Andrew of the Vuurwapen Blog gives his impressions about shooting the FN Mk 16 SCAR-L in the video below.
If you haven't visited the Vuurwapen Blog, you need to. It has to be one of the best sources of reliable, tested info on the AR and related platforms out there. Andrew thoroughly tests weapons, provides great videos which illustrate his points, and is a "been there, done that" kind of guy without being obnoxious about it.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Kachalsky v. Cacace Pre-Motion Conference Today (bumped)
Judge Kathy Seibel's pre-motion conference on the proposed motions to dismiss from Westchester County and the State of New York as well as the proposed counter-motion by the plaintifs is scheduled for 2:15pm this afternoon (Sept. 7th) in White Plains, NY. Judge Seibel requires an informal pre-motion conference before she allows formal motions to be introduced in her court.
The letters from all parties are discussed in detail here.
As soon as any details emerge, I'll be posting them.
UPDATE: After checking Pacer.gov for any word on the hearing, I finally emailed Alan Gura about it. In his email response, he notes that the hearing was mostly "ordinary housekeeping"and setting the briefing schedule - the normal stuff that goes on in any case. There will be cross-motions produced and filed. These will appear in Pacer.gov in time.
The letters from all parties are discussed in detail here.
As soon as any details emerge, I'll be posting them.
UPDATE: After checking Pacer.gov for any word on the hearing, I finally emailed Alan Gura about it. In his email response, he notes that the hearing was mostly "ordinary housekeeping"and setting the briefing schedule - the normal stuff that goes on in any case. There will be cross-motions produced and filed. These will appear in Pacer.gov in time.
San Francisco's High Bridge Arms Can Reopen
Despite hundreds of e-mails and letters opposing the re-opening of San Francisco's only gun store, High Bridge Arms, the Police Department granted them a conditional permit to reopen. The 3-member panel that heard High Bridge's request said that the opponents "had failed to offer evidence backing their assertion that the store brought crime to the neighborhood."
In a post I did on this in August, I noted one of the suggestions for the space was a wine and cheese store or a laundry. In virtually any other city in the world, I'd have said the person making that suggestion was being sarcastic. In San Francisco, they mean it.
The permit does impose some conditions upon High Bridge Arms. They must update their security including increased video surveillance and waist-high crash barriers outside to prevent cars from smashing throught the store's front. High Bridge is also being required to lock up all firearms in a safe outside of business hours as well as require a parent or guardian to accompany those under 18 entering the store. In a bone tossed to the neighborhood on appearance, they can't have any advertising on their display windows.
The owners had no problem with the requirement to update their security. Steve Alcairo, the store's manager, said "It's a fair request. It's about following the letter of the law, and that's what we do."
Despite all the e-mails and letters opposing the re-opening, only 4 people bothered to speak against it at the hearing while 10 spoke for it.
This is pretty typical in my opinion given how easy it is to pop out an email opposing something. However, when it comes down to actually going to a hearing and testifying, it becomes too much trouble. Fortunately, the good guys won this round.
In a post I did on this in August, I noted one of the suggestions for the space was a wine and cheese store or a laundry. In virtually any other city in the world, I'd have said the person making that suggestion was being sarcastic. In San Francisco, they mean it.
The permit does impose some conditions upon High Bridge Arms. They must update their security including increased video surveillance and waist-high crash barriers outside to prevent cars from smashing throught the store's front. High Bridge is also being required to lock up all firearms in a safe outside of business hours as well as require a parent or guardian to accompany those under 18 entering the store. In a bone tossed to the neighborhood on appearance, they can't have any advertising on their display windows.
The owners had no problem with the requirement to update their security. Steve Alcairo, the store's manager, said "It's a fair request. It's about following the letter of the law, and that's what we do."
Despite all the e-mails and letters opposing the re-opening, only 4 people bothered to speak against it at the hearing while 10 spoke for it.
This is pretty typical in my opinion given how easy it is to pop out an email opposing something. However, when it comes down to actually going to a hearing and testifying, it becomes too much trouble. Fortunately, the good guys won this round.
Hysteria
Yesterday, a short notice appeared on the Senate Judiciary Committe website. It read in its entirety:
Part of the problem is that the notice appeared near lunch time and people were away from their desks. Moreover, Erica Chabot, the Committee's press secretary was out of the office on jury duty and couldn't respond quickly.
With most everyone having free nationwide long distance with their cell plans, you would have thought that people would have just picked up the phone and called the Committee. That is what I did and what David Codrea did.
