Categories
All About Guns Ammo Born again Cynic! California Gun Fearing Wussies

LA County Pols at it again!

Board Supervisor Janice Hahn.
Supervisor Janice Hahn proposed the new ordinance. (Photo: Hahn.LaCounty.gov)

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors advanced an ordinance today to enhance regulations for gun and ammunition dealers in unincorporated areas of the county.

Table of contents

Janice Hahn’s Baby

LA County Board Supervisor Janice Hahn pushed for the new policy.

“We need to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands and part of that effort is ensuring gun and ammunition dealers are acting responsibly,” said Hahn.

“These are commonsense regulations that will make sure gun dealers have basic security measures in place, maintain inventory, and keep records of who they sell guns and ammunition to,” she added.

The new ordinance will impact 18 gun dealers and two exclusive ammunition dealers in unincorporated LA County.

The Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector will enforce these rules.

Key provisions Include

  • Ammunition dealers must obtain a business license and meet requirements similar to gun dealers. Previously, exclusive ammunition dealers didn’t need a specific license.
  • Stores selling guns and ammunition can’t allow minors unless an adult accompanies them. Mixed-use stores must offer sight separation.
  • Dealers should maintain annual sales reports, keep purchaser fingerprints, update a weekly inventory, install security cameras, and display signs about gun access risks.
  • The Treasurer and Tax Collector will publicly post names of suspended and revoked licensees.
  • The annual license fee for initial applications and renewals will increase.

The ordinance awaits a second hearing on November 7th. If approved again, it will become effective 30 days afterward.

Prior Regulations

This regulation is the third in a series of four proposed by Supervisor Hahn. Previous ordinances banned .50 caliber firearms sales and prohibited firearms on county property.

Another in development will introduce a 1,000-foot buffer between gun shops and “child safety zones.”

Furthermore, LA County is advocating for greater awareness and utilization of gun violence restraining orders (GVROs) aka “red flag” laws.

GVROs are gun confiscation orders that target those accused — not convicted — of being a threat to public safety.

SAF Responds

“Politicians like Janice Hahn is the reason the Second Amendment is so important. She has done everything in her power to shred our Bill of Rights,” said Alan Gottlieb, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), in an email to GunsAmerica.

“Our founding fathers warned us about those in government who abuse their power and made sure that we had courts to protect our freedom,” he continued. “The Second Amendment Foundation will make sure that she will be a defendant in the court room!”

Categories
All About Guns Cops Uncategorized

‘Constitutional Carry’ in Omaha Hardly Lives Up to Its Name by David Codrea

California CHIPS NRA
“Volunteer” to him that you’re carrying — or else. (IMG NRA-ILA)

“Omaha police said in the six weeks since Nebraska’s constitutional carry law took effect they’ve arrested several people for failing to tell police they have a gun on them when they’re contacted,” ABC’s KETV 7 reported Wednesday. “[A]ccording to law enforcement booking information, at least one person has been charged with ‘failure to disclose’ a concealed weapon every day in the last week.”

“It’s a misdemeanor for the first offense, an elevated misdemeanor for the second offense, and a felony for any additional offense,” the report elaborates.

“You have the right to carry the gun on you. But you also need to let law enforcement know, for their protection, everything else, so that that you have the firearm on you,” Capt. Keith Williamson of the Omaha Police Department gang unit asserted. He added that additional charges can be “tacked on with other serious charges” to offenses like gang crimes and that the bill forcing the city “to repeal some ordinances around firearms … made it more difficult trying to track guns in the wrong hands.”

At this point, a reporter tasked with doing more than parroting an officially approved narrative might ask, “How?”

Permitless carry, requiring self-reporting to armed enforcers, hardly conforms with the Framers’ “shall not be infringed” intent and does nothing to authorize the commission of crimes, just as freedom of speech does not give a pass on fraud, libel, threats, and the like. If by “wrong hands,” Williamson means “prohibited persons,” another classification with no comparable Founding Era model, the carry law specifically excludes them.

“The new law will not change who is allowed to purchase firearms in Nebraska,” the Omaha World-Herald explains. “An amendment folded into LB 77 added an extra misdemeanor charge if someone carries a firearm while committing certain ‘dangerous misdemeanors,’ including domestic assault, shoplifting or stalking.”

