All posts by Carl Bussjaeger

Firearms Policy & Law Analyst at The Zelman Partisans Personal Blog: https://www.bussjaeger.us/blog/
gun control

große Lüge: Firearms are “grossly unregulated”

1 Comment

We’ve discussed the große Lüge of victim disarming gun people controllers. Another lie on the list is this one:

NRA Unveils Drivable Gun That Doesn’t Require Registration Or A License To Operate
Again, NFA items not the point (just as tanks and ICBMs aren’t). Firearms are grossly under-regulated in the United States by comparison with other nations who (surprise!) have far less problems with gun violence.

“Gulliver” appears to be the author of that failed attempt at satire. “Gulliver” also appears to have bought the big lie.

Let’s see how “under-/unregulated firearms are. I’ve done this in abbreviated form in the past, but this will be a little more detailed.

[“Gun Culture” types can stop here; you know this, more than likely. This column is for the less-informed like “Gulliver,” whoever s/he/ze/zyr/&tpen/@/it may be.]

Manufacturing
Naturally, a firearms manufacturer has to comply with all the same rules that any other manufacturer faces: OSHA, EPA, labor law, finance… it’s a long list, which is why we have to import a lot of stuff; regulatory compliance makes it too expensive to actually make a lot of stuff in America these days.

Moving on, we have firearms specific laws and regulations. First, you need a Federal Firearms License to build guns for sale. Usually that will be a Type 7 FFL. Maybe.

Let’s say you had a potentially great idea for a system that disperses fire retardant chemicals over an area. You think it’s just the thing for suppressing forest or grass fires on the perimeter. Fire departments and ranchers will love it. Your system is a 40 millimeter “grenade” full of said chemicals, fired from a light weight polymer launcher.

Whoops. 40mm makes that a “destructive device.” Now you need a Type 10 FFL. And you’ll mostly be able to sell it to governments; tougher for volunteer fire departments of ranchers. Manufacturing the rounds for the launcher also requires a Type 9 FFL, so it’s no good contracting out just the launcher while you assemble the ammunition.

So you scale it back to 37mm. It’s less effective than 40, but better than nothing.

Or maybe you say the heck with it, and move on to a different product. Howa bout a short self defense shotgun with a 14 inch barrel? If you put a standard shoulder stock on it, it becomes a short-barrel shotgun, and buyers will need a market-limiting tax stamp. If you put a pistol grip on the same exact action, it’s magically not. You aren’t sure why, since smoothbore pistols are “Any Other Weapons” (AOW) and require tax stamps. But the ATF made a ruling. (Ghu save the buyer if he puts a shoulder stock on it without getting a tax stamp.)

That’s too complicated, so you decide to enter the light weight polymer defensive pistol market. You have a fantastic design that makes even the slide nonmetallic. This will be easy to to carry on a daily basis.

But is it too light? Federal law bans the production of nonmetallic “undetectable” firearms, even if the dense polymer shows up in x-rays. If your metal barrel is underweight, you have to build in a chunk of nonremovable metal, raising the weight of your previously light weight sidearm.

The heck with it, let’s just make a cute little pistol out of metal, that looks like a cell phone. Except that might be an AOW, too; so you’d better submit a sample to the ATF and get a ruling.

One these is a pistol, and one is an AOW cell phone gun. Which is yours?

Hmm… how ’bout a simple little pen shaped gun (made of metal, of course). You’d best submit your design to the ATF again.

One of these is a pistol, and one is an AOW pen gun. Which did you submit to the ATF?

 

Argh! All right. Conventional pistol, with the action simplified to make it cheap to machine.

Wait. You didn’t make that an open bolt design, did you? That’s a machinegun. I know it’s just a semiautomatic-only, but new open-bolts are automatically machineguns now, under firearms regulations.

Good Bog, you’re trapped in a regulatory maze, and you haven’t even built anything yet!

OK, screw it. You’ll build a simple autoloader pistol. Reverse engineer a Raven with enough differences not run afoul of any patents, and better quality. Good to go.

So you start building guns. Which have to be marked: manufacturer, serial number, caliber. You’re CNC milling these, so you do the marking during initial milling to minimize the process.

Bad move. Every firearm you make — and it’s a firearm once marked — has to be logged in the books for ATF inspection. Yes, inspections. If you make one and it fails quality control testing, and you destroy it, you have to log that, and prove you destroyed it.

So you mark it afterwards. No, no, no! You can’t do that. If firearms are not marked, that’s illegal, too. You’ll just have to guess at what point in production the serial numbers are required. Good luck complying with that rule.

Umm… you did do the marking in the approved font, in the regulated size, and to the specified depth? Right?

But somehow you manage. Your firearms are ready to ship. You exchange FFL paperwork with distributors across the country (under firearms laws and regulations, you can’t ship to end buyers). And away you go!

Wait a minute there, bud. You didn’t design that pistol for a round which the ATF considers armor-piercing (this week), did you? Back to the drawing board.

So it’s finally ready for prime time. Keep your fingers crossed.

