

In society, we have certain codes of behavior when we go out in public. This codes are taught to us as part of what is expected of us in a polite, civilized society.

One of these earliest codes we learn is the concept of "waiting your turn".

We learn it from an early age in sharing our toys.

"I know you want to play with it but your sister/brother is playing with it right now. When they are done, you can play with it. It is rude to try and take it from them.".

Or waiting in line at school for any myriad of activities from waiting in a lunch line, lining up to come in from recess to waiting to hand in a homework assignment. Later, as an adult, waiting in line at the supermarket or at the bank to make a deposit. This idea of waiting your turn forms one of the basic fundamentals of good manners.

So why is it when you surround people with a 2000 pound aluminum and steel cage on wheels and place them around other such cages, they become complete and utter assholes and promptly forget this basic fundamental of civilized behavior?

Anyone who drives on roads anywhere is familiar with the phenomena. Especially in heavy traffic on a major highway. There is an on-ramp where traffic is merging onto the road. Traffic is moving slowly but there are openings. But rather than take an obvious entry point early on, they self-indulged jerks scoot rapidly down the ramp and flick their turn signal on . And they don't stop until they reach the end of the ramp and suddenly expect to be allowed into traffic because they are there.

Or folks deciding that the shoulder is their own personal lane because they are in a hurry, important or just don't feel like rolling along slowly with the rest of us lesser folk.

Or how about the Prisoner's Dilemma? Believe it or not, you see this game played out on congested highways every day and you probably don't realize it. You see this game played out when people decide to place their own interests above those of the group in order to gain what they perceive as a temporary advantage. In doing so, they create a long term outcome in which everyone loses. In traffic, they do this in two very annoying ways and are both variations on the childhood tactic of butting in line.

In busy areas, exit ramps will often back up as traffic is exiting and merging onto the road at the same time. For those in the Metro DC area, the on/off ramp at Rt.123/Dulles Toll Road at Tyson's Corner on the Outer Loop is an example. Or the off-ramp onto Georgia Avenue on the Inner Loop in Silver Spring. During morning rush hour, traffic backs up and you play a game of tit-for-tat with one person exiting, one person merging. Once on the exit, you crawl slowly towards the exit. Done right, you're on the ramp for 5-10 minutes.

Into this little microcosm soars Mr. Jackass or Ms. High-and-Mighty. These are important people. They have to be. Otherwise, why would they fly along the line of barely moving cars and flick their turn signal on to exit right at the point where the traffic is heading off the ramp? And expect to be let in like it was no big deal? The shocking part of this is people do let them in! The only reason I can fathom is because they fear this asshole using their rolling death box to damage theirs. 4th Rule of the Sea and all that*.

The other variation of this occurs when you have a long on-ramp onto a highway that gives the merging traffic time to get up to speed. Under normal circumstances, this is good civil engineering. In stop-and-go, this is a recipe tailored to bring the jerk to the forefront. And the front is exactly where they're headed.

Here you have this nice, long and empty ramp sitting right next to an immobile line of traffic. A ramp intended for merging traffic but what is just one more car? So, our innocent driver who is presently stuck in said line jumps into the empty "lane" and shoots off happily passing car after stopped car and then plays the "merge in at the last second" game right as the lane ends. Voila! Instant progress! They pass 40 or 50 cars, get ahead and no one is the wiser to their little scheme.

I am. As is anyone else who has spent time on the Clara Barton Parkway on ramp to I-495 heading north at the American Legion Bridge just south of River Road. This serves as a textbook example with the added bonus that us poor sods in the traffic can watch these other important people jump into the lane, flash past and see them merge in to traffic ahead rather forcibly.

Don't these fools realize this very action is why the traffic is moving so slowly in this stretch of road in the first place? Probably not. That requires spatial awareness and other than reaction to light, it is a limited ability in your average suburban lemming.

The bad part of such rudeness is the reactions you begin to have to it.

I'm not prone to road rage but I have been known to flip off individuals engaging the latter of the two behaviors I describe above. Their actions go against instincts taught to me as a child. You don't butt in line!

