Category: A Victory!
Categories
This kid is a HERO
Eugene Stoner is one of the most influential firearm designers of all time. While he was not as prolific as John Moses Browning, Stoner’s inventions were a dramatic departure from traditional gun design in the post-WWII years, and they drastically changed the entire course of firearm design in the latter half of the 20th century.
Stoner is best known for the AR rifle platform that he developed in the 1950s while working for ArmaLite. The rifle was revolutionary not only for its modularity and simplicity, but also because it incorporated modern materials that Stoner used in the aircraft industry—materials that had never before been seen in firearms.
When guns were still made of wood and steel, Stoner built his two-part AR receivers from lightweight aluminum alloys. The furniture on his new in-line rifles was weather-resistant fiberglass and later polymer, colored brown, green, or black instead of being shaped from moisture-absorbing walnut.
The AR-10 chambered in .308 Win. came first. Stoner then downsized it to accommodate the new .223 Rem. cartridge and the military’s correspondingly new philosophy of using small caliber, high velocity ammo over larger calibers like the old .30-06. The result was the AR-15, which would become the military’s M16 rifle. It is still in service today as the M16A4, making it the longest serving rifle in U.S. military history by far.
Over the next 60 years, the modular design of the AR-10 and AR-15 would become the basis for an array of modern firearms now used for military and law enforcement applications, hunting, competition shooting, long-range shooting, plinking, and home- and self-defense.
Stoner’s Early Years Colt acquired the proprietary rights to the AR-15 in 1959 from ArmaLite’s parent company, and Stoner soon followed leaving ArmaLite for Colt in 1961. There he worked on a number of projects, primarily the Stoner 63 machine gun system.
A decade later, Stoner left Colt and co-founded Ares Inc., where he worked on various machine gun projects and the Future Assault Rifle Concept (FARC). In 1989, he left Ares and joined Knight’s Armament Company a year later.
He continued working on machine-gun designs at KA and also developed the SR-25 rifle, an improved version of the AR-10 that was built for accuracy. The rifle would become the Mark 11 Mod 0 Sniper Weapon System used by U.S. Navy SEALs.
Sidearm Upgrades for Law Enforcement In the early ’90s, law enforcement was regularly finding itself outgunned in metro areas where gang violence was high. At this time, many local and state police officers, as well as federal agents, were still carrying .38 Special revolvers.
Departments that could afford to do so began transitioning to semi-automatic 9mm pistols. In 1985, the U.S. military adopted the 9mm M9 pistol, known to the civilian world as the Beretta 92FS. A number of police departments, like the LAPD, soon followed.
While some departments and agencies adopted modern semi-autos like the SIG Sauer P226 and P229, others chose the Glock 17 or 19. Understandably, Colt wanted a piece of the sales from police departments updating their arsenals and saw an opportunity to get ahead of the technological curve in the handgun world.
A Happy Coincidence While Colt launched the Double Eagle pistol series in 1989 (a double-action version of the 1911), the storied gunmaker wanted something to compete directly against Glock: a high-tech 9mm with a polymer frame.
Coincidentally, around that time, Stoner and C. Reed Knight at KA had designed a prototype intended to be a versatile, rugged, and lightweight compact handgun.
What they came up with was solid. Colt saw a gun they thought could be molded into what they wanted to bring to market. KA sold the production rights for Stoner and Knight’s design to Colt, who proceeded to transform it into the Colt All American Model 2000 pistol.
Word spread that this would be a revolutionary new firearm redefining how people thought about American-made semi-auto handguns. Colt put a lot of cash behind a huge, far-reaching ad blitz before the Model 2000’s formal introduction at SHOT Show 1990. It was supposed to be the gun that would carry Colt into a new millennium.
Instead, the Model 2000 wound up being one of the most hated modern handguns ever. It was an absolute and utter failure.
The Design The Stoner/Knight prototype was an interesting gun that used a rotating barrel and five locking lugs instead of a tilting Browning-type design. It also had an interesting trigger, which we’ll get to later.
Once the gun left Stoner and Knight’s hands, Colt’s engineers started changing things. The gun that went into production was a lot different from the KA prototype.
On paper, the Model 2000 was pretty close to what we expect from a 9mm pistol. Even today, some features were a little ahead of their time.
It was striker fired instead of being a DA/SA or DA-only design, something pretty much only Glock was producing at the time, and what likely drew Colt to the prototype.
The gun Stoner and Knight built had a steel frame and a single-stack magazine, which became a polymer frame and a double-stack 15-round magazine. It had the same capacity as the Beretta 92FS. The Model 2000 would also be offered with an aluminum-alloy frame.