State Laws and Regulations
First, you need assorted state (and possibly local) licenses to operate. Not just any old manufacturer licensing; that and licensing specific to firearms. There be additional zoning laws to keep firearms manufacturing out of areas where other manufacturing is allowed. Forget being within miles of a one room schoolhouse in the country.

You can’t just start shipping out federally legal guns to anywhere. Some states will require you to submit samples for evaluation and approval. Massachusetts wants to be sure they’re “safe” and don’t look too much like weapons they banned that complied with their rules but also looked too much like guns they don’t like.

California will do the same and more. Is the gun too small? Too big? Will it pass drop testing? Did you remember to submit a sample of every single variation you make? That means if you offer the pistol with black plastic grip panels and pink plastic grip panels, you have to submit two complete pistols in both colors. We’re aren’t sure how color makes a difference, but we aren’t smoking what the California legislature smokes.

Whoops! Your pistol doesn’t microstamp pistol-identifying data on the case of each round fired, in two places. Yes, we know the technology doesn’t yet exist to do that, but California apparently has really good weed.

So you just scratch off some large potential markets and just ship a firearm that complies with physical reality to the sane parts of the country. Or…

You could say the hell with manufacturing. Eliminate the need for FFLs and all that garbage. You go back to your plastic pistol design and tweak the 3D printing files so the design complies with all federal laws (minimum metal content, and such), and sell those on the Internet. You can draw on the Defense Distributed Ghost Gunner market; they have the mill, you can supply really cool printer files, right?

You’re going to prison for violating ITAR arms export laws and regulations. Yep, more of those “grossly under regulated” laws and regs.

At this point, maybe you’re thinking that firearms manufacturing is too tough and you’ll just say the hell with it and make something safe. Like shoelaces.

Sorry, that might a machinegun, too. Better get an FFL anyway, just in case the ATF changes the rules again.

Back to just selling legal pistols in the safe parts of the US.

The Retail World

So — complying with all federal and state laws and regulations — you sell a shipment of Super-Concealed Thug Slayer pistols to a distributor. Distributor checks laws and regs and sells some to a fully compliant retail FFL (yes, another federal firearms license). The retailer follows all laws and regs and logs the guns into his bound book for ATF inspection.

The FFL dealer also has state and local laws and regulations to deal with. Some zoning laws keep him out of cities altogether. If someone builds a church a thousand feet away, he might be forced to relocate or close. He’ll be required to install security systems beyond that required for banks or jewelry stores. He’ll be required to pull all his merchandise off the shelves and lock them in a safe in a back room after hours, even if the cases are unbreakable and the store has roll-down blast-proof shutters. He might be required to install anti-vehicle barricades to prevent thieves driving a stolen car through his store front.

The dealer is required to be a mindreader or precognitive, capable of determining whether a customer who meets all legal requirements is really a straw-purchaser, or might commit mass murder years down the road, or if the ATF overrides a NICS denial to allow an unlawful sale so they can pretend to “entrap” someone. He’ll be required to provide unlicensed mental health counseling for potentially suicidal customers; he’ll be required to be an unlicensed psychologist to make that diagnosis.

Joe Citizen walks into the Isher Weapons Shop and likes your gun. He presents state-issued photo ID, fills out a multi-page form swearing that he is allowed by the feds to purchase a firearm. As required, he informs the feds of his race. In some states, Joe will also present his license to merely own a firearm (more PPYI, fingerprinting, photos, taxes and fees, probably training). The dealer calls the FBI to complete a prior restraint on the would-be buyer’s constitutional rights requiring him to preemptively prove his innocence.

If the buyer is lucky, the FBI will approve the sale. If he isn’t lucky, they might make him wait a few days for approval/denial. If the FBI doesn’t respond in three days, the dealer has the option of completing or killing the sale. If the buyer is really unlucky, the FBI will declare him a prohibited person and deny the sale.

Joe Citizen, being a law-abiding type, can’t understand why the sale was denied. Assuming he isn’t in one of the states that requires the dealer to report him to the police (whereupon he’s arrested, charged, jailed, etc.), he files an appeal of the denial. Maybe he knows that virtually all NICS denials are false positives, and it’ll all get straightened out. Some day. Maybe. Because there’s a backlog of tens of thousands of unprocessed appeals.

But we’ll back up; Joe was legal and got his new defense pistol. He takes it home and locks it in a safe (per state “safe storage” laws, with ammunition locked away in a separate safe). Because he has not yet also gone through the PPYI check, fingerprinting, photographing, mandatory training by state-approved/licensed instructors, and paid the taxes and fees for a separate carry license for that specific firearm in his state (even though he’s already licensed for the Super-Concealed Thug Slayer with blue grip panels. Bog save him if he lives in Hawaii, where his license is only good in one county and he’ll have to try to repeat the process in every county to which he might travel.

Well, perhaps. In some states, there’s a mandatory waiting period before he can take his new pistol home. He still has to pay for, but he must wait. Even though the point of the federal NICS “instant background PPYI check” was to eliminate waiting periods. He must wait to prevent him from doing anything impulsive with that gun. He must wait even if he already owns a dozen guns with which he could act impulsively. Because of grossly under-regulated guns.