I ended up speaking with Stephen Miller, press secretary for the Republicans on the Committee. He said that the primary focus of the hearings would be on S. 941, the BATFE Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009. He noted the Committee Chairman, Sen. Pat Leahy, was one of the 36 co-sponsors of the bill. Mr. Miller said he didn't have a witness list yet so he could not be sure that the hearings wouldn't take off on tangents into other areas. He did suggest that I speak with Erica Chabot. I ended up emailing her and got a response this morning.
As an aside, the National Shooting Sports Foundation supports this bill and has asked people to contact their Senators to support it.
September 7, 2010This notice was picked up by everyone from the Drudge Report to Gateway Pundit and assorted gun blogs. Unlike the general blogs, gun blogs didn't fly into hysteria. Most assumed, correctly, that it was about the BATF Reform Act. SayUncle, David Codrea's National Gun Rights Examiner, and others made the connection almost immediately.
NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing entitled "Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process" for Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
By order of the Chairman.
Part of the problem is that the notice appeared near lunch time and people were away from their desks. Moreover, Erica Chabot, the Committee's press secretary was out of the office on jury duty and couldn't respond quickly.
With most everyone having free nationwide long distance with their cell plans, you would have thought that people would have just picked up the phone and called the Committee. That is what I did and what David Codrea did.
I ended up speaking with Stephen Miller, press secretary for the Republicans on the Committee. He said that the primary focus of the hearings would be on S. 941, the BATFE Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009. He noted the Committee Chairman, Sen. Pat Leahy, was one of the 36 co-sponsors of the bill. Mr. Miller said he didn't have a witness list yet so he could not be sure that the hearings wouldn't take off on tangents into other areas. He did suggest that I speak with Erica Chabot. I ended up emailing her and got a response this morning.
FOR BACKGROUND PURPOSES ONLY:Sometimes the most obvious explanation is the correct explanation. That was the case here.
The Judiciary Committee notices hearings one week in advance, and often times, witness lists are noticed a few days later. We are still working to finalize the witness list for this hearing, and once that is finalized, we will notice it on our website.
This hearing is intended to examine the BATFE's practices for enforcing Federal laws against federally licensed firearms sellers and proposed legislation to make reforms and improvements to that system.
The hearing will look at S.941, legislation proposed by Senator Mike Crapo, of which Senator Leahy is a cosponsor along with a bipartisan group of 34 other Senators. The legislation is intended to improve the regulatory process for federally licensed dealers by, among other provisions, instituting a graduated penalty system, providing expanded administrative and judicial review of agency sanctions and revocations, and directing the Attorney General to produce investigative guidelines for the BATFE.
As an aside, the National Shooting Sports Foundation supports this bill and has asked people to contact their Senators to support it.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Are You Sure This is Texas?
The Dallas Morning News ran a story today about a proposal in Carrollton, TX to prohibit gun stores from opening near liquor and certain other stores. Carrollton is a suburb of Dallas.
The Carrollton City Council heard from residents who were upset when Big Slim's Guns opened for business in a mini-mall that also contains a liquor store. The controversy was started by an email sent to residents of the Highland Neighborhood Association by its president, Steve Babick. Mr. Babick said the opposition to Big Slim's was "fear of the unknown" and suggested that the owner, Jack Kendall, speak at a future neighborhood association.
In response to the "concern" shown by residents, Councilman Terry Simons proposed a new ordinance "that would restrict future gun shops from opening near liquor stores and certain other retail establishments." The ordinance will be discussed at a future Council meeting.
The co-owner of Big Slim's, Jack Kendall, is none too happy about being treated "like strip clubs." Kendall vowed to fight the ordinance and predicted it wouldn't go anywhere. If it is approved, the Texas State Rifle Association has said they will fight it.
In defense of his proposed ordinance, Councilman Simons said:
At this same meeting, the Council passed laws against herbs used as intoxicants such as K2 and salvia. This passed without any discussion. Given that, you'd expect more concern about a liquor store than a gun store.
H/T Alphecca
The Carrollton City Council heard from residents who were upset when Big Slim's Guns opened for business in a mini-mall that also contains a liquor store. The controversy was started by an email sent to residents of the Highland Neighborhood Association by its president, Steve Babick. Mr. Babick said the opposition to Big Slim's was "fear of the unknown" and suggested that the owner, Jack Kendall, speak at a future neighborhood association.
