Categories
Author: Grumpy
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/DWEIYYFE6RBUTPYG3GNOZHO2DQ.jpg)
Marine scout snipers conduct long-range live-fire training at Camp Fuji, Japan, in March 2022. (Lance Cpl. Manuel Alvarado/Marine Corps)
The Marine Corps is scrapping its scout sniper program and will soon house its snipers under reconnaissance, rather than infantry, battalions.
Instead of scout sniper platoons, infantry battalions will have scout platoons, an message sent to the fleet from the Corps’ Plans, Policies and Operations department on Tuesday said. The message called for the transition to happen immediately.
The message, first reported by Coffee or Die Magazine, said that scout sniper platoons didn’t provide battalion commanders with sufficient “continuous all-weather information gathering.”
The scout platoons are meant to “provide the commander with relevant, reliable, accurate and prompt information,” the message said.
“The shift to a Scout Platoon will allow those Marines to focus their training and evaluations on scouting, providing commanders the right tools to accomplish their mission,” Marine spokesman Capt. Ryan Bruce said in a statement to Marine Corps Times.
Bruce noted that infantry Marines will still have access to precision rifles as necessary.
The Marine Corps didn’t immediately respond to a Marine Corps Times request for information about what roles scout snipers will have and where they will be placed after the platoons disband.
Scout snipers have been part of the Marine Corps since World War II. They are trained not only in marksmanship but also in scouting, or reconnaissance.
They aren’t the only snipers in the Marine Corps; some reconnaissance Marines and Marine special operators are also trained as snipers.
The president of the USMC Scout Sniper Association wrote in a message to the association that he urged Berger to “reconsider this ill-advised policy decision.”
“It’s unlikely that any officer who commanded and employed Scout Snipers in combat agrees that removing a sniper capability from the infantry battalion makes sense,” retired Master Sgt. Tim Parkhurst wrote in the message.
Marine Commandant Gen. David Berger ordered the transition, according to the message. The move comes as part of Force Design 2030, the Marine Corps’ overhaul that called for a reorganization of infantry battalions and a doubling down on reconnaissance.
Separating the sniper role from infantry battalions is one aspect of the Force Design 2030 plan, which seeks to “divest the preponderance of weapon-specific military occupational specialties in the infantry battalions and build highly trained Marines who are capable of employing a range of weapons and equipment,” according to Bruce.
Scout platoons will be made up of 26 Marines: four teams of six infantry Marines, with a first lieutenant and a gunnery sergeant in charge. That’s larger than scout sniper platoons, which typically have 18 Marines.
The Marine Corps didn’t immediately provide the number of scout snipers currently serving.
In 2018, a Marine spokeswoman estimated the number at around 300. Thanks to shortfalls in the number of snipers, scout sniper platoons have in recent years consisted of lots of marksmen who undergo on-the-job training with help from fully trained scout snipers.
After fiscal year 2024, which ends in fall of that year, there won’t be any seats in the Scout Sniper Basic Course, according to the Plans, Policies and Operations email. The Marine Corps will still train snipers through the Reconnaissance Training Center and the Marine Raider Training Center, the message stated.
Marine snipers will bear a new 0322 military occupational specialty, designating reconnaissance snipers, rather than 0317; 0321 is the military occupational specialty for reconnaissance Marines.
Irene Loewenson is a staff reporter for Marine Corps Times. She joined Military Times as an editorial fellow in August 2022. She is a graduate of Williams College, where she was the editor-in-chief of the student newspaper.
Categories
FN Type D in 8mm
Categories
A Colt Fitz Special
A bazooka-like weapon powerful enough to take down a military tank was seized from a passenger’s checked baggage in Texas because the traveler had failed to declare the weapon to authorities, the Transportation Security Administration said.
The 84 mm caliber anti-tank rifle was discovered Monday by TSA screeners checking bags at San Antonio International Airport, the agency tweeted.
The firearm is similar to an M3 Carl Gustaf and can be legally owned in the Lone Star State, although it requires an extensive background check.
The TSA does allow guns on planes, but only if they are in checked bags. Any traveler with a firearm must also declare it to the airline when their luggage is handed over, TSA explained. Weapons must also be unloaded and in a hard-sided, secured case.