The “End User”

But finally Joe takes it home. After registering it, depending on state. Hopefully with ammunition he purchased after yet another round of PPYI checks, in some states.

And that night, some goblin breaks in, murders Joe, gets into the safe, and steals that Super-Concealed Thug Slayer you built and sold. Goblin steals a Ford Escort, uses it to plow down a bunch of pedestrians, then uses your product to finish off the survivors.

What’s that got to do with you? It’s your fault. Not Ford’s fault, even though Goblin used a Ford. Not the Ford dealer. Not the Ford’s owner. But it is Joe’s fault for negligently storing the gun in a safe that the Goblin could get into after Joe negligently let himself be murdered. Thanks goodness you excluded California sales, or Joe’s estate might be prosecuted for dead Joe failing to report the stolen firearm.

It’s the dealer’s fault for following all local, state, and federal laws. Ditto for the negligent distributor. And most especially you, Mr. Manufacturer, for making and marketing a weapon to kill people.

“But the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protects me if I followed all the rules and someone else misused my product,” you cry. “Why not sue Ford?”

Possibly they’ll get around to it, though it seems unlikely. But you engaged in “negligent marketing.” By obeying the grossly under-regulating state and federal laws and regulations that damned near kept you out of the market in the first place.

Welcome to the wonderful world of unregulated firearms. Next week, we’ll talk about the laws, regulations, and rules surrounding ammunition for those unregulated guns. If my head doesn’t explode; I may need a Federal Explosives License from the ATF for that.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, gun grabbers, So Much Stupid!

Factually Challenged Keyboard Commandos

2 Comments

Bob Ault wants to ban…

Something.

Now is the time to discuss gun control: Letter to the Editor
We need sensible gun legislation now. We need to ban military style assault rifles, bump stocks and high capacity magazines now, and then move on to pass legislation for universal background checks for all gun sales, which is supported by 90 percent of Americas.

But he’s confused as to what. Is it insanely expensive, highly regulated, taxed, and registered assault rifles of very limited quantities? Or is is nonexistent “military style assault weapons“? If the latter, can he inform of us of what country in the world generally issues semiautomatic rifles to its regular troops?

He tells us that that 90% of Americas [sic] want unconstitutional prior restraint of a constitutionally protected right through universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence — PPYI (“background checks,” is his term). Can he tell us in what state such PPYI was actually approved by 90% of the population when put to a vote? I can’t help but recall polls predicting Jeb Bush would win the Republican primary, Clinton would defeat Trump, Moore ahead of Jones, or… heck, everyone knows Dewey beat Truman.

Can he tell us how PPYI would have stopped the Mandalay Bay murderer, who passed such checks; the Sutherland Springs killer, who passed such checks because the Air Force never reported his involuntary committal or domestic violence conviction; or the Sandy Hook murderer who bypassed checks by murdering his mother and stealing her guns? Can he explain how prohibited persons can be required to self-report their unlawful attempt to obtain firearms, which would be in violation of the Supreme Court’s Haynes decision?

Since Bob Ault believes there is no need for civilians to have weapons such as that possessed by the Sutherland Springs killer, does he believe the man who stopped the killer with his own AR-pattern rifle should instead have let him go to keep killing?

Can Mr. Ault explain, should a ban on semiautomatic rifles be enacted, how he expects to identify gun owners when mere estimates of their numbers range from 55 to 120 million; or to find the rifles when estimates of firearms in civilian hands range from 265 to 750 million?

If Ault’s solution involves kicking in the doors of 125 million households to search them all — in case they’re heavily armed — will he personally volunteer his jackbooted services?

[An abbreviated form of this column was sent to Cleveland.com as a Letter to the Editor in response to Bob Ault’s letter. It was not printed.]

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, gun grabbers

By the Numbers

3 Comments

In recent years, victim disarmament advocates have been making more use of international firearms homicide rate comparisons. The United Kingdom used to be their go-to example, but that’s largely fallen by the wayside since, not only has its crime rate been growing as America’s has dropped, but they were outed for faking their low numbers.

These days, the line is, “The United States has the highest firearms murder rate of any developed nation,” along with assorted variations on the theme. Typically, they also throw in the fact that we have far more guns per person than any other country (I see that as a point of pride). When they want a specific example, they point to Australia and its post-Port Arthur confiscation and proclaim, “Australia hasn’t had a mass shooting since,” carefully ignoring at least four mass shootings (using the anti-rights Gun Violence Archive’s definition of 4+ people shot, not counting the shooter). And then there’s the low confiscation compliance rate which has caused them to hold multiple “amnesties.”

Now, it’s true that Australia’s firearm-related homicide rate is only 0.16/100K, compared to the United States at 3.60/100K. But we’re allegedly talking about developed nations.

The United States is ranked first in the world by Gross Domestic Product. Australia comes in at number 13. Australia’s GDP is roughly one-fifteenth of the United States, less than 7% of ours. Peaceful Sweden is another country that the gun people controllers like to point to, with its 0.19/100K firearm homicide rate. But we’re talking economics, too. Sweden’s GDP ranks 23rd, well behind even Australia, and is just one thirty-sixth that of the US.