For the lane butters that jump into space ahead of others or make their own, let me ask you this: Would you do this to someone waiting in line at the bank or grocery store? The person in front is distracted and folks in front move ahead. So why not just step into the space in front since they didn't notice it? Would anyone do this? Of course not! But put these people in a car and they'll do it like it is perfectly acceptable.

I've actually encountered a person who admitted to doing this and couldn't understand why I was upset with them. She was in a hurry and didn't see an issue with forcing their way in front of someone if it saved them time. When used the analogy above, she still didn't get it.

I understand why some people have the urge to choke the life out of others at moments like that.

I make it a point to not offer space or yield when these self-absorbed individuals decide they want to merge in at the last minute. However, this is only done after I've offered up an opportunity previously. Trust me, in stop-and-go traffic, a car sized space being held open is obviously deliberate. Some people take up the offer and merge in. Most don't.

So if I am at the end of the merge, Mr. Jerk meet Mr. Shoulder. Sometimes not. It's a game of urban chicken in slow motion. Sometimes I have to blink. It's sad really because I don't want to. See, I know the rules of the road and one of those rules is merging traffic is supposed to yield, not the other way around.

It is at those times I wish to buy a new car. Initially, I wanted something like an Olds Cutlass complete with primer marks and a few dents. Just to use for commuting. But I've learned that this class of self-important driver avoids such cars like the plague. Too many of them on the roads today often driven by the uninsured. Too much of a hassle for them. They're more into intimidating the girl in the shiny Focus who is terrified of getting a scratch on her new car. I can understand that. We were all like that at one time. It is a "first car" kind of mentality.

Not now. Not for me.

My Jeep is paid for, has scratches, a barely visible depression on the door and won't depreciate any further. It's a car, not a priceless work of art. The only reason I don't let these folks actually run into me (which would be their fault) is I don't want to go through the hassle of buying a new car. I like having no car payment and I know State Farm loves me. Never had a claim or ticket in 14 years of insurance. People like me are the metaphorical equivalent of the Golden Goose in insurance circles. Risk assessors disagree but from a financial side, I'm free money.

Another part of this avoidance strategy is the fact I rode a motorcycle in Beltway traffic for four years. Nothing hones your survival instincts and spatial awareness better than losing the cage and having nothing but 8mm of leather between you and the sandpaper that is modern pavement. You have to play meek under such circumstances. Nipple surfing is truly no fun and I pride myself on never having done it.

Ah, but there are times when I blissfully wish for a new car. You ever had the desire to trade the Beamer for a Ferret armored car? Just a little four-wheeled recon car and make it road legal. The gas mileage would absolutely blow but that armor might as well be a shield made of "I Don't Care".

I have that moment pictured in my mind. The moment where that obsessive, all-important bundle of elitist smug decides his Mercedes just has to be in front of my ugly green piece of crap and physics intrudes on his fantasy. The smile on my face under the tanker's helmet and goggles, my head sticking up from the hatch to allow me to hear the clear and unmistakable sound of aluminum crumpling like foil. The squeal of brakes, the rude and angry gestures, the white faced shock on the face of a man who has met his match and doesn't realize it yet.

We struggle off the road. Well, he does. The "thunk thunk" of a car in serious need of repair. Hell, it might even be totaled. I just roll off and clamber out. His words are the same as anyone else who thinks they are always right: "You hit my car! Look what you've done to my car!". While he works his way up to a girlish squeal of injustice and red-faced anger, I interrupt his examination of what used to be his rear axle and calmly interject, "All my hard work ruined. Do you see what you've done?!?".

This is the moment he gets in my face, trying to draw me into the position of an inferior. To look at his car. His problems. His damage. Screw that! Can't this Armani suited fool see the two foot long jagged scar his car created in the paint of my Precious?!? Metal on green, it just isn't right!

And must not stand! The police arrive and ask what happened. Except in this case I suspect the smirk on the State Trooper's face will be hard to hide. This moment would have to rank up there as a story to be retold to their friends back at the station. Not just your average run-of-the-mill accident report. This is going to be a reportable accident, all right, but not for me!