But true to prohibitionist form, “Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert … issued an executive order banning firearms on city-owned properties.” While the position is officially nonpartisan, it’s interesting to note that Stothert is one of those “moderate” Republicans who take the fire out of the bellies of gun owners looking for alternatives to gun-grabbing Democrats.

In her case, her husband’s 2021 suicide “from a self-inflicted gunshot wound” merits our sympathy, but not to the extent that using her political power to mandate life-endangering infringements should be tolerated.

Just as Stothert’s gun ban would not have affected her husband’s choices in any way, neither would a requirement that gun owners inform the police that they are armed alter the behavior of the gang members who couldn’t/wouldn’t have applied for permits in any case.

In the case of criminals, requiring them to admit they are illegally carrying would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment, as ruled by the Supreme Court in Haynes v. United States, which properly reasoned requiring a prohibited person to register a firearm would violate his right not to incriminate himself.

Once again, “gun control” only “works” on the “law-abiding.” It’s shameful that most “mainstream media” readers will never know any of this, and that’s the way those who would rule want it. And in this case, Nebraska’s “Turn Yourself In” diktat further endangers citizens’ rights.

To see how, set aside time to watch two videos that I consider essential for gun owners. The first is “Don’t Talk to the Police” by Regent University School of Law professor James Duane, wherein he explains how even seemingly innocent questions can be a trap and seemingly innocuous answers can be incriminating admissions. That one is 40 minutes long, so save that link to watch when time permits and then share it with anyone you think should see it.

The other video is posted below. It “stars” Canton, OH, police officer Daniel Harless demanding mere citizens “Back the Blue” by cowering in fear—or else. He does that by screaming like a psycho and threatening a motorist who had to wait until he could get a word in edgewise to comply with Ohio’s (at the time) law and disclose that he was carrying a permitted pistol.

This is no way to run a free Republic.

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

David Codrea

Categories
All About Guns

Anybody out there have any clues about this scattergun? Grumpy

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Gun Fearing Wussies

FROM THE BENCH JUDGE ROGER T. BENITEZ HITS CALIFORNIA AGAIN WRITTEN BY DAVE WORKMAN

Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez last month, and for the
second time, declared California’s ban on so-called
“high-capacity magazines” is unconstitutional.

 

When U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez last month handed down his crushing 71-page ruling in a case known as Duncan v. Bonta — declaring California’s ban on so-called “high-capacity magazines” to be unconstitutional for a second time — one could tell by reading the opinion he had really done his homework.

In his ruling, Judge Benitez observed, “There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity and the 10-round limit has no historical pedigree and it is arbitrary and capricious. It is extreme. Our federal government and most states impose no limits and in the states where limits are imposed, there is no consensus. Delaware landed on a 17-round magazine limit. Illinois and Vermont picked limits of 15 rounds for handguns and 10 rounds for a rifle. Colorado went with a 15-round limit for handguns and rifles, and a 28-inch tube limit for shotguns. New York tried its luck at a 7-round limit; that did not work out. New Jersey started with a 15-round limit and then reduced the limit to 10-rounds. The fact that there are so many different numerical limits demonstrates the arbitrary nature of magazine capacity limits.”

All this tells us is that people who craft gun control laws limiting magazine capacities don’t know zip about firearms. Nobody has ever explained to me — and I have asked — why the 10-round limit seems to be popular among gun prohibitionists. I wasn’t really surprised; after all, no explanation would make sense, anyway.

Were someone to claim a 10-rounder would help prevent mass shootings, I’d just remind them about Elliot Rodger, the Isla Vista killer who murdered six people in 2014. After killing three people with a knife, he drove to the area near the University of California, Santa Barbara and killed three more people using two different handguns and California-compliant 10-round magazines.

For the best perspective on what this ruling meant to anti-gunners, one need only look to the message on “X” (formerly known as Twitter) posted by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 22. Here’s what he said: “California’s high-capacity magazine ban was just STRUCK DOWN by Judge Benitez, an extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to human life. Wake up, America. Our gun safety laws will continue to be thrown out by NRA-owned federal judges until we pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect our kids and end the gun violence epidemic in America.”

Newsom earlier this year announced his proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would essentially nullify the Second Amendment and replace it with gun control fanaticism designed to turn the right to keep and bear arms into a government-regulated privilege.