Instead, let’s try a country quite close by which is closer to Australia’s GDP than Sweden’s.

Our southern neighbor Mexico ranks 15th, with a GDP 83% of Australia’s. For that matter, there’s Brazil in the #9 slot. If Sweden is economically developed surely Brazil counts. But the gun grabbers don’t like to talk about them for some reason.

Said reason being:

Firearms-related homicide rates per 100K

Australia (13) 0.16
Sweden (23) 0.19
United States (1) 3.60
Mexico (15) 6.34
Brazil (9) 19.99

At this, the controllers are screeching that GDP is meaningless, that GDP per capita is the indicator of development. Well, no; that’s more an indicator of average wealth than development. And by per capita GDP Mexico does trail the US’s #7 ranking at #70. I think that says more about wealth distribution than development.

With Chinese made goods filling most department stores, I think we can agree that China is an industrially developed nation. They are producing that stuff we’re importing.

So is Mexico. Let’s look at our imports from various countries. We get $14.3 billion worth of vehicles from China. But we get $75.2 billion worth of vehicles from Mexico. That’s more than than we import from Japan, Korea, Germany, or any other country.

For total imports, Mexico is our second largest provider, behind China and ahead of Canada.

Yes, they’re developed. And with 15 guns per 100 people they have a firearms homicide rate almost double that of the US with 101 guns per hundred people. Brazil, with a mere 8 guns per 100 people, still manages a firearms homicide rate 5.5 times ours.

If guns and gun ownership were the problem, the United States would have depopulated itself decades ago.

Louisiana ranks 13th in gun ownership, but #1 in murder rate. Maryland is 43rd in gun ownership, but #5 in murder rate. Baltimore alone has a murder rate of 55.4/100K (and note that Maryland has strong gun control laws).

It isn’t the guns or the honest owners.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control

Do they care?

4 Comments

A comment was left on the post Commenting Now Open: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices.

Carl… do you actually think any rational explanation of anything will influence the bureaucrats? Do you think that any of them CARE in the least? If they were the least influenced by reality, none of this would be happening.

That could almost be a template for things I’ve been told over the years. Strike out “bureaucrats” and insert “HOA,” “mayor,” “councilman,” “congresscreep,” “senator,” “reporter,” or “pollster.” It’s always pointless trying to reach these folks because they don’t care what us peons think.

I disagree.

I think there’s some value to outreach. Occasionally you reach someone whose mind isn’t closed and is willing to learn. Not the politicians and bureaucrats, of course.

But there is one bit of “reality” that will influence them. Sheer numbers.

So the periodic reminder that there are millions of honest gun owners who won’t play their game gives them pause. Given the blatant animosity towards the Constitution from people like Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer, Reid — and so many others — I think the only reason they haven’t attempted outright bans and confiscations is that there are too many us, too well armed. It’s too late to “bell the cat,” and they know it.

So they keep trying just a little bit at a time; testing the waters.

And we remind them that the waters still hold piranha. With lots of big teeth.

Do the bureaucrats of the ATF care about the facts in my rulemaking comment? Of course, not. But they do care that hundreds of gun owners per day let them know we’re still watching for those dipping toes.

That said, I strongly suspect we’ll initially lose the bump-fire battle because the ATF is notoriously stupid. They classified a shoestring as a machinegun. They thought no one would notice that they were overriding NICS to sell guns to felons and traffickers with the intent of arming Mexican cartels.

I think they’re looking at potential revenue, too. The request for comments asks manufacturers and retailers how many bump-fire stocks are out there. I’m sure they’re thinking, “Wow! Hunnerds of thousands of new NFA devices that people will have to fork out two hunnerd bucks a pop to keep, if we grandfather existing stocks. That’s millions in new revenue! Oak desks for everyone! Vegas ‘conferences’!”

Initially. They think bump-fire stocks and trigger cranks are a small niche that we won’t fight for. They’re wrong, because the proposal is too broad. As my comment indicates, this redefines almost anything as a machinegun, including fingers.* They aren’t dipping a toe in the water this time; they’re sticking their foot in, and they’ll lose it. They’ll be forced to back off just as they did with the full-auto shoestring.

Because they do care. About our numbers, if not our words.

* If you don’t think the vaguely broad scope isn’t intentional, you haven’t been paying attention. If bump-fire stocks were all they were after, Feinstein’s bill could have read like this, or the ATF could have issued the same ruling:

1. It shall be unlawful to possess, transfer, or use an accessory

a. which attaches to a semiautomatic firearm to allow the firearm to be held securely which reciprocating forward and back with the purpose of using that motion to engage and disengage the trigger with no movement of the trigger finger.

b. which engages and operates the trigger of a firearm multiple times for each individual operation of the accessory; this includes, but is not limited to, trigger cranks or motorized gloves.