We run through it, Mr. Lava Cheeks getting into his rhythm. Conveniently leaving out the fact he failed to yield and believe that somehow this is my fault. To which the officer writes it all down and then asks me what happened. So I tell him calmly I was rolling along, this guy tried to merge in and there was no room. I couldn't stop in time and crunch! I mean, it is a Ferret! It doesn't exactly stop on a dime. He asks if I have any damage and I point to the unnatural wound in my paint.

As he is writing down the nature of my "damage", I open a box welded to the hull and say this is a serious problem. Upon which I whip out the can of green spray paint and spray over the damaged area announcing to the officer that I can't let this stay exposed and rust and inquire how to make a claim on the other guy's insurance for the cost of the paint? I suspect the look on Mercedes Man's face would be priceless.

That for me would be the ultimate in traffic revenge. No one would mess with you. Not even a Hummer would stand a chance.

So far, I have not received approval from my fiancee to purchase said armored car as my daily driver. But I'm working on it.

It's sad that traffic and the behavior of what are probably otherwise decent people will lower you to do.

What happened to manners? I miss them.

* Refers to the boating/sailing concept that the Captain of a boat is ultimately responsible for its safety and must do their best to avoid hazards or danger even at the cost of violating the accepted rules of navigation. I've often seen this rule paraphrased as the fourth in a list of basic navigational rules. Especially important for sailboats that can't maneuver quickly or as fast as a powered vessel.

Happy First Birthday!

It was one year ago that I decided it was time for me to sit down at the keys, smack some electrons around and let you see the results.

Today is my blogoversiary. My humble corner of the blogosphere turned one year old today!

As is customary as a new year comes to pass, we take time to reflect upon the old and with an eye towards what is to come.

The decision to start blogging came about because I wanted a place to commit my thoughts to. Really, I wanted nothing more than a permanent record of things I was thinking or wanted to say. Whether anyone read them was secondary. I had started reading many blogs regularly and liked what I was reading. They filled some niches and I felt maybe I could fill one too.

Then the DC gun ban fell and that became my incentive. I was started to become politically active in gun rights and took the advice of the many blogs I read to heart. That day to me being the start of a new chapter in gun rights history become my inaugural post #1.

From there, it was straight into political activism. At the time, I was getting involved in Maryland gun politics. I had just moved there and that is what thrust me headfirst into the fight. Until then, I had never set foot in a legislature of any sort, local, state, provincial or Federal. But I did here and testified in front of the Maryland Judiciary Senate committee to protect my "evil black rifles". With that came my uberpost on SB.43 that tore apart the proposed law in layman's term a piece at time.

That type of thing I enjoy. I want to do more of it. I feel that every person should see what our laws look like and if we, the normal folk, can't understand them then we as a society are going to be in a world of hurt. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse but likewise there is no excuse in passing laws that can't be understood by reasonable, thinking and average people. A law degree for the laws that govern day-to-day life should not be required.

I think fisking of anti-gun articles is an entry-level requirement for a gun blogger. Throughout the past year I've made my contributions in this area. I hope they've been enjoyed and useful.

For me, I think the posts that define me as the "Armed Canadian" are the "Bite Me, Brady" posts. These tomes highlight a specific gun in my personal collection and serve as the basis to tweak Paul Helmke and the Brady Campaign. Why do this? One, I think people like pictures of guns. And if my traffic logs are any indication, they are far and away the most read and linked posts I have done. I'm glad you like them. There will be more.

Why target Paul Helmke? One is simplicity. Google. Every time his name or the Brady Campaign gets googled, odds are one of these posts will be among them. If an anti-gun person lands here and is shocked or perhaps sees something here to make them stop and think, it is a success. If they feel waves of nausea and revulsion and feel a need to hug their hypoallergenic, dander-free cat, well, that's a success too.

The second is because I've actually seen the guy in person and heard him speak. Not to put too fine a point on it but I do not like him. His manner and bearing is one of high and mighty arrogance over the people he sees as beneath him. This is my impression and personal opinion only. And as a non-citizen of this country, he serves as a handy target for me since I don't fit neatly into his nice gun owner stereotype.

