Month: July 2022
- 43 Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the bill, and one Democrat, Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., who is not running for reelection, voted against it
- Supporters of the bill said that it would allow police to alert the public of unsafe situations more quickly
- They said police typically rely on social media and news reports to get word out
- Critics said the bill was unnecessary and likely to stoke fear among the public
- ‘This bill is like yelling ‘fire’ in a movie theater, except the fire is in another movie theater across the street,’ Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said
The House on Thursday passed a bill 260-169 that would allow law enforcement to deploy an Amber alert-like phone notification system in active shooter situations.
Forty-three Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the bill, and one Democrat, Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., who is not running for reelection, voted against it.
The bill, led by Reps. David Cicilline, D-R.I., and Fred Upton, R-Mich., now heads to the Senate.
Supporters of the bill said that it would allow police to alert the public of unsafe situations more quickly. They said police typically rely on social media and news reports to get the word out. Critics said that the bill was unnecessary and likely to stoke fear among the public.
‘This bill is a common sense piece of public safety legislation that police have asked for over, and over, and over again, and we are past due in delivering it to them,’ Cicilline said on the House floor.
The bill would carve out a new role in the Department of Justice known as the national coordinator of the Active Shooter Alert Communications network, and that coordinator would work with the FEMA administrator, Transportation secretary FCC chair to help state and local law enforcement set up such alert systems.
Upton, the Republican leader on the bill, pointed to the July 4 mass shooting at a parade in Highland Park, Ill., where the suspected gunman was at large for eight hours and drove across state lines to Wisconsin.
‘Wouldn’t it have been nice to have had a system that would have alerted the entire parade route to take cover, and maybe some of those folks that were killed or wounded wouldn’t have happened?’ he asked.
Police deploy after gunfire erupted at a Fourth of July parade route in the wealthy Chicago suburb of Highland Park, Illinois on July 4
A Fourth of July parade-goer runs for cover after gunfire was heard at the parade Monday morning, July 4
People’s belongings lie abandoned along the parade route after a mass shooting at a Fourth of July parade
Upton said he heard from ‘law enforcement and police chiefs that active shooter alerts can be a vital tool to provide accurate, real-time information to our communities, and one they believe will help in these dangerous situations.’
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed Thursday Republicans cared more about their ‘political survival’ than children’s survival after 168 voted against the bill.
‘If your child were in a school where there was an assault, wouldn’t you want to know? How can these Republicans vote ‘no’?’ she said.
‘These people think their political survival is more important than the survival of their children.’
The Active Shooter Alert bill would allow for Amber alert-style notifications to pop up on nearby residents’ phones in the case of a mass shooting
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., warned that such a bill could cause chaos, giving a hypothetical where a stadium full of concertgoers all get an alert if someone fired a gun several blocks away, maybe even by accident.
‘Would that make the circumstance safer? Of course not. It would lead to stampede, tragedy, hysteria, mistake, perhaps even more death,’ he said.
Gaetz said that the bill was vague about how far from an incident people would still get alerts and what types of events would warrant an alert.
‘This bill is like yelling ‘fire’ in a movie theater, except the fire is in another movie theater across the street,’ he said.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, described the bill as ‘Democrat fear-mongering that guns are an ever-present threat.’
Democrats, meanwhile, mocked Republicans for being ‘pro-life’ but voting against the bill.
‘The vast majority of the House Republican Conference voted against a bill to alert people of nearby active shooters,’ Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., wrote on Twitter. ‘The bill doesn’t limit gun ownership. All it does is keep communities safe. In case you were wondering what the ‘pro-life’ party really stands for.’
‘Last night, 168 Republicans voted against the Active Shooter Alert Act, which would set up a system to send alerts directly to people’s phones, warning them in the case of a nearby active shooter. This could save lives. Yet most of the “pro-life” party voted to try and block it,’ Rep. Pramila Jayapal, chair of the House Progressive Caucus, wrote on Twitter.
Categories
Colt Woodsman Match Target Pistol
With the countless stories that would emerge from the Normandy landings, some of the most harrowing would come from the U.S. troops that stormed “Bloody Omaha” beach. Of the two primary U.S. landing beaches along the Normandy coastline, with “Utah” beach to the west of Pointe du Hoc and “Omaha” to the east, the landings at Omaha beach would result in far more carnage than the other American landing zones.
Omaha, the code name given to a five-mile stretch of the Normandy coastline, was divided into four sectors: “Charlie,” “Dog,” “Easy” and “Fox,” which were themselves further divided into sub-sectors. This beach was the designated landing zone for elements of the U.S. 5th Corps, consisting of the 1st and 29th Infantry Divisions along with supporting naval personnel and combat engineers.
A map showing the sectors and German defensive positions along the five mile stretch of “Omaha” beach.
