Our “betters” in the federal legislature have decided the limits to be placed on the natural rights of man by their superior knowledge. The new gun ban, declared an “improvement” on the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994 is to exist in perpetuity – or until SCOTUS hears the inevitable case against it, actually lists guns you can’t have by name – and lists some guns our federal overlords think are “okay” for the masses to own – if they can afford them.
They start with definitions, and this one’s a doozy: “semiautomatic assault weapon” (sic) (AKA/the thing to be banned) includes “All AR types,” including pistols, and “A semiautomatic pistol that—… has any 1 of the following: … “(I) A threaded barrel.”
The gun above, fired on a police range, is a ban-era Bushmaster. You can tell from the muzzle brake and the A2 stock -- because adjusting for length-of-pull is assaultive or something. Below, the pre-Performance Center M&P15 rifles shown were configured for pest eradication in Wyoming -- hunting rifles -- but they're banned by the House-passed legislation.
Bless their hearts.
They list the transgressors by name, note that anything like them is likewise banned (so there!) and go on to demand serial numbered magazines, have a ‘grandfather clause’ for existing guns – limiting how they can be transferred – ‘free’ money for federally funded “buybacks” and other detritus.
Strangely, they ban the Beretta CX4 Storm pistol caliber carbine, then “exempt” the Marlin Camp Carbines and Ruger PC9/PC4 guns. Lacking rhyme or reason, they ignore the Ruger Pistol Caliber Carbine (current PC9 iteration).
Above, one of the most-issued handguns for police service in history, the GLOCK 17 is part of the presumptive ban due simply to magazine capacity. If it takes a standard magazine (also banned) that accepts more than the 'magical' 15 rounds, it's out. Below, the 22 pistol below has a horrifying "threaded barrel," making it presumptively verboten by the new edict.
This was last week on the heels of the Congressional inquisition of gun makers. A hearing largely ignored by almost everybody who was busy ignoring the tragicomedy of the “J6” committee, it was reported that there were comedic moments in the gun committee.
Like the whole “my cellphone has fingerprint security, why not your guns?” (Gotcha!)
The answer? Well, they’re not reliable enough for personal defense weapons.
After “mine works,” there was a demonstration by the Congressional apparatchik … which failed.
I’m not telling you your business, but I’ve made my wishes known to the US Senators from my state. If you do likewise, I won’t complain. This is bad law made by those who wish to force your compliance for no good public purpose.
From Wenger’s Digest –
This is NOT how to unload a revolver. If you need assistance, there are still the elderly types present to assist.
I have found good use from certain news aggregators and it helps when one I read is a friend. It’s even more inspiring when the friend has some knowledge. He mentioned a blog entry from revolverero Mike Wood. Also an author, he’d had an interesting experience at a qualification event for concealed carry licensees in his state. It seems that a revolver armed individual was attempting to load the revolver without the assistance of gravity. This is frustrating and Mike took the licensee aside after he was told “I don’t know much about these” or words to that effect.
Stephen’s take on it was that our “institutional knowledge” is fading – as we fade into history. Those who aren’t aware of “use and nomenclature of the round gun” should avail themselves of some instruction while we’re still around. To get more insight into what Mike witnessed at the qualification, take a look at his work here.
Also from Stephen’s take on recent news, we have a Kansas case where a police officer responded to a violent domestic that involved a suicide threat. Such events are extremely dangerous and considerable caution is wisely taken. On arrival, the cop was charged by the family hound and the cop responded with gunfire.
Let’s pause here to note that a charging dog is not easily acquired by gunsights. They’re low to the ground and fast. In my (considerable – and recent) experience, such events are better handled by rapid movement and a puff of OC spray.
The rounds missed the dog, as rounds hurriedly fired at low-to-the-ground fast moving targets will. Spall from rounds hitting the floor hit “hit the girl above an eye and on a toe, according to the court's decision …” as reported by the media source.
There’s a Kansas “self-defense immunity” law but the Kansas Supreme Court decided that it only covers the intentional use of force, not an application that misses the threat and hits bystanders. The trial for reckless aggravated battery will likely be scheduled.
If you’re aiming at a deadly threat, miss and hit a “no-shoot,” don’t expect not to get prosecuted. Rule 4 is in effect – everywhere and all the time.
-- Rich Grassi