On that, I take a certain amount of pride in my status. I think my presence however small in the gun rights world is a valuable one. I break down barriers. Many people don't know the laws as they apply to permanent residents like me. They don't know I can own guns. I think it is useful to call people out when they say "only citizens can own guns" or "only citizens should be allowed this job or that one". When I can educate them and they turn and say, "Wow, I didn't know that!", I'm doing some good.

It also serves as an advantage. As I said, I don't fit neatly into the gun owner stereotype box. Redneck doesn't apply even though by Canadian standards I am from their deep South. I'm white, can't deny that one. College educated coming from blue collar origins. Very individualistic and I am strong willed and strongly opinionated. I see the world too often in black-and-white and only though my involvement in this issue have I learned to accept shades of grey. It's been good for me.

I deeply appreciate all of you who have stopped by and read my words here. I like reading the comments and hearing from those that I read. Even those who disagree. I try to be respectful of those who do. I don't expect you to come around to like me or my way of thinking. If you listen and think even for a moment, I'll accept that.

The past year for me has seen a divorce and three job changes. It has seen me get engaged and I've adopted a dingo. It sees me stranded in Maryland with no option but to fight. This day leaves me at least 1 year, 8 months and 22 days away from seeing my US citizenship. At some point in early 2010, I will be proud to call myself an American. I will be a Canadian too and no, I will not call myself a Canadian-American on the census. I'll be an American when here and a Canadian when there. The two nations can co-exist. Except for 1812, we've done pretty good.

What does the future hold? I think the next year will be interesting. I think we are at a crossroads in history. I think Heller vs. DC will be the defining moment for setting the course of gun rights in this country. Unless the Court blows it (which they might). This can be good or bad. Either way, I think we've reached the turning point.

I plan to do more "Bite Me, Brady" and more of the gun law commentary. Likewise, more of the educational posts such as the recent "You Can Keep Your Hunting Guns But..." which helps to illustrate the profound ignorance of those that would impose their will on us.

There are things I want to write about. But I can't. Not now. Too risky. In time, however.

And, as always, more guns. This year will see several new acquisitions. More black rifles to make the powers-that-be nervous. A few more milsurps. Maybe some traditional stuff to round things out. There's always room for one more somehow.

In my 200 odd posts, I think I've made a few folks smile, a few folks mad and a lot just nodding along in agreement. I think I can punch out a couple hundred more in the next twelve months. Besides, if you gotten this far, you've figured out I tend towards the long side. Just one of the things that makes me, me.

With that, generous reader, I thank you for your attention and time away from your life to pay me a visit. I hope you've enjoyed it. I certainly have.

Happy First Birthday! Looking forward to more!

Steady the crosshairs, squeeze gently and keep them on target, folks!

"She's Got a Gun, Nancy"

Creative Loafing has a nice article discussing a book by Nancy Floyd that breaks the stereotypes with regard to guns and women. A nice little excerpt of photos from the book is provided. Go give it a read.

With one caveat: A commenter pointed out and many of you will notice there is something wrong with the first woman pictured:

If someone is going to take a picture of a woman with a gun, please give her a REAL gun to take the picture with! The one shown--unless some work has been done with Photoshop or a similar program--is a toy.

Yup, a rubber band revolver.

Overall, a nice treatment. A little something for a lazy Friday afternoon.

Maryland HB517 "Encoded Ammunition Tax" Is Dead

Got word last night that the Senate Committee decided to not let this bill out of committee due to the strong objections raised by constituents and ammunition manufacturers.

Setting aside the fact that fighting stuff like this is annoying as hell, this is a good thing. It shows that our efforts are working even in places like Maryland. Slowly but surely we are becoming more and better organized and making ourselves heard. Our politicos are at least recognizing which way the winds are blowing and are keeping themselves from what they feel to be a voter backlash.

Now if we can just get them to let HB2 ("shall issue" bill) out of committee for a full house vote, that would be progress.

One step at a time.

At least now my milsurps are safe.

"You Can Keep Your Hunting Rifle But..."

I've been spending a lot of time trolling various left-leaning forums that discuss gun rights. Naturally, the places I am going have a very strong bias against gun ownership and where they find it acceptable, they want it subject to a variety of restrictions, regulations and controls in order for them to feel safe.