2. Accessories which do not result in multiple trigger operation per operation of the accessory are not prohibited. Non-prohibited accessories include, but are not limited to,

a. release triggers which allow a firearm to be fired when the trigger is released.

b. set triggers which allow the trigger to be partially pulled to reduce trigger weight for the final operation of the trigger

c. fire on pull and release triggers which operate with separate motions of the trigger finger.

d. replacement light weight triggers to improve accuracy of the firearm.

e. replacement recoil springs.

f. replacement mainsprings.

g. replacement light weight bolts or other reduced mass parts which lower the mass of the firearm.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Poll, Uncategorized

Poll: Carry in California

7 Comments

The Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Boards are afraid “that people who can legally carry concealed guns in their home states could do the same” in California if Congress passes reciprocal carry legislation. The thought of hordes of law-abiding people swarming the state apparently terrifies them. But that presupposes that law-abiding people who want to routinely carry concealed want to go to California, which I can personally attest isn’t necessarily the case.

If you are a non-Californian with a CCW license do you have any interest in traveling to California with your sidearm?

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control

Commenting Now Open: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices.

5 Comments

As mentioned last week, the ATF has proposed a rule which would render bump-fire stocks, and trigger assist devices, “machineguns.”

The Zelman Partisans opposed this when legislation was introduced to do the same thing, and we opposed doing it via bureaucratic fiat.

Comments are now being accepted on “Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices.” You may submit comments online through the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

I have submitted my personal comments already. This what I sent.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
Docket No. 2017R-22

I oppose classifying as machineguns “bump-fire” stocks or any other external device or accessory which does not alter the internal action of a firearm.

In effect, this proposed rule would make any firearm a machinegun if a well trained person can pull the trigger faster than your arbitrary threshold.

EXPLANATION:

The rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm is based in physics. Force is applied to the firing pin. That force and the pin’s mass determine its acceleration into the cartridge primer. The primer ignites at a given velocity for that cartridge; that in turn ignites the powder with its own ignition velocity. The bullet is propelled forward; force and mass again.

The force of the detonating powder also works to move the bolt backwards; the old “equal and opposite reaction.” How fast the bolt goes back is determined by its mass and the resistance of the spring behind it. When it has traveled all the way back, the spring applies force and pushes the mass forward once again.

The bolt is slowed as it strips the next round out of the magazine. Finally it moves the round’s mass into the chamber.

In a machine gun, the firing pin would continue forward starting the cycle over again. In a semiautomatic firearm, the pin does not go forward until the trigger (with its own mass and springs) returns to the ready position and is manually operated again. So semiautomatics have an inherently slower rate of fire than machine guns, all else being equal.

The only way to even approach the theoretical maximum rate of fire of most semiautomatics is to have a fast finger.

A machinegun is designed to fire multiple rounds per trigger operation. Bump-fire stocks in no way affect that operation/rounds relationship. If you put a bump-fire stock on a semiautomatic rifle, you still individually operate the trigger for each round fired. Bump-fire stocks do not make the weapon fire faster. The theoretical rate of fire of the rifle is determined by the physics of the internal parts, as described above.

To fire a rifle with reasonable expectation that the round will hit the target, you normally hold the rifle firmly with both hands, and pull it against your shoulder. This provides a stable shooting stance.

A rifle has recoil. When fired, it pushes against your shoulder.

But let’s trying hold that rifle a little differently. With your off hand (the hand you don’t use to pull the trigger) grip the rifle. Your trigger hand does not grip the rifle. Nor do you pull the rifle butt snug against your shoulder. It isn’t a stable stance, and accuracy will suffer.

When your rifle is on target, extend your trigger finger into the guard. Now, with your off hand grip, push the rifle forward until your trigger finger pulls the trigger.

The rifle fires. Recoil pushes the rifle back so your finger disengages the trigger. Your rifle-gripping off hand acts like a spring and pulls the rifle forward again. If your shooting finger was held steady, the trigger is pushed against the finger again, firing.

The bump-fire stock is simply a device that can be pulled snugly to the shoulder, and provides a grip to help keep the trigger finger in position. The rifle proper just recoils back in a channel into the stock. It is training wheels for folks who have trouble bump-firing. And since it’s a bit more stable, it helps with accuracy compared to normal bump-fire. However, accuracy even with the stock is poor compared to conventional stance with conventional stock.

Considering bump-fire stocks, and other accessories, to be machineguns would not simply regulate a physical device. It effectively outlaws the bump-fire TECHNIQUE, and even pulling the trigger faster than some arbitrary threshold.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control

The fix is in: proposed rulemaking on bump-fire

9 Comments

The ATF has posted a PDF document which will officially be published December 26, 2017. It solicits comments on proposed rules on the “Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices.”

The document makes it clear that bump-fire stocks (and other devices) will be classified as machineguns under the NFA definition. It is troublesome in other ways, as well.

“‘Bump fire’ stocks (bump stocks) are devices used with a semiautomatic firearm to increase the firearm’s cyclic firing rate to mimic nearly continuous automatic fire.”

