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