I find this view interesting that they are so willing as so-called Progressives (not be confused with true Progressives like PGP) to hand more control of their lives to the Government in one area while at the same time protesting against the Government intruding into them in another. And then somehow believe that if their people were in control, this won't be an issue in the future since their people are benevolent and good and those currently running the show in Washington are evil and vile.

As you read through their various arguments and objections to firearm ownership, their version of a moderate viewpoint emerges with some regularity. This is the view that those who want to have guns and need them for barbaric rural activities can keep them but all those other deadly, "serves no purpose but to kill" handguns and high-powered, deadly, military assault weapons need to be controlled or banned outright.

Understand that many of these people believe the 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban" actually banned something.

It is this argument that your hunting rifles are ok but these other types of guns are too dangerous to be in society and must be controlled I want to examine.

First off, anyone making the statement "You can keep your hunting rifles but..." argument in 90 out of 100 cases probably knows nothing about firearms. They are acting out of emotional fear and have absolutely no desire to actually acquire any rudimentary knowledge on the subject.

Which is unfortunate because those who make the best debaters against a particular thing are ones that actually know something about it. If for no other purpose than to help them make a reasoned, rational, telling and memorable argument. Being armed with knowledge helps you immensely in such cases and prevents you from looking like a fool.

The other 10 percent of people in this category are gun owners themselves who are traditionalists by nature and simply have no desire to own rifles without wood on them, can't understand why anyone would want to and will happily throw the majority of gun owners under the bus to allow them to continue in their time-honored traditions. Theirs is a case of ignorance that is more likely to be corrected.

If not, all I can say to them is they will be the last ones to be handing their guns in and when they are forced to, I won't be able to help them anymore because they'll have disarmed me a long time before.

Given this, I am focusing on the 90 percent who call for restrictions on guns other than hunting rifles. And when this demand is made, it is often in the company of another demand. This is the demand that the Government also needs to restrict guns that can penetrate body armor such as high-powered, deadly "assault weapons". This usually happens when a police officer is killed in a rare incident involving a rifle.

Ok, I can understand the knee jerk reaction that fuels the chasing of that ephemeral ghost known as safety.

This is for those who do.

What follows next is a photograph. It is a disgusting and revolting photo. It is a photograph of the very things that you despise. If you feel that we need to eliminate the deadly weapons on our streets and restrict citizens to owning hunting rifles, I ask you to set aside your disgust and study this photo.

Here it is...

I know, I've asked much of you. Thank you for coming this far.

For you, I have a simple question. Using the photo above and ignoring the two huge rounds (what these items are called but you may call them "bullets" since that is probably what you know them as) behind the front row, tell me which of these bullets are those fired by "deadly assault weapons" and are meant to do nothing but kill?

Take your time. Point them out in your mind counting in from left or right.

When you're ready, scroll down for the answer.

In this photograph, the "deadly, high-powered assault weapon" bullets are the fourth from the left and the last two on the right.

Huh? But they are small!

If you selected anything in the center from those tall and massive rounds, you have selected both hunting rounds and "deadly high-powered assault weapon" rounds meant solely for weapons of war.

I'll bet you're confused now.

You see, this photo plays on psychology (at least, I hope it did). It is my assumption that you focused on the tall, powerful looking rounds in the center where your eyes would be naturally drawn. I wanted you to ignore the smallish looking bullets on the ends as insignificant and weak.

But, in fact, those three rounds I have identified are all presently used in combat operations today in the hands of our military and those of our enemies around the world today.

They are:

The 5.56x45mm NATO round (fourth from the left) fired by the M-16/M-4 carbine and used in primary infantry rifles in service with our NATO allies.

The 7.62x39mm round (second last on the right) used by the venerable Kalishnikov AK-47 assault rifle the world over.

And lastly, the Remington 6.8SPC intermediate round used by our Special Forces and as a possible replacement for the smaller, weaker 5.56mm round.

But I said all of the others are used by "deadly assault weapons" as well and were meant solely to kill?!?