In response to the "concern" shown by residents, Councilman Terry Simons proposed a new ordinance "that would restrict future gun shops from opening near liquor stores and certain other retail establishments." The ordinance will be discussed at a future Council meeting.
The co-owner of Big Slim's, Jack Kendall, is none too happy about being treated "like strip clubs." Kendall vowed to fight the ordinance and predicted it wouldn't go anywhere. If it is approved, the Texas State Rifle Association has said they will fight it.
In defense of his proposed ordinance, Councilman Simons said:
During a break in the meeting, Simons defended his proposal. Big Slim's posed a potential threat to public safety, he said, pointing to numerous burglaries and a deadly shooting that took place near the mini mall in recent years.A threat to public safety? Who is he trying to kid? Gun stores have some of the stoutest security of any retail establishment with CCTV systems, iron bars over the windows, security gates, and vaults for the firearms when closed.
At this same meeting, the Council passed laws against herbs used as intoxicants such as K2 and salvia. This passed without any discussion. Given that, you'd expect more concern about a liquor store than a gun store.
H/T Alphecca
Costco and Guns
Sailorcurt of the Captain of a Crew of One blog has an interesting post about the wholesale club Costco and their policy on guns in the store.
Their policy is that guns are not allowed in the store except for law enforcement personnel. As a membership store, this is, of course, their right to do so. But as Sailorcurt points out, you have to dig to find out this information. It is not in the FAQ's on their website nor in their brochure outlining the terms and conditions of your membership.
Not that long ago, a West Point graduate who was carrying concealed was shot and killed by police outside a Costco store in Las Vegas. It is still not clear exactly what happened and, while I hate to be a cynic, I expect the outcome to exonerate the Metro Las Vegas police. What is clear is that a Costco employee called 911 and reported a man with a gun in their store.
It is up to you whether you want to deal with Costco or not. For me, it is a non-issue as we don't have any Costco's in western North Carolina. We only have Sam's Clubs and their policy is to abide by the laws of each state and locality with regard to guns. I suggest you read Sailorcurt's post above and then make up your own mind after reading it.
UPDATE: "nealatkins" below suggests that I've been punked. By extension, then Sailorcurt has been punked. The suggestion that this is not really Costco policy is because of the header which leads to Costco's in-store firearms policy. It reads:
Why did I just go to such lengths just to show that the information presented on this blog is correct? Because I strive to do my best to provide honest, verifiable information on guns, gun laws, legal issues dealing with firearms, and gun policy.
Their policy is that guns are not allowed in the store except for law enforcement personnel. As a membership store, this is, of course, their right to do so. But as Sailorcurt points out, you have to dig to find out this information. It is not in the FAQ's on their website nor in their brochure outlining the terms and conditions of your membership.
Not that long ago, a West Point graduate who was carrying concealed was shot and killed by police outside a Costco store in Las Vegas. It is still not clear exactly what happened and, while I hate to be a cynic, I expect the outcome to exonerate the Metro Las Vegas police. What is clear is that a Costco employee called 911 and reported a man with a gun in their store.
It is up to you whether you want to deal with Costco or not. For me, it is a non-issue as we don't have any Costco's in western North Carolina. We only have Sam's Clubs and their policy is to abide by the laws of each state and locality with regard to guns. I suggest you read Sailorcurt's post above and then make up your own mind after reading it.
UPDATE: "nealatkins" below suggests that I've been punked. By extension, then Sailorcurt has been punked. The suggestion that this is not really Costco policy is because of the header which leads to Costco's in-store firearms policy. It reads:
https://costco.egain.net/system/selfservice.controller?CMD=VIEW_ARTICLE&ARTICLE_ID=1101&REQUEST_FRM_ESCALATION=true&CONFIGURATION=1001&PARTITION_ID=1&isSuggestedArticle=trueIf I just looked at the header I might have agreed. Since I was challenged to "prove" it I will. If you go to www.costco.com and then click on the menu header for Customer Service you will get this:
http://shop.costco.com/Customer-Service/IndexOnce there click on the link to "Membership Information". You will then get a header that looks like this:
http://www.costco.com/Browse/ProductSet.aspx?Prodid=24743On that page is a section called "How Do I Join?" The fourth item reads:
Membership cards will be issued immediately when you apply in person, or mailed within 7-10 days after receiving the application in the mail. If you desire additional information, please contact our call center at 1-800-774-2678, or e-mail us at customer comments and suggestions.The part that reads "customer comments and suggestions" is a hyperlink. Clicking on that you will get:
https://costco.egain.net/system/web/custom/initialPage.html?lang=en-US&topnav=&whse=BCThe link to the firearms policy quoted by Sailorcurt begins "costco.egain.net" just as the hyperlink to customer comments and suggestions reads "costco.egain.net". I am presuming that they have outsourced either parts of their customer service or IT infrastructure. Checking using whois, egain.net is registered to Savvis.net. Savvis, Inc. provides data centers and other IT professional services.