They absolutely in no way affect the firearm’s cyclic firing rate; it’s impossible:

The rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm is based in physics. Force is applied to the firing pin. That force and the pin’s mass determine it’s acceleration into the cartridge primer. The primer ignites at a given velocity for that cartridge; that in turn ignites the powder with its own ignition velocity. The bullet is propelled forward; force and mass again.

The force of the detonating powder also works to move the bolt backwards; the old “equal and opposite reaction.” How fast the bolt goes back is determined by its mass and the resistance of the spring behind it. When it has traveled all the way back, the spring applies force and pushes the mass forward once again.

The bolt is slowed as it strips the next round out of the magazine. Finally it moves the round’s mass into the chamber.

In a machine gun, the firing pin would continue forward starting the cycle over again. In a semiautomatic firearm, the pin does not go forward until the trigger (with its own mass and springs) returns to the ready position and is manually operated again. So semiautomatics have an inherently slower rate of fire than machine guns, all else being equal.

The only way to even approach the theoretical maximum rate of fire of most semiautomatics is to have a fast finger.

Instead of looking at mechanical function, and simple physics, in this document the ATF has adopted the media and gun controller definition of “if it’s fast, it must be a machinegun.” The intent is preordained regardless of comments.

As I have explained, bump-fire stocks are training wheels, and no more make a semiautomatic rifle work as a machinegun than training wheels turn your child’s bike into a high performance racing machine.

Next, we have another problem.

“On October 1, 2017, 58 people were killed and several hundred were wounded in Las Vegas, Nevada, by a shooter firing one or more AR-type rifles affixed with a particular bump stock device.”

How does Deputy Director Thomas E. Brandon know that? Is he privy to data from the investigation which has not been released to the public? Or is he assuming the media claims (not investigator statements) to that effect are true?

In no news story I can find is there a statement from authorities of what weapons were used. We were told that there were 23 weapons in the asshole’s suite, that some were AR pattern semiautomatic rifles, that at least one was an AK pattern semiautomatic rifle, that weapons were chambered in 5.56/.223 and .308, and that at least one rifle in addition was fully automatic. But not which were actually used.

If the bump-fire stocked rifles were used, as this document states, why won’t investigators say so? If it was being kept confidential for legitimate investigative purposes, why release the data in this very public document?

A law enforcement source has said that the shooter left behind a note with ballistic calculations “pertaining to the distance and trajectory from his 32nd-floor window to the crowd of concertgoers he targeted below.” Such calculations are pointless for inherently inaccurate bump-fired rifles: “What’s the point of careful calculations of the most accurate way to aim a firehose? An automatic rifle in most people’s hands wouldn’t be much better.” This suggests that the plan was certainly to use something other than bump-fire.*

In preparing for new bump-fire stock rules, the ATF starts with the unsupported claims that such were used in Las Vegas, that they magically change the physics of a firearm’s internal action, and operating the trigger rapidly makes them work like machineguns. So does your well-trained finger.

The fix is in.

* It also raises questions on the need for precise ballistics calculations when we’re told the “target” was simply 22,000 random people crowded into an area the size of multiple football fields, and why he stopped shooting.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, gun grabbers

Liars, and the lied-to

1 Comment

On a recent post, a commenter noted that anti-RKBA groups must have trouble recruiting workers given the conflicting skill sets of credentials and experience and the reasoning skills of a toddler. I had to disagree; since the goal of groups like Moms Demand Deaths Action isn’t reducing violence, poor logical skills aren’t needed.

Just a willingness to lie. Like Shannon “I’m just a stay at home mom” Watts, the professional public relations manager paid by Bloomberg.

Sometimes I’m willing to allow that a person is ignorant, rather than maliciously lying, when advocating for victim disarmament. That’s because there are — at least — two types of gun control advocates.

The first are those for whom the goal is a disarmed citizenry — for the sake of people control — rather than a reduction in violence.

The second is their targeted demographic: those who didn’t care enough about the subject to have already educated themselves using readily available data. The first group lies to the second to instill panic so that they will begin to care. But the targeted demographic will be operating on the dramatic lies and blood-dancing they accepted passively.

How do you tell the ignorantly well-intentioned — who might be capable of grasping reality once it’s presented — from the outright liars? Let’s look at a hypothetical situation.

Some horrible murder occurs. A group forms saying they want to prevent that happening again. They create a Facebook page to present facts about guns and violence, including a graphic that purports to show that having a gun is more likely to be a danger to you and yours, than to useful for protection. Someone else notes that they’ve referenced the debunked Kellerman study.

At this point, the gun control group could do a few things. They could ask what the Kellerman study is, suggesting they work from simple ignorance. They could stand up for the Kellerman study, which might be ignorance or lying; could go either way.

Or, they might claim that graphic doesn’t represent the Kellerman study, indicating they know what the Kellerman paper is, and that it isn’t worth using as a reference.

So let’s say they did the latter. And our observant commenter points out that the graphic specifically includes text saying it’s from the Kellerman paper. A few other people jump in to tell them the same thing. And the next time our fearless commenter visits the page, his comments have been deleted, as have the others supporting his position. The Kellerman graphic remains now unchallenged. That would be a group of liars, not well-intentioned ignoramuses.