Yes, I did. You see, all of the rounds shown above, with the exception of the first three on the left, either now or at one time or another were all used by militaries in one conflict or another throughout the last 100 years in combat by soldiers.

Yesterday's battle round is today's target or hunting round. Often, the various roles were performed at the same time. There is a long history of military rifles being used in civilian hands and vice-versa since before World War I. And when conflicts ended, military rifles were often sold on the civilian market as surplus and these "weapons of war" were turned towards more peaceful pursuits of plinking cans, taking game and defending lives and families from predatory harm.

Here are the rounds above, listed from left to right:

1. .22LR
2. .22Mag
3. .17HMR
4. 5.56x45mm
5. 7.62x51mm
6. 8mm Mauser
7. .30-06
8. .303 British
9. 7.62x54R
10. 6.5x55mm Swedish
11. 7.5mm Swiss
12. 7.62x39mm
13. 6.8SPC

Rear: 20mm and .50BMG

The two rounds in the back are a 20mm cannon round used in fighter jets for dogfighting at close range and the .50BMG. Yes, the one on the right is the famous "50 caliber" round that everyone says is so deadly and can shoot down planes with a single shot.

I show these to provide a sense of scale. All of these rounds with the sole exception of the 20mm are legal for civilians in this country to own and shoot with no special permission from the Government required. This despite the fact people are trying to have the .50BMG placed in the same category of "destructive device" that the 20mm is in. The 20mm requires registration, safe storage and a tax paid on every round you possess. (The 20mm pictured here is an inert dummy round using for training and novelty purposes and can be bought at any gun show for a few dollars).

Now, what do you think of just restricting civilians to hunting rifles? I'm sure this doesn't fit with your expectations of what is suitable for use only by the military.

For the record, there are two rounds shown here other than the three I identified that are presently in frontline military use. These are:

The 7.62x51mm NATO round next to the 5.56mm round. This was the primary combat round of all NATO nations including the United States until it adopted the 5.56mm and the rest of NATO had no choice but to follow suit. The 7.62x51mm is used today primarily as a sniper round.

The 7.62x54R is a Russian round that is over 100 years old and was their primary combat round until the end of World War II when they switched to the 7.62x39mm and the AK-47. However, the venerable 7.62x54R remains in use to this day as a sniper round fired by the SVD Dragunov rifle (itself a variant of the AK-47) and by World War II-era Mosin-Nagant sniper rifles in the hands of guerillas and insurgents.

Which leads me to the related issue that is raised of body armor.

If you feel that we need to ban bullets that can penetrate body armor, then you are calling for a ban of all the rounds above save for the first three on the left.

By making this demand, you are showing ignorance of the subject. Most people blithely assume that body armor is body armor. That the armor our police wear isn't that different except for coloration from that worn by soldiers in battle.

This is not true. There are, in fact, six different types of body armor in use today. Each for a different purpose.

"But if we ban the bullets that kill cops, we will save lives!" goes the cry. Hence why all of the above except for the ones I have mentioned would be banned.

Cops do not wear the same armor as soldiers. Theirs is far weaker.

You see, police wear what is called Type IIa body armor. This is soft armor made of Kevlar worn over or under a uniform. This type of armor is meant to stop pistol bullets, not rifle bullets. This is only logical as handguns account for the vast majority of firearms used in crime and against police. In many cases, it is the officer's own gun used against them.

But all of the rounds shown above are rifle rounds. Hunting rounds. They will go through police body armor as if it didn't exist.

Soliders wear heavier armor. Usually Type III or IV. The "a" in body armor designations, by the way, denotes "soft" armor. There is a Type IIIa armor that some officers wear (usually SWAT) that can stop powerful pistol rounds and some rifle rounds. However, that armor would not stop any of the rounds listed above (except for the first three).

Soldiers wear "hard" armor. This armor consists of hard ceramic or steel plates. Only this type of armor can stop rifle rounds. Type III will stop the 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm "assault weapon" rounds for a little while.

Hunting rounds will likewise go through Type III armor. It might stop some hunting roundse but it won't stop them all. The likewise venerable .30-06 will go right through Type III hard armor and leave a neat hole to mark its passage.