Why did I just go to such lengths just to show that the information presented on this blog is correct? Because I strive to do my best to provide honest, verifiable information on guns, gun laws, legal issues dealing with firearms, and gun policy.
Win Free Guns!
The Guns and Ammo Blog has their September listing of contests where you can win a firearm, accessory, or other gun related stuff up.
Free always wins in my book!
Free always wins in my book!
The Mexican Gun Story ...Again
As SayUncle notes, we haven't heard about guns in Mexico in a while. We have ABCNews to thank for pushing the story again.
In a story breathlessly headlined, "Mexican Crime, American Guns", they talk about a "shocking new report" that has been obtained by ABC News. They "obtained" the report from Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns. You can "obtain" it, too on the MAIG website here.
When you use as the basis of your story a report that is entitled by the gun control organization's authors as an "issue brief", you are just as complicit in pushing an agenda as the gun control organization.
A couple of notes on the report itself. First, by using export rates, MAIG can skew the data to make it look like California with their restrictive gun laws is less of a problem than other border states with more relaxed laws. In reality, in 2009, more guns were traced to California than to Arizona, New Mexico, and Florida combined. Using "export rates", they list Arizona as the "worst" state and California comes in at number five instead of number two.
Second, the efforts by Bloomberg and his allies to weaken the Tiarht Amendment are what allowed ATF to provide this information to MAIG.
Providing aggregate level data is one thing. However, this reports shows that individual level data still needs protection from fishing expeditions by Bloomberg and his allies. With Todd Tiarht leaving Congress at the end of this term, we will need to be wary of attempts to weaken the Tiarht Amendment further.
In a story breathlessly headlined, "Mexican Crime, American Guns", they talk about a "shocking new report" that has been obtained by ABC News. They "obtained" the report from Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns. You can "obtain" it, too on the MAIG website here.
The study, based on Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) data and prepared by the advocacy group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, shows that three out of four guns used in crimes in Mexico and submitted for tracing were sold in the four U.S. states that border Mexico. (emphasis mine)The key in all of this data is just which guns are submitted for tracing. The Mexican government is not going to submit the M-16s stolen or sold to drug cartels by the Mexican Army for tracing. This would show that the weapons were originally sold to Mexico under the Foreign Military Sales program. They are not going to submit the AK-47s that the cartels obtain from countries such as Venezuela as that would obscure the story that they are trying to promote. So while the average American is led to believe it is AR-15s and AK-47s submitted for tracing, it is more likely an old H&R Topper single shot 12 gauge that has been cut down.
When you use as the basis of your story a report that is entitled by the gun control organization's authors as an "issue brief", you are just as complicit in pushing an agenda as the gun control organization.
A couple of notes on the report itself. First, by using export rates, MAIG can skew the data to make it look like California with their restrictive gun laws is less of a problem than other border states with more relaxed laws. In reality, in 2009, more guns were traced to California than to Arizona, New Mexico, and Florida combined. Using "export rates", they list Arizona as the "worst" state and California comes in at number five instead of number two.
Second, the efforts by Bloomberg and his allies to weaken the Tiarht Amendment are what allowed ATF to provide this information to MAIG.
The data analyzed in this report was provided by ATF to Mayors Against Illegal Guns on March 4, 2010. Until 2007, this data was not available because Congress had implemented restrictions, known as the “Tiahrt Amendments,” which prohibited ATF from releasing crime gun trace data. However, in 2007 and 2009, after national campaigns by Mayors Against Illegal Guns and over 30 police organizations, Congress relaxed these restrictions on sharing crime gun trace data. Although there are still significant restrictions on the use of ATF crime gun trace data, the recent reforms allowed ATF to provide the data set that is the basis for this report to Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Providing aggregate level data is one thing. However, this reports shows that individual level data still needs protection from fishing expeditions by Bloomberg and his allies. With Todd Tiarht leaving Congress at the end of this term, we will need to be wary of attempts to weaken the Tiarht Amendment further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