Oh. Wait. That situation wasn’t hypothetical. That’s exactly what Watts’ Moms Demand Action did.

Maybe another hypothetical.

Let’s say that a state legislature is considering a bill to impose universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restraint background checks for firearms purchases. And let’s say that another group formed in response to the above mentioned mass shooting testify in a public hearing that universal background checks would have stopped the asshole who killed the children at Sandy Hook. Since the murderer obtained his weapons by first murdering his mother and stealing her guns, it’s hard to imagine him then stopping for a background check. But hey.

So someone contacts the group to point out the little problem with the claim. The possible responses could tell us how we should view them.

They could say that their reps were overwhelmed by emotion and misspoke, and offer a correction.

Or they could lie, and claim their reps actually said PPYI would not have stopped the Sandy Hook killer.

Oh. Darn it. This one wasn’t hypothetical either. It happened. I was there in the hearing in New Hampshire in 2014 when the Sandy Hook Promise representatives definitely said PPYI would have stopped him. I laughed out loud. So did several hundred other people, who also muttered enough about the outlandish claim that the committee chairwoman had to call for silence. And when I contacted SHP, they did lie about what their reps testified to.

In fact, I got two lies for the price of one.

“Sandy Hook Promise is firmly rooted in constitutional values and as such does not support policy or legislation that poses a burden on anyone’s rights.”

Except when they send representatives to another state to demand just such burdensome legislation. (Frankly, I’m amazed they got there. They said that Connecticut borders on New Hampshire.)

Once you’ve determined which type you’re dealing with — lying SOBs, or their knowledged challenged targets — deal with them appropriately. Call out the liars like Moms Demand Action, Sandy Hook Promise, and Giffords; especially in a manner that theirs targets can see so they’ll know they’ve been lied to. Admittedly, that’s touigh when the media are the allies of the liars (and generally liars themselves).

The knowledge-challenged you can try to educate directly. But you have to work past the false “knowledge” they’ve been suckered with.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun grabbers, You can't fix stupid

[Update] OK, I tried to have that conversation.

5 Comments

The gun grabbers always say they want a conversation, but somehow that rarely seems to work out.

Ms. Lori N. DiPersio, Executive Director of the Women’s Resource Center in Rhode Island has a solution to the domestic violence problem. Referencing the Sutherland Springs asshole, a prohibited person able to purchase weapons because the Air Force failed to obey the law, she wrote:

Despite all of these warning signs and a well-documented dark past for such a young person, he was able to amass a gun collection that he used to kill dozens of innocent souls – including those of a pregnant woman, her unborn child and numerous children. If you knew what you now know about this shooter, would you have in good conscience had any part in selling him a gun? If he could beat up a puppy and an infant with his bare hands, what would he have done with a gun in his possession? Unfortunately, we – and the 26 dead, the numerous injured, their families and our grieving nation – know the answer.

It’s time we stop putting guns into the hands of those who cannot handle themselves. Support gun legislation to stop the violence and protect innocent lives, before it happens again.

Right off the bat, she violated Rule 1a: If you are proposing a solution to a specific incident, the proposal should address characteristics of that incident.

You might also note the lack of a specific… heck, any proposed solution; just “gun legislation.” I figured an “Executive Director” ought to know how to get things done. Maybe her letter just got edited down for space. So I asked her. To start that conversation.

What gun legislation are you proposing; a new law requiring agencies to report convictions as the law already requires?

True, a little sarcastic; but I’d already hit “send.” But really; I want to see if she’s come up with something workable.

An answer!

I’m not proposing a specific gun legislation but would totally support whatever can be done (current or future legislation) to prohibit guns from getting into the hands of those who cannot handle themselves. Any legislation that can keep guns away from those who would use it senselessly in a domestic violence situation is great!

So that would be totally (whatever, is she a 16yo Valley Girl?)… No.

So much for the conversation.

So basically you have no idea what current laws are, or how effective they might be, or what news laws you want, but you do want more of what you don’t know.

Thank you for clarifying that.

I’ve had more profound discussions with a cat.

And bless your heart, Lori; that confidentiality disclaimer on your email? Pretty useless. You’re not my attorney, I’m not your client, and we have no contractual relationship. But I can certainly understand why your employer might want your… carefully considered thoughts on issues kept quiet.

Update: I waited for another reply before I posted this, but not quite long enough.

I do know what the new laws are and how they still are not strong enough. Our local government is still trying to figure it out as well.

I dunno… if they don’t work, maybe it isn’t that they aren’t strong enough. Perhaps, they’re 1) the wrong laws, and 2) targeting the 99.9814% of millions of gun owners who aren’t the problem.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Uncategorized

Bullshit, NSSF: It is gun control

4 Comments

NSSF: Fix NICS Act is ‘Not Gun Control’
Fix NICS is Not Gun Control

Unlike restrictions on semi-automatic rifles or magazine capacity, Fix NICS is not a “gun control” measure, no matter how some opportunistic co-sponsors on that side of the gun debate may choose to characterize the bill.

Yes. It is.