Only Type IV armor is meant to stop the full spectrum of hunting rounds. Which would include armor-piercing versions of the .30-06 and the Russian 7.62x54R. One shot only. Beyond that first shot, protection diminishes rapidly.

Against bigger hunting rounds like the .338 Lapua and the aptly named .577 Tyrannosaur, Type IV armor would be worthless.

Type III and IV armor are also very heavy. Typically on the order of 20 to 40 pounds for a set depending on desired coverage. This is before any other equipment. Soldiers wearing such armor along with their equipment are generally carrying 50 to 80 percent of their body weight. The armor weight alone is more than the full combat load including weapon and ammunition of an standard light infantryman.

Do you see the contradiction in the position of advocating for a ban on ammunition that can penetrate body armor? Almost every hunter in the United States today has the ability to defeat body armor. At a minimum, the body armor of every single police officer on duty everywhere today.

As will those smallish "assault weapon" rounds in the hands of non-hunters.

The bigger rounds mean no soldier is safe if they are used with murderous intent. The best armored soldier against an African big game hunter stands no chance. His or her armor will fail.

In essence, anyone calling for a ban on "armor piercing" ammunition that can penetrate body armor is calling for a nationwide ban on every rifle except for .22s and .17s (the three rounds on the left) and rifles that fire handgun rounds.

Still want to let us keep our hunting rifles while banning the "dangerous" ones?

It's impossible and any politician making it known they wish to do knows nothing of the subject at hand.

Unlike you now because you have been told the truth.

At the end of all this, your desire to ban "assault weapons" is nothing more than emotional reaction to the rifle's appearance. I can show you hunting rifles that fire the exact same bullets as the M-16 and AK-47 that are just as capable at defeating body armor as their "scary looking" counterparts.

And the more traditional hunting rifles used in this country for over 100 years before body armor even existed will defeat it all.

That's the long and short of it. Just be aware of the law of unintended consequences in making your demands. What appears to be reasonable on the surface to the uneducated is in fact tyranny driven out of fear. The fear that these bullets might be used to do harm. Yet, rifles of all types including ones that fire the rounds shown above account for less than 3% of all firearm crime nationwide.

Maybe they aren't the problem.

You are.

Gun Totin' Granny

No media bias here.

Summary: Danish journalist near Crawford, TX gets wrapped up trying to get a cellphone signal. In doing so, he wanders about and ends up absentmindedly on the front porch of a old woman's house. Old woman comes out to investigate what this stranger is doing on her property with a gun in her hand. Journalists get picture of gun and freak out.

Complete with sensationalized, misleading journalism. The comments are evenly split between anti-gun, anti-property rights ninnies and people who understand the concepts of private property, strangers with unknown intentions and personal defense.

People are just shocked by this. Especially judging by the comments. Go read them, some of this stuff is priceless. Especially clueless stuff like this:

I think the lady should go to jail for having a gun. She should go to jail because if it is legal to have a gun everybody woulld be shooting each other all the time. Guns should not be legal where ever you live. Thats why I think this lady should go to jail.

From : Willie Perez

I dare say that Mr. Willie Perez is probably not native to this country. If not, he is woefully ignorant on how things work here.

The best IMHO is this:

I'm not American, and you people need to re-read the story. At no time does it say she POINTED the gun at the journalist. She simply had it in her hand. There was a stranger on her property and she went out to investigate. The gun was there in case she needed it. He ran off like most Europeans do at the first sign of conflict and that was the end of it. Big deal

Priceless, true in every respect (save for England in WWII) and they get it!

If I was in such a situation in a rural area, the only difference between me and the old woman would be the equipment. If the moonbats screaming over this woman having a handgun at her side is causing them a case of the vapors, then they don't ever want to run into someone like me in a rural area under such circumstances. Because the journalists from across the street won't need telephoto lenses to determine how I am armed.

The tactical shotgun or the evil black rifle cradled across my chest with my trigger finger resting against the side of the receiver would leave no doubt whatsoever. Oh, I'd have a pistol but they won't see that. It'll be concealed under my shirt.

The only downside to this is the fact I will be left cleaning up the steaming mess they leave behind. But the reaction in the interim would be worth it.