This stretch of beach features a large sandy shoreline overlooked by tall bluffs and rolling hills. the bluffs were fortified by the Germans in the years leading up to the invasion as a part of Hitler’s “Atlantic Wall,” which was intended to keep any Allied forces from landing along the conquered coastlines of Nazi-controlled Europe. The Germans built numerous concrete bunkers, machine-gun nests and other fortifications along the bluffs overlooking the beaches. On the shoreline itself, the Germans also emplaced tank traps, mines and various other wood and metal obstacles meant to prevent armor and landing craft from making their way up to the shore.
A view of Omaha beach today, showing the outlay of the bluffs and the long stretch of sand that separates them from the shoreline.
These German defensive positions along the coast were targeted by numerous Allied bombing raids in an effort to destroy them, but these raids did little damage to the fortified emplacements. In the hours before the landings, these positions were further shelled by naval artillery from a fleet of Allied vessels off shore, but this too had negligible effect on the defenses. To make matters worse, the German defenders of Omaha did not have to contend with the issue of paratroopers behind their lines as those defending Utah did. This in turn meant that the men going ashore at Omaha would be facing a focused, entrenched and well-armed enemy that was waiting for them.
U.S. troops seen wading ashore at Omaha after leaving their landing craft on June 6, 1944.
On the morning of June 6, 1944, troops boarded their landing craft and prepared to make the journey ashore, but issues cropped up almost immediately. The less-than-ideal weather produced choppy seas, resulting in seasick crew and swamped landing craft. The rough water also caused a the majority of a group of M4 Sherman Duplex Drive amphibious tanks that were meant to support the troops on the beach to instead founder and sink. To make matters worse, a combination of smoke covering the shore and an eastward tidal current pushed many of the landing craft off from their designated landing sectors.
Men wading ashore at Omaha, with a clearer picture of the scene of chaos unfolding on the beach.
As the craft approached the beach, the German positions along the coastline opened up on them with mortars, artillery and machine gun fire. Obstacles in the water and on the beach prevented many landing craft from being able to get right up to the shoreline, forcing the troops they contained to wade ashore. The men of the first wave to hit the beach were soon greeted by a hail of fire from the numerous MG34 and MG42 machine gun positions spread out amongst the bluffs. Some men were cut down still inside the landing craft, with German gunners focusing in on them as the ramps dropped.
With a high rate of fire and the ability to quickly swap hot barrels, the MG42 was murderous for the men landing at Omaha.
For the men of A Company, 116th Infantry Regiment of the 29th Infantry Division, the German fire was murderous. Landing at the “Dog Green” sector of Omaha, within in five minutes of hitting the beach, the company was essentially wiped out, with 91 killed and 65 wounded. The intense German defensive fire caused the landings at Omaha to stall as American troops desperately tried to find whatever cover they could on the beach. Luckily for many of them, Omaha had a shelf of shingle, or tidal rock, that provided some small degree of cover. However, they would still have to make their way up the rest of the beach and then up the bluffs in order to take it.
To watch complete segments of past episodes of American Rifleman TV, go to americanrifleman.org/artv. For all-new episodes of ARTV, tune in Wednesday nights to Outdoor Channel 8:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. EST.
Above: Samples of revolvers chambered for all three .44s. On the left
is a Navy Arms replica of a 3rd Model S&W .44 Russian. Below, from left
to right: .44 S&W Russian, .44 S&W Special and .44 Remington Magnum.
It amazes me how many shooters — young and old — talk about their .44 Specials or .44 Magnums without having a clue as to their ancestry. Neither arrived on the revolver scene as full-blown innovations. They were derived in a stair step fashion.
Their story started in 1872 in what might be called an instance of Russian collusion. S&W introduced their first metallic cartridge-firing revolver in 1870. Named Model #3, it was chambered for the .44 Henry, same as used in Winchester’s Model 1866 rifles and carbines. Hoping for army contracts S&W submitted the new Model #3 to the U.S. Government for testing. It was almost immediately rejected because .44 Henry was rimfire — the government wanted only centerfires. So, S&W remodeled the .44 Henry cartridge to centerfire ignition and called it .44/100.
Colluding for Gold
A Russian general serving as a diplomat in America took note of the Model #3 and thought it would be an excellent sidearm for the Czar’s cavalry. Except he disliked the two-diameter heel-type bullet used in .44/100. The general had this crazy idea a bullet’s body should be the same diameter and fit inside a cartridge case. Since the Russians promised to pay for their S&W Model #3 in gold, the company was happy to accept their idea. Thus was born the S&W .44 Russian, and henceforth the .44/100 was called .44 American.