“It’s really alarming for anyone who wants to travel with that kind of weapon to not follow the rules that are set,” TSA Spokeswoman Patricia Mancha told local station KENS 5. “They’re not difficult. They’re not a secret.”
The rifle is so large it usually requires two people to operate — one who aims and fires it and a second who acts as a loader and carries ammunition.
“We don’t see that caliber of weapon very often, thank god,” Mancha added.
The case has been handed over to the San Antonio Police Department, which will determine if the passenger will face charges.
The number of firearms found in carry-on baggage across US airports has steadily increased. More than 6,500 were found in 2022, according to TSA figures.
Out of the top 10 airports where federal authorities find guns in carry-on bags, three are in Texas: Austin, Dallas and Houston.
On February 22, 2023, the South Carolina House passed a Constitutional Carry bill with 75% of the votes, 90 to 30. Constitutional or “permitless” Carry is when a state does not require a permit to carry loaded handguns, openly or concealed, for most adults in most public places, a close approximation of the state of the law when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. From abcnews.com (AP):
The Republican-controlled South Carolina House voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to allow lawful firearm owners to carry handguns openly or concealed without a state permit.
The 90-30 vote brings the conservative state one step closer to joining 25 others with some form of so-called “constitutional carry” laws. The fate of the state’s latest effort to loosen gun restrictions once more falls to the Senate, where lawmakers rejected a similar proposal two years
ago.
The South Carolina bill for Constitutional (permitless) Carry is H 3594. The ALL CAPS format is how the bill is formatted at the South Carolina legislature site. From H 3594:
A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ENACTING THE “SOUTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY/SECOND AMENDMENT PRESERVATION ACT OF 2023” BY AMENDING SECTION 10-11-320, RELATING TO CARRYING OR DISCHARGING FIREARMS AND EXCEPTIONS FOR CONCEALABLE WEAPONS PERMIT HOLDERS, SO AS TO DELETE A PROVISION THAT MAKES THIS SECTION INAPPLICABLE TO PERSONS THAT POSSESS CONCEALABLE WEAPONS PERMITS AND TO PROVIDE THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO PERSONS WHO POSSESS FIREARMS; BY AMENDING SECTION 16-23-20, RELATING TO UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUNS, SO AS TO REVISE THE PLACES WHERE AND CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH HANDGUNS MAY BE CARRIED, AND PERSONS WHO MAY CARRY HANDGUNS; BY AMENDING SECTION 16-23-50, RELATING TO CERTAIN PENALTIES, DISPOSITION OF FINES, AND FORFEITURE AND DISPOSITION OF HANDGUNS, SO AS TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS TO THE UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUNS;
The South Carolina legislature has attempted to pass a Constitutional Carry bill for years.
In 2021, the House passed Constitutional Carry, but the Senate, even with a large majority of Republicans, did not pass the bill. It seems likely a Senator in a leadership position killed the bill. However, the Senate passed, and the governor signed into law, a licensed open carry bill. This is incremental progress. There are only four states which ban open carry, even for those with gun permits (California, New York, Illinois, and Florida).
With half of the states in the union now having a form of “permitless” or Constitutional Carry as the de facto standard of their law, it becomes more and more difficult for Republicans to find reasons to vote against Constitutional Carry. No ill effects have been shown to result from Constitutional Carry.
This year, Governor Ron De Santis is promoting Constitutional Carry in Florida, although it may become only a permitless carry law for concealed carry.
Nebraska is on the brink and may pass a Constitutional Carry law for that state.
North Carolina may have the votes to pass a Constitutional Carry law over the veto of a Democrat governor. It appears four states are in contention to become the 26th state where no permit is required to exercise the rights protected by the Second Amendment in most public spaces.
Every state which joins the Constitutional Carry club shows respect for the Second Amendment continues to grow in the United States. According to a poll in 2008, 73% of Americans believed the Second Amendment protects individual rights. In June of 2022, a poll sowed 83% believed the Second Amendment was adopted to protect self, family and property, and to protect against tyranny.