Far Left

Newsom isn’t the only far-left Democrat governor (recall last week’s Insider, which discussed New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s arbitrary and quickly-enjoined order essentially suspending the Second Amendment in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County), but he is certainly a standout.

He probably went into convulsions when reading through the Benitez decision. The judge observed, “Why are larger magazines chosen for self-defense? Crime happens a lot. One recent estimate holds that guns are needed defensively approximately 1,670,000 times a year.”

And then there was this: “California relies entirely on the opinion of its statistician for the hypothesis that defenders fire an average of only 2.2 shots in cases of confrontation. Where does the 2.2 shot average originate? There is no national or state government data report on shots fired in self-defense events. There is no public government database.”

Translation: Somebody may have simply made it up.

Judge Benitez’s recent ruling looked back on his previous decision regarding the California mag ban, which was remanded back to his court following the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling. In a footnote on Page 5 of his new decision, the judge added this footnote: “As this Court explained in its prior decision, ‘[a]rtificial limits will eventually lead to disarmament. It is an insidious plan to disarm the populace and it depends on for its success a subjective standard of ‘necessary’ lethality. It does not take the imagination of Jules Verne to predict that if all magazines over 10 rounds are somehow eliminated from California, the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding only 10 rounds.

To reduce gun violence, the state will close the newly christened 10-round ‘loophole’ and use it as a justification to outlaw magazines holding more than 7 rounds. The legislature will determine that no more than 7 rounds are ‘necessary.’ Then the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding 7 rounds. To reduce the new gun violence, the state will close the 7-round ‘loophole’ and outlaw magazines holding more than 5 rounds determining that no more than 5 rounds are ‘suitable.’ And so it goes, until the only lawful firearm law-abiding responsible citizens will be permitted to possess is a single-shot handgun.’”

Mass Shooting Misinformation

California’s magazine ban was initiated ostensibly to reduce potential carnage in a mass shooting incident, which are rare but high-profile. The media loves a bloodbath.

Author and researcher John Lott, founder and president of
the Crime Prevention Research Center, was at the Gun Rights
Policy Conference last month with some interesting information
about armed citizen intervention in mass shootings.

What the media apparently doesn’t like, however, is a case where an armed private citizen intervenes and stops a shooting. The FBI claims it happens rarely, but during last month’s 38th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) in Phoenix, author/economist John Lott referred to his recent report on the “massive errors” in the FBI’s active shooting reports from 2014 to 2022.

According to Lott, “Sources the media relied on undercounted the number of instances in which armed citizens have thwarted such attacks by an order of more than ten, saving untold numbers of lives.”

“Of course,” Lott wrote, “law-abiding citizens stopping these attacks are not rare. What is rare is national news coverage of those incidents. Although those many news stories about the Greenwood shooting also suggested that the defensive use of guns might endanger others, there is no evidence that these acts have harmed innocent victims.”

Lott also notes, “The FBI reports that armed citizens only stopped 14 of the 302 active shooter incidents it identified for the period 2014-2022 … An analysis by the CPRC identified a total of 440 active shooter incidents during that period and found that an armed citizen stopped 157.”

Even if Lott’s numbers were off by 50% (which I doubt), his figure would still far exceed the number of armed citizen interventions acknowledged by the FBI.

Look for an upcoming report from Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center updating the number of active concealed carry permits and licenses in the United States, which will not include the estimated number of armed citizens in the 27 states which have adopted permitless (constitutional) carry.

Alan Gottlieb (left) honored Dave Workman with the Lifetime
Achievement award from the Citizens Committee for the Right
to Keep and Bear Arms at last month’s Gun Rights Policy Conference.

Personal Honors

At the recent GRPC, this correspondent was honored to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and to be named to the Joseph P. Tartaro II “Hall of Fame.”

Tartaro was the longtime president of the Second Amendment Foundation and executive editor of Gun Week and then TheGunMag.com, where I am now editor-in-chief. He was what Central Casting would have offered as the quintessential “crusty” old newspaper editor, a sharp-eyed reader with an excellent grasp of the English language, and a veritable walking encyclopedia of the history of the gun rights movement. And he was my friend.

Dave was also named to the Joseph P. Tartaro Hall of Fame,
making him the only double award recipient in the 38-year history
of the conference, which was held in Phoenix.