The 2000 was easier to field strip than the Beretta or the Glock 17 for that matter. Once the slide was removed, the two-piece trigger assembly could simply be lifted out of the frame, foreshadowing the modular design of the SIG Sauer P320 and its fire control unit.
The trigger mechanism on the Model 2000 that Stoner and Knight came up with was certainly unique. It used a patented roller bearing system to create a trigger that didn’t hinge, but instead pulled straight back into the frame of the gun. This created a somewhat long, but extremely smooth, trigger pull.
Where It Went Off the Rails That all sounds great, so what the hell went wrong?
Well, a number of things which were all the result of Colt’s re-engineering and production methods. In order to make the Model 2000 marketable as a duty pistol, Colt lengthened the barrel and also added length to the grip, making the pistol larger overall.
The prototype gun had a one-piece slide, but Colt’s longer slide was actually two pieces. The narrow front piece acted like a large barrel bushing that was removed when the gun was disassembled. Astonishingly, the gun’s front sight was mounted on this removable part, and that’s bad for accuracy.
The Model 2000’s trigger was, by far, its biggest problem. The original specs called for a 6-pound trigger pull weight, which is a little heavy but totally acceptable on a duty gun. For the production gun, Colt increased the pull weight to a knuckle-battering 12 pounds on the recommendation of the company’s liability attorneys. Combined with the long pull of the gun’s odd trigger mechanism and an equally lengthy reset, the Model 2000 was exceptionally difficult to shoot accurately or quickly. That’s a problem for law enforcement.If the pistol had functioned well, it may have been possible to overlook its aesthetics—which is why people assumedly buy Hi-Point pistols. But since the Colt 2000 was an absolute horror to shoot, people came down on its looks hard, and deservedly so.
The thing was objectively hideous. The muzzle end looked like it came off an old Browning Hi-Power pistol, while the grip and frame are a cross between Beretta and FN frames of the era, with a generic and bulky steel slide on top. It looked awkward and by all accounts, didn’t feel much better.
The Model 2000 also suffered from reliability issues as well as accuracy issues—even beyond what a heavy trigger caused. In short, the gun was a damn mess.
The way Colt built the All American 2000 is partially to blame for its shoddy construction. Colt contracted the creation of the gun’s parts to an outside vendor instead of creating them in house. The components were then assembled in Colt’s West Hartford factory. That’s right, Colt took a gun they didn’t design, tweaked it to meet a set of specs, farmed out its production, and then slapped it together for sale with the Colt Pony Logo on it. What could go wrong? Pretty much everything.
It didn’t take long for word about Colt’s new gun to get around. Sales following the gun’s release in 1991 were terrible and never picked up. The Model 2000’s short life ended in a death rattle when it was recalled in 1993 for safety issues.
By 1994, it was all over. Colt ceased production and the Model 2000 went down among the worst failures in the gunmaker’s long history. The Double Eagle pistol line got some traction for being one of the few guns at the time offered in 10mm Auto, but it too proved to be a failed enterprise. Things were getting rocky for Colt at that point.
Sadly, it was also the final major firearm design from Eugene Stoner before he passed away April 24, 1997. The Model 2000 was a lousy final entry for one of the world’s greatest gun designers and inventors, and its failures weren’t even his fault.
FILE – New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham speaks at the Arcosa Wind Towers, Aug. 9, 2023, in Belen, N.M. Grisham on Friday, Sept. 8, issued an emergency public health order that suspends the open and permitted concealed carry of firearms in Albuquerque for 30 days in the midst of a spate of gun violence. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday issued an emergency order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque and the surrounding county for at least 30 days in response to a spate of gun violence.
The Democratic governor said she expects legal challenges but was compelled to act because of recent shootings, including the death of an 11-year-old boy outside a minor league baseball stadium this week.
Lujan Grisham said state police would be responsible for enforcing what amount to civil violations. Albuquerque police Chief Harold Medina said he won’t enforce it, and Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said he’s uneasy about it because it raises too many questions about constitutional rights.
The firearms suspension, classified as an emergency public health order, applies to open and concealed carry in most public places, from city sidewalks to urban recreational parks. The restriction is tied to a threshold for violent crime rates currently only met by the metropolitan Albuquerque. Police and licensed security guards are exempt from the temporary ban.
Violators could face civil penalties and a fine of up to $5,000, gubernatorial spokeswoman Caroline Sweeney said. Under the order, residents still can transport guns to some private locations, such as a gun range or gun store, provided the firearm has a trigger lock or some other container or mechanism making it impossible to discharge.
“I welcome the debate and fight about how to make New Mexicans safer,” she said at a news conference, flanked by law enforcement officials, including the district attorney for the Albuquerque area.