The legislatures and courts reflect the common understanding of the Second Amendment when it was ratified and as people understand it today.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
114
There are some surprising parallels between the National Socialists
and certain modern American institutions.
How many of you have had a great experience with your health insurance company? Who here can say that their health insurance company is altruistic, easy to contact and forever has their best interest at heart? Just a quick show of hands. Take your time. I’ll wait.
You should never type while angry. That’s sage advice, to be sure. However, I’m about to, with malice and aforethought, intentionally ignore it.
I’m going to give you a peek behind the curtain that surrounds the modern practice of medicine in America. While all jobs have their administrative headaches, these are mine. If anyone gets their feelings hurt, then I hate it for you.
As part of some truly diabolical medical research, the Nazis forced certain Jews in the death camps to fill out a questionnaire while standing at a podium. The form was of a prescribed length and asked a bunch of mundane demographic questions. After the forms were completed, the Germans just threw them away. They didn’t care one whit about the information. It was simply that to fill out the forms, you had to stand still for a set period of time while a powerful x-ray emitter built into the podium irradiated your groin.
The point was not to gather information. The point was to bombard these poor unfortunates with high-intensity x-rays in hopes of creating a quick and convenient way of sterilizing large numbers of people without their knowledge. Needless to say, that didn’t work. Such a scheme seems about par for the course for the Nazis, the absolute scum of the earth. Now hold that thought …
Many modern medications are expensive. There are a lot of reasons
for this, some of which could be easily addressed with a little political will.
However, creating artificial impediments to good health care seems
counterproductive to me.
PA is a Four-Letter Word
Forgive my bias, but from my perspective, it seems that your health insurance company doesn’t much care whether you live or die. They would sell your kidneys on eBay if they thought they could get a decent rate of return.
There are times that literally half of my professional day is spent worshipping at the profane altar of modern electronic medical records, all the while trying to placate the dark gods of plaintiff’s attorneys and health insurance companies. To wit …
Insurance companies have done a splendid job of shaping my prescribing practices toward cheap generic drugs. In fact, we no longer see drug reps at my clinic simply because I am sick of fighting insurance companies to get them to pay for any drug that costs more than about a nickel a month. As a result, when I prescribe an expensive branded medication, it is always because I already can’t divine a cheaper alternative.
Now, health insurance companies could just explain to the patient in straightforward prose that they will only cover cheap meds and that anything else is the patient’s responsibility. However, that’s not how they do it. They just demand a PA.
In medical parlance, PA stands for prior authorization. I have no idea who ever thought this was a good idea. Satan, the Lord of Darkness, would be my guess.
The online PA clearing house is called covermymeds.com, like consolidating this diabolical monster into a single digital location is somehow doing me a favor. I have to log in and then work through a series of online menus begging the insurance company to approve a patient’s medications. Sometimes they demand to know everything that has been tried before and failed. These are things that only the patient knows, and they’ve already gone back home. I don’t have time to do these stupid things until late at night when the rest of the day’s work is done.
The one I did yesterday, by contrast, only had me laboriously enter the name, address, phone number, and sundry other mundane information about my clinic, all stuff that is available automatically from dozens of sites online. They didn’t ask anything about my patient or his history. All this just takes time.
On a slow day, I’ll see 20 patients. A stupid busy day flirts with 40. Spending 10 minutes verifying my address online so some insurance company will cover Eliquis (a fairly safe but expensive blood thinner) for an 82-year-old woman who honestly cannot manage her own coumadin (a fairly dangerous but cheap blood thinner) is time I just don’t have. And, just like the Nazis, that is the point. If they can put enough artificial impediments in my way, maybe I’ll just give up. The patient won’t get the medicines they need, but taking care of sick people is my problem, not theirs.
Some medicines are just stupidly expensive. I get it. I really do. Somebody has to pay for all those obscene billboards adorning every goat trail in America. You know the ones I’m talking about. There will be some two-story grinning ape in a suit alongside stuff like “1-800-SUE-ANYTHING-THAT-BREATHES. We work hard to get you more.”
Nobody wants to see insurance executives sitting on the side of the road holding signs that say, “Will frivolously waste your time for food.” Actually, never mind. Upon further introspection, that might be kind of cool.