I recently announced my pending retirement from that position — don’t worry, I’m not departing from Insider Online or GUNS Magazine — because at my age, it’s time to slow down a little. I’ve been working for SAF and CCRKBA for more than 23 years, which came after spending 21 years at the old Fishing & Hunting News, which came after nearly seven years at a little weekly newspaper in Washington State.

There is a lot of brass in my workshop which needs reloading, and a fair amount of firewood still in need of cutting, splitting and stacking in the woodshed. Who knows, I may even find time to press a trigger!

 

Categories
All About Guns

A Browning – Diana, in .410ga.

Browning - Diana, .410ga. 26 1/2
Browning - Diana, .410ga. 26 1/2
Browning - Diana, .410ga. 26 1/2
Browning - Diana, .410ga. 26 1/2
Browning - Diana, .410ga. 26 1/2
Browning - Diana, .410ga. 26 1/2
Browning - Diana, .410ga. 26 1/2
Browning - Diana, .410ga. 26 1/2
Browning - Diana, .410ga. 26 1/2

 

Categories
All About Guns

My Antique Rifles (Not Mine, but it is a good selection)

Categories
Ammo

The Cartridge Hall of Fame – 10 Gauge

Categories
All About Guns War

Anybody up for a Trench raid? 4 Winchester 1897 Trench Shotguns

Categories
All About Guns

The Smith & Wesson Model 24: A Look Back by DAVE CAMPBELL

sw_24_m1950.jpg

In 1905, Smith & Wesson was riding high on its Hand Ejector Series of double-action revolvers featuring a swing-out cylinder, 10 years before the Hand Ejector had been perfected to the point of starting to manufacture these revolvers on the I- (.32 cal.) and K- (.38 cal.) frames. However, plans for a new large .44-cal. frame were coming along. The first cartridge for this new frame would be an updated version of the .44 Russian round. Smith & Wesson’s engineers lengthened the case by .360″ and added 3 grains of black powder to a 246-gr. round-nose bullet yielding a muzzle velocity of 755 fps from a 6″ barrel. The new cartridge was christened the .44 Smith & Wesson Special. Smith’s new revolver would be called the .44 Hand Ejector First Model.

So concerned was S&W about holding the new revolver together to withstand the rigors of the new and powerful cartridge, that they added a third locking point to the cylinder. Heretofore, Hand Ejectors locked at the rear of the cylinder via an extension of the ejector rod into a hole in the recoil shield, and the other end locked into a spring-loaded pin mounted on a lug on the barrel. The third locking point was a lug on the yoke that mated into a recess machined into the frame. This third lug was drilled with a hole to accommodate the ejector rod. Shooters would soon deem this model the Triple Lock. Production of the Hand Ejector First Model began in 1907. This was the first Smith & Wesson revolver with an under lug on the barrel shrouding and protecting ejector rod.

It wasn’t until the following year that the new revolver became available. The revolvers were available in either blue or nickel finish, and sights were either fixed or adjustable (target). Barrel lengths were 5″ or 6 1/2″, though a few were made with 4″ barrels. An extremely limited number of these revolvers were produced in .38-40, .44-40 and .45 Colt, as well. The price was $21. Oddly enough the Hand Ejector First Model did not set the world afire. Sales languished at about 2,000 per year.

In a cost-cutting move, S&W decided to jettison the ejector shroud and third locking lug and reduce the price from $21 to $19. This would be known as the .44 Hand Ejector Second Model and was produced from 1915 until October 1917, due to a demand for large-frame revolvers to support World War I efforts. The factory resumed production of the Hand Ejector Second Model in 1920 and ran until 1940 when the needs of war superseded the civilian market.

It was during this period that a group of aficionados calling themselves the 44 Associates developed. Led by a sawed-off cowboy from Montana, one Elmer Keith, this group learned that by handloading, the .44 Spl. could perform much better than the factory loads of the day. Keith, along with his friend Harold Croft, developed a semi-wadcutter design of cast bullets that performed better than anything of the day for self-defense, as well as hunting. Belding and Mull made the molds to Keith and Croft’s specifications, and they, along with their fellow 44 Associates turned a bunch of hobbyists into a near cult of handgun hunters. Their work would eventually lead to the .44 Rem. Mag. cartridge, but that’s getting ahead of us.