Early on factory .44 Russian loads contained roundnose bullets as heavy as 275 grains. Winchester’s 1899 catalog listed them at 255 gr., still roundnose. Some of these early factory loads had lube grooves exposed. Later all lube grooves were covered as would be right and proper with lead alloy bullets. Case length was 0.97″ and velocity was likely a bit over 700 fps. The black powder charge was 23 grains.
As matters progressed, the Russians wanted changes in the Model #3 and the allure of gold was incentive for S&W to make them. First model .44 Russian Model #3s looked identical to the company’s .44 Americans, but soon the Russians wanted some changes. Most notable were humps at the top of Model #3’s grips and odd-looking spurs extending from trigger guards. Barrel lengths were reduced from 8″ with the First Model Russians to 7″ on the Second Model Russians. Then there was a Third Model .44 Russian with 6.5″ barrel. It’s recognizable by a large thumb screw on the topstrap. A little-known fact is S&W sold about a quarter million .44s to the Russian Government.
These three .44s — Russian, Special and Magnum —
can be handloaded with the same bullet.
All-American .44 Special
Now jump to 1907. S&W wanted to enter the large frame, swing-out cylinder market. As a cartridge for the Hand Ejector, First Model .44 (nicknamed triplelock) they introduced a wild and crazy idea. They lengthened .44 Russian’s case to 1.16″, using the exact same 246-gr. bullet at a similar velocity of about 750 fps. It was named .44 S&W Special. Factory loads carried either smokeless or black powder. S&W carried the .44 Special through four remodels stopping in 1966. In the 1980s they reintroduced Model 24s (Hand Ejector, Fourth Model) and Model 624s (stainless steel) and in the 21st century there have been some .44 Special limited editions.
Then in 1956 S&W knocked the gun world on its ear by introducing the .44 Remington Magnum with its introductory vehicle being a strengthened N-Frame. In 1957 the company went to model numbers with .44 Mags getting Model 29. Again, the new cartridge was a wonder of innovation (sarcasm intended). The new magnum case was the .44 Special stretched to 1.29″. However, bullets changed from 246-gr. RN to 240-gr. SWC with a gas check. Velocity changed also to nominal 1,470 fps. Those factory loads leaded like the dickens! I know — 18 such rounds came with my first S&W .44 Magnum in 1968.
Personally speaking, I’ve owned and handloaded for a multitude of revolvers for all three of these .44s. Of course, Russian and Special .44s can be safely fired in .44 Magnum revolvers, but I freely admit nowadays I’m far fonder of shooting the Russian version from Navy Arms replica 3rd Model No. 3.
Like me, it’s big but gentle.
I just received the below email from the Missouri AG:
Missouri Attorney General Condemns FBI’s Illegal Attempts to Harvest Concealed Carry Permit Information from Missouri Sheriffs
July 13, 2022 Contact: Constituent Services Office: 573-751-3321
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Today, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding that they cease their attempts to illegally obtain information from local sheriffs on Missourians who have concealed carry permits. Missouri law specifically prohibits the sharing of information on concealed carry permit holders to any entity – local, state, federal, or otherwise.
“The FBI has absolutely no business poking around in the private information of those who have obtained a concealed carry permit in Missouri,” said Attorney General Schmitt. “The Second Amendment rights of Missourians will absolutely not be infringed on my watch. I will use the full power of my Office to stop the FBI, which has become relentlessly politicized and has virtually no credibility, from illegally prying around in the personal information of Missouri gun owners.”
The Missouri Attorney General’s Office became aware that the FBI is planning to travel to Missouri in August to do “audits” at sheriff departments across the state, which would include harvesting information on those who have legally obtained a concealed carry permit. The letter states, “It has come to my attention that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has informed several Missouri county sheriffs that they will be showing up in August to ‘audit’ CCW permit holder records. The FBI states that, ‘The audit includes an onsite review of your Concealed Carry Weapons Permits…’ Let me be perfectly clear. Allowing federal agents from the FBI to have access to records of Missourians who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon violates Missouri law and infringes on our Second Amendment rights.”
Missouri law states, “Information retained in the concealed carry permit system under this subsection shall not be distributed to any federal, state, or private entities . . . .” § 571.101.9(2), RSMo.
At the end of the letter, Attorney General Schmitt promises to use the full power of his Office to stop the FBI’s attempts to obtain information on Missouri concealed carry weapons permit holders.
The full letter can be found here: https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2022-7-13-ltr-fbi.pdf?sfvrsn=5fbbdf7_2
Should be interesting if they and these sheriff’s attempt the audit.
Will the MO state police be waiting and once a record is presented to an FBI agent by a SO personnel, will they both be arrested under both the CCW records statute and the MO 2a Preservation statute?
Only by a court order pursuant to a criminal inquiry or investigation may Missouri CCW records be released by the county sheriff who issued it.