John Allen said in a statement late Friday that he has reservations about the order but is ready to cooperate to tackle gun violence.
“While I understand and appreciate the urgency, the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold,” Allen said. “I am wary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts, as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense.”
Enforcing the governor’s order also could put Albuquerque police in a difficult position with the U.S. Department of Justice regarding a police reform settlement, said police spokesman Gilbert Gallegos.
“All of those are unsettled questions,” he said late Friday.
Lujan Grisham referenced several recent shootings in Albuquerque in issuing the order. Among them was a suspected road rage shooting Wednesday outside a minor league baseball stadium that killed 11-year-old Froyland Villegas and critically wounded a woman as their vehicle was peppered with bullets while people left the game.
Last month, 5-year-old Galilea Samaniego was fatally shot while asleep in a motor home. Four teens entered the mobile home community in two stolen vehicles early on Aug. 13 and opened fire on the trailer, according to police. The girl was struck in the head and later died at a hospital.
The governor also cited an August shooting death in Taos County of 13-year-old Amber Archuleta. A 14-year-old boy shot and killed the girl with his father’s gun while they were at his home, authorities said.
“When New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game — when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn — something is very wrong,” Lujan Grisham said in a statement.
The top-ranked Republican in the state Senate swiftly denounced the governor’s actions Friday to restrict guns as a way to stem violent crime.
“A child is murdered, the perpetrator is still on the loose, and what does the governor do? She … targets law-abiding citizens with an unconstitutional gun order,” Sen. Greg Baca of Belen said.
Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, applauded the governor’s order as a courageous and necessary step to curbing gun violence, even if the measure’s legal fate is uncertain.
“If it saves one life, then it’s worth doing,” Viscoli said.
Since 2019, Lujan Grisham has signed a raft of legislation restricting access to guns, including a 2020 “red flag” law allowing police or sheriff’s deputies to ask a court to temporarily remove guns from people who might hurt themselves or others, an extension of background-check requirements to nearly all private gun sales.
She also signed a ban on firearms possession for people under permanent protective orders for domestic violence.
Friday’s order directs state regulators to conduct monthly inspections of firearms dealers statewide to ensure compliance with gun laws.
The state Department of Health will compile a report on gunshot victims at New Mexico hospitals that includes age, race, gender and ethnicity, along with the brand and caliber of firearm involved and other general circumstances.
___
Associated Press writers Scott Sonner and Gabe Stern in Reno, Nevada; Terry Tang in Phoenix; Rio Yamat in Las Vegas; and Felicia Fonseca in Flagstaff, Arizona, contributed to this story. Stern is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America places journalists in local newsrooms across the country to report on undercovered issues.
Taya Gray/USA TODAY NETWORK file
California lawmakers will send a state excise tax on guns and ammunition to Gov. Gavin Newsom after years of failed attempts by Democratic legislators.
The Senate voted 27-9 on Thursday to approve Assembly Bill 28, which would require manufacturers, vendors and dealers to pay an 11% tax on guns and ammunition to fund violence prevention efforts. The bill passed with exactly the two-thirds threshold needed for approval of a tax.
Gun and ammunition-sellers would pay the new state tax on top of the 10 to 11% federal excise tax they already pay to fund wildlife conservation efforts.
Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, D-Woodland Hills, authored the bill after former Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael, failed multiple times to get excise tax bills through the Legislature.
Prior to Levine’s attempts, at least three other lawmakers had pushed similar taxes on guns and ammunition since 2013. Gabriel’s bill was the first of its kind to pass out of the Assembly.
When the assemblyman first put the bill forward, there were questions about whether it was “in the realm of possibility,” he said after the Senate vote.
“I introduced this bill at the very beginning of session,” Gabriel said. “A few weeks later, we have mass shootings in Half Moon Bay and in Monterey Park and in all these places.”
“Frankly, I think part of the reason the bill passed is the public is demanding this of us,” he added. “They are demanding that we have more solutions that will do more to protect their kids, to protect their communities.”
Lawmakers debate tax effectiveness
Many senators on Thursday cited their children and grandchildren and school safety concerns in their arguments for backing the bill. Floor debate lasted for about an hour before lawmakers voted.
Sen. Angelique Ashby, D-Sacramento, urged her colleagues to support AB 28 as a “mechanism to address gun violence.” She made her plea in the name of her school-age daughter and California children, as well as Amber Clark, a Natomas librarian who was fatally shot in 2018.
“Like so many Americans, I do hug my little daughter each morning as I drop her off at school,” Ashby said. “And as I drive away, I push out of my mind the unthinkable. Otherwise, it would be impossible for me to face the tasks I’m responsible for every day.”
But Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, said the tax would do little to prevent gun violence, and retailers would pass on the added cost on to customers. In this way, it would penalize law-abiding firearm owners, hunters and students taking part in shooting sports, they said.
“When you add another 11% on, all it’s going do is decrease the number of hunters,” said Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa. “Sooner or later, this will be like the tobacco tax. And sooner or later, this money’s going to go down, down, down.”
Gun control groups cheered AB 28’s passage and urged Newsom to sign it.
“This bill is an innovative approach in tackling gun violence and a crucial step to improve the safety of all California families,” said Cassandra Whetstone, a volunteer with the California chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, in a statement.
Gun rights advocates said they plan to sue the state over the legislation if the governor makes it law.
“The passage of this bill will be seen for what it is … an unconstitutional tax on an enumerated right,” said Rick Travis, legislative director for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, in an email.
The measure now heads to Newsom, who must sign or veto bills by Oct. 14.
(Yup, you read that right – California is going to tax one of our Constitutionally protected Rights.)
This is alarming, quite alarming. [H/T Collin Rugg] In a recent J6 case it has been revealed that Liberty Safe Co. gave the FBI background access codes to the safe and vault owned by the investigative target of the FBI, Nathan Hughes.
As the story is told, the FBI (federal govt) contacted the safe manufacturer and asked for a secret code that would open the safe. The FBI had a search warrant for the premises. Liberty Safe Co. gave the FBI the access code that would allow them to open the safe, without relying on (or asking) the owner to open it.
This is alarming on a few levels. First, why does Liberty even hold an override code for their safes. Second, why didn’t Liberty just tell the FBI they do not own the safe, therefore the issue of compliance is between the owner and the FBI?
Liberty Safe Co. responded:
This is a ridiculous position easily avoided by saying, “we don’t own the safe.” The bottom line is to avoid all the Liberty Safe products that allow them to access your private holdings, including gun safes and personal papers. If you own a Liberty Safe, just get rid of it. It’s compromised. Write it off to a lesson learned and forget about it.
Since Smith resigned just ahead of a guilty verdict on corruption charges in a civil trial and the Supreme Court struck down “may issue” permitting systems like the one in place in the county, things still haven’t appreciably improved, with Second Amendment attorney Kostas Moros reporting earlier this month that the new sheriff has approved almost three dozen applications, while nearly 900 more remain in the pipeline.
While only a handful of Santa Clara County residents have received their carry permits, that hasn’t stopped one community in the county from trying to block concealed carry holders from exercising their right to bear arms in public. Earlier this year the Los Gatos City Council approved a sweeping ordinance establishing a host of new gun-free zones that was set to take effect on September 1st, but thanks to Second Amendment advocates those “sensitive places” are now on hold.
Michel and Associates, law firm representing the California Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, recently sent a letter to the town saying the concealed carry ordinance approved this summer infringes on the constitutional rights of gun owners.
“Specifically, the ordinance makes it so that firearms are prohibited to be carried – even by those with a permit – in town property, public transit and places of worship,” the letter reads.
Town attorney Gabrielle Whelan said the council met in a closed session last week and voted to suspend enforcing the ordinance on those locations until anticipated litigation against the state is resolved.
“We’re taking it seriously,” Whelan said. “The town’s ordinance is modeled on pending state legislation.”
The ordinance was set to go into effect on Sept. 1. While the town is halting enforcement at places of worship, public transportation and some town property, the ordinance will be enforced at schools.
The town already took what Whelan called a conservative approach in defining sensitive places, naming only locations that have already been cited in existing case law to avoid litigation.
A truly conservative approach to the town’s carry laws would mean rejecting the legislature’s proposed prohibitions outright, not adopting them as the city’s own. And if Whelan and the city council were really that confident that these “sensitive places” would withstand a court challenge, suspending enforcement is a funny way of showing it.
The good news is that those few concealed carry holders in Santa Clara County can exercise their right to bear arms relatively unimpeded in Los Gatos, at least in the short term. But with lawmakers in Sacramento set to approve SB 2 and its own laundry list of prohibited places, gun owners across the state are soon going to be subjected to the same infringements that Los Gatos officials tried to implement at the local level.
I expect the first lawsuits challenging SB 2 to be filed almost as soon as Gavin Newsom signs the bill into law and Santa Clara County officials may still end up getting sued over the lengthy delays and the cost of acquiring a carry permit as well; given that it currently costs more than $1,000 dollars between training, a mandatory psychological evaluation, and a load of administrative fees before residents can access their right to bear arms in public.
Even with Sheriff Smith ousted in disgrace, gun owners in Santa Clara County have a long way to go before officials truly take their Second Amendment rights seriously.