Early on during the production of the Hand Ejector Second Model, a number of customers called for S&W to bring back the shrouded ejector rod. The company at first resisted the change feeling that it wasn’t much of a seller the first time around, and it was expensive to produce. A company in Fort Worth, Texas, Wolf & Klar, placed an order for 3,500 Second Models with a shrouded extractor rod. Harold Wesson was leading the company co-founded by his grandfather in 1926, and he ordered that the shrouded extractor rod be produced. This became known as the Hand Ejector Third Model or sometimes the Model 1926. The Third Model was a special-order-only revolver and was not cataloged until after 1940. Post-war civilian production found most of the Third Models being made from parts on hand. Sales were a little lackluster, so the company decided to pursue a modernization of its line.

Such features included an integral rib along the top of the barrel, a shorter throw on the hammer—a.k.a. short-action—and a new micrometer-style adjustable sight. This revolver was called the Hand Ejector Fourth Model or Model 1950 Target Model. Initial sales were dismal—a mere 244 copies were sold during its first three years of production. It recoiled too much for the target shooters of the day, and with a 6 1/2″ barrel it was quite a burden for most law enforcement officers. The only thing that saved the Model 1950 was Elmer Keith and his incessant ranting about his heavy .44 field loads. The .44 Mag. was introduced in 1956, thus putting another nail into the Model 1950’s coffin. In 1957 the model number system took over Smith & Wesson’s product line and the Model 1950 became known as the Model 24. It limped along until 1966 when the Model 24 was dropped from the line.

During its sputtering run, the Model 1950 or 24 had some limited, special-order runs with 4″ and 5″ barrels. But the overshadowing of the .44 Mag. kept these versions checked in terms of sales. A few smart guys glommed onto them, and today a factory 4″ or 5″ .44 Spl. has a lofty premium to its already stratospheric price.

Along came the 1970s, and a gun writer out of New Mexico, along with a few other ne’er-do-well cohorts began touting the virtues of the .44 Spl. cartridge and the Model 24 revolver. Skeeter Skelton was one of those handgun enthusiasts who was smart enough to latch onto a 4-incher. Skelton touted the accuracy and controllability of handloaded .44 Spl. cartridges in a lighter, easier-to-pack revolver than the .44 Mag. His articles were often spiced up with vignettes of adventure from his law enforcement background—Skeeter was a great storyteller—prompting a lot of handgun enthusiasts, including me, to scrounge about any purveyor of guns for a Model 24 Smith & Wesson. On those rare occasions when one surfaced, the price was usually about 50 percent more than the already outrageous scalper prices for .44 Magnums at that time.

So scarce was the Model 24 that a lot of us, again including me, resorted to getting another N-frame Smith converted to .44 Spl. by a cadre of pistolsmiths. In 1976 I bought a brand new Model 28 Highway Patrolman and with an original 6 1/2″ 1950 Target barrel had it re-chambered and fitted. While my pistolsmith was at it, I had him shorten the barrel to 5″, as I like the balance of that barrel length. It remains in my modest stash of guns and is one of my most accurate revolvers.

Smith & Wesson—like most gun makers—may be a bit slow to recognize a trend, but it again reintroduced the Model 24 in 1983 with a limited run of 2,625 revolvers with 4″ barrels and 4,875 with 6 1/2-inchers. These are designated as the Model 24-3. Lew Horton, the Massachusetts distributor commissioned a special run of Model 24s with 3″ barrels and a K-frame-sized round butt. I snagged one of them right away when I worked in a Wyoming gun shop. Later I bought an unfired 4-incher from a collector. Today any of these Model 24-3 revolvers command a premium north of $1,100. Smith & Wesson has done some additional limited runs, deemed the Model 24 Classic, but they are all 6 1/2-inchers. A Model 624 has also been produced having all the features of the Model 24-3 revolvers, but made of stainless steel.

Smith & Wesson has been tortured with competing business parameters. During its revolver heydays of the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, the .44 Mag.—renamed the Model 29 and later the stainless steel Model 629—easily outsold its little brother. The American “bigger is always better” mindset kept the production line full of the magnum revolvers. Nonetheless, a cadre of revolver sophisticates kept relentless pressure on the company to maintain the Model 24 in its line. Yet nearly every time it produces a run of the Model 24 it just barely sells out, and the excitement wanes a while. Today, the company can’t seem to produce enough semi-automatic pistols, even while revolver zealots pine for their favorites. Decisions…decisions…

Categories
All About Guns

Dragunov Variations: Military SVD, Izhmash Tiger, Chinese NDM-86