It is a prior restraint on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right. It requires one to preemptively prove his innocence.

It denies Second Amendment rights completely to arbitrary classes: unapproved users of arbitrary substances regardless of legality at state level, or even if such use has never been associated with other mala in se criminal activity by that person.

It requires such a person above to choose between perjury or self-incrimination in violation of the HAYNES Supreme Court decision, in order to exercise his Second Amendment rights.

It denies Second Amendment rights completely to those convicted of an arbitrary definition of misdemeanor domestic violence, including imposing an ex post facto punishment of permanent prohibited person status decades after the fact. (I say arbitrary, because it’s only “domestic violence” depending on which person with whom you were in a close relationship.) The vast majority of criminal convictions in America come through plea bargains, in which the defendant often gives up, settling for lesser punishment, just to save the hassle. It has been documented that some who made plea arrangements have later been proved innocent.

In a similar manner, appellate judges have tossed pled-down convictions of lawful immigrants because the immigrants were unaware that their punishment could subject them to deportation. Yet a “domestic violence” offender was supposed to know in the 1970s that a 1997 law would cause his punishment to include a permanent abrogation of rights.

It has denied Second Amendment rights completely to unconvicted “fugitives” even as — similarly to the above real world scenario — a federal court has ruled that it an unconstitutional violation of right to deny welfare payments to the same “fugitives.”

It denied Second Amendment rights completely to people arbitrarily placed in NICS databases by the Veterans Administration and Social Security Administration without the due process and adjudication required by federal law.

It denies Second Amendment rights completely to people subject to “Extreme Risk Protection Orders specifically designed to avoid any adjudication until after the abrogation of rights.

So why do it?

In truth, the legislation is based on the previous state-level work of the firearms industry to improve a system put into place nearly two decades ago. Ever since its inception, NICS has been hamstrung by the systemic failure to include all necessary disqualifying records in its database.

For the industry. Not honest gun owners.

It’s is unlawful to knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person. The industry wanted NICS check purely to cover their own asses. Much as corporate America requires would-be employees to pee in a cup to cover their asses under the Drug-Free Workplace Act’s requirement that they make “an ongoing, good faith effort to maintain a drug-free workplace by meeting the requirements of the Act,” the industry wanted to make customers fill out intrusive forms to meet the 18 U.S. Code § 922 restrictions on sales. NICS made it even better — for the industry — by shifting responsibility for granting permission to the FBI.

CYA. Liability. Not because they had a bunch of felons and psychos strolling in to buy guns. By a 2001 study, by 1997 roughly 87% of criminals bypassed stores to get their weapons from friends, family or illegal street sources. (side note: a mere 0.7% obtained them from gun shows.)

Approximately 88% of firearms used in crimes are stolen, while 64% of murderers had prior felony convictions. They weren’t buying those stolen guns from FFLs and filling out 4473s.

We know they aren’t doing that, just from the NICS denial numbers.

In 2016, there were 27,538,673 NICS transactions processed. There 120,497 denials (0.4%). At least 30,000 thousand of those are under appeal. Historically, around 93% of denials have been found to be false positives.

There have been 1,393,729 denials since the NICS program began in 1998. Five percent of that — proper denials — would be 69,686.

Last time I checked, there were 147 referrals for prosecutions. 147 in almost two decades. Those aren’t numbers indicating a need to keep criminals from shopping in gun stores.

(The 2016 NICS report says the top reason for overturned denials is that they got the wrong person: that with name, address, sex, date of birth, place of birth, and SSAN, they still couldn’t tell the buyer from some prohibited person with a similar name. Another top reason is that the NICS databases simply had the wrong — often outdated — information on the person.)

Those overturned denials are people whose Second Amendment human/civil rights were denied through a gun control measure.

Those numbers say the program serves no purpose… except to cover the industry’s ass. At the customers’ and taxpayers’ expense: At a typical $25 for a NICS check, the industry pocketed $5,077,150 on this year’s Black Friday alone, just to make a phone call. The FBI is requesting $8.9 million in the FY2018 budget for NICS.

NICS is a demonstrably useless prior restraint of human/civil rights. It benefits only the firearms industry and anti-RKBA control freaks.

And the NSSF knows it. Or this would never have happened:

Several years ago, a friend was invited to an NSSF-sponsor media education event, where the visitors were given a talk on firearms, a Q&A session, and range time to see what shooting guns was really like. My friend attended.

So did I. Combining errands into one trip, she brought her children along, so I came to babysit during the NSSF program. During the shooting session, the NSSF rep noticed me at the back of the room outside the firing line (where I was trying to keep the kids quietly occupied) and asked if I wasn’t going to shoot.

He didn’t know who I was. Even though I had no credentials, he assumed I was an invitee. I corrected him. He still offered to let me shoot. I said what-the-hell.

And he handed a perfect stranger a Glock 17 and a magazine. No ID check. No background check. Didn’t even ask if I could lawfully possess. (For the record, I am not a prohibited person. But he couldn’t know that.)

The NSSF isn’t concerned about keeping guns out of the “wrong” hands; they just want CYA.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail