Category: A Victory!
Yeah don’t worry at all about ricochets! 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.
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.
This week, a federal judge struck down Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA). SAPA is a sanctuary law created to protect Missourians’ right to keep and bear arms from federal gun grabbers.
Ratified in 2021, SAPA prohibits state officials from enforcing federal firearms laws, and outlaws any taxes and fees imposed on guns, ammunition, or firearm accessories “not common to all other goods and services and that might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items.”
Gun registration, tracking, and confiscation schemes also fall under this prohibited category, as GunsAmerica previously reported.
U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes ruled on Tuesday that SAPA does not pass constitutional muster, citing the supremacy clause.
“At best, this statute causes confusion among state law enforcement officials who are deputized for federal task force operations, and at worst, is unconstitutional on its face,” Wimes wrote.
Government officials and agencies faced stiff penalties for violating SAPA, including fines of up to $50,000 per infraction.
Judge Wimes indicated that this had a chilling effect on interagency cooperation between federal, state, and local governments.
“State and local law enforcement officials in Missouri may lawfully participate in joint federal task forces, assist in the investigation and enforcement of federal firearm crimes, and fully share information with the Federal Government without fear of H.B. 85’s penalties,” wrote Wimes.
Supporters of the bill have defended it in the face of such scrutiny.
“Look, I don’t think anyone wanted to hamper or should be hampering law enforcement from working together with federal agencies or state agencies,” said Gov. Mike Parson in an Oct. 2021 interview with KCTV5 News.
“That’s not the goal of it. The goal of it is to take bad guys off the street and still respect the rights of the private citizen on the Second Amendment,” he added.
In the wake of the ruling, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced that he plans to file an appeal.
“As Attorney General, I will protect the Constitution, which includes defending Missourians’ fundamental right to bear arms,” Bailey said. “We are prepared to defend this statute to the highest court, and we anticipate a better result at the Eighth Circuit.”
Stay tuned for updates.
Private investigator Andrew Solow is waiting on a permit for which he applied seven months ago. AMY OSBORNE FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
SAN FRANCISCO—A San Francisco electrician hides his gun case in a backpack and his ammunition in a toolbox when he loads up his van for a day at the shooting range some 20 miles outside the city.
Though he shares many of the liberal values of his neighbors—“I am an equality-loving pronoun-checking, hippie, San Francisco guy”—he conceals his status as a gun owner, worried that they would ostracize him if they knew.
The 42-year-old is one of 285 residents seeking a permit to carry concealed weapons in public in a city that has long had some of the tightest firearm restrictions in the country.
The San Franciscans who want to carry guns include software engineers, accountants, middle managers and firearms instructors. They fall along the entire political spectrum, but many have at least one thing in common: They don’t want to be identified because they are worried about judgment from their neighbors or employers.
Private investigator Andrew Solow displays his guns.PHOTO: AMY OSBORNE FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Their names are discoverable under public records law with some exceptions, according to legal experts.
Cities such as San Francisco that routinely denied such permits have received a flood of applications since the Supreme Court ruled for the first time last summer that the Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to carry guns outside the home for self-defense. In the past, authorities here said they received fewer than 20 applications a year.
Democratic leaders in states such as New York and California have sought to pass measures to blunt the effects of the ruling by imposing more thorough background investigations or training requirements for those seeking to carry concealed weapons in public. But a judge put most of the New York law on hold in October, and California’s failed to pass the state legislature.
That has left municipalities unaccustomed to issuing permits scrambling to come up with their own rules. In San Francisco, applicants must take a firearms training course and undergo a psychological exam, an extremely high bar for a U.S. city.
Most cities in California have begun issuing permits, but so far, the sheriff’s office and the police department in San Francisco have collectively approved just one permit since the Supreme Court ruling last June.
The slow pace has led to complaints from gun owners.
Andrew Solow, a 68-year-old private investigator, applied for a permit seven months ago to protect himself when he ventures into dangerous neighborhoods. He is still waiting for approval.
“That’s an obscenely long amount of time—it’s ludicrous,” he said. “I’m a licensed investigator.”
Meanwhile, Mr. Solow said he walks with a 66-inch wooden staff for self-defense.
A San Francisco police spokeswoman said the department “has been carefully undertaking great and reasonable efforts to expeditiously administrate a legal procedure” to grant applications.
Andrew Solow carries a stick for protection until he can carry a concealed gun.PHOTO: AMY OSBORNE FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
“We have to be very thorough in our vetting process,” said Tara Moriarty, a spokeswoman for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office.
San Francisco has a long history of strict firearms laws. The city’s last gun store and gun club both closed in 2015. As most states—and even many cities in California—began loosening restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in the past decade, the city remained an island. The police department said that before the Supreme Court ruling it issued just two permits for concealed weapons.
Catherine Stefani, a San Francisco supervisor, said she is drafting legislation to toughen standards for carrying firearms in public and to set out a list of sensitive places where guns will be restricted. Ms. Stefani criticized the Supreme Court decision as misguided and said it would “unleash more guns on our streets.”
Several permit seekers say they want to carry a firearm with them for self-defense.
The city has long had a high property crime rate, but while homicides spiked during the pandemic, the murder rate here is lower than many other large cities. The city’s homicide rate in 2021 climbed to 6.4 per 100,000 residents from 5.4 a year earlier; the national homicide rate in 2021 was 6.9 per 100,000, according to city and federal crime data.
Supervisor Catherine Stefani said she is drafting legislation to toughen standards for carrying firearms in public.PHOTO: GABRIELLE LURIE/SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE/GETTY IMAGES
A 30-year-old manager at a distribution company said he sought a permit because of crime in his southeast San Francisco neighborhood and because of the highly publicized attacks against Asian residents during the pandemic.
“A lot of my friends who never had an interest in firearms before started stockpiling for the same reasons: lack of police response and the rise of Asian hate,” said the man who is Asian-American.
The 42-year-old electrician, a San Francisco native, said he wanted to carry a gun because he felt the city had become more dangerous since he was a child, when he says he would skateboard in the middle of the night.
“I’m not looking to help the cops. I’m not looking to be a tactical guru,” he said. “My sole position at this point is to be able to, as best as I can, protect myself and my family from someone that would have the wherewithal to do us harm.”
A Virginian homeowner shot a woman last week when she broke into his house stark naked and attacked him with a frying pan, say authorities.
Police arrived on the scene that night to discover the woman, 35-year-old Paula Locklear, with a gunshot wound to the leg. After investigating the incident further, they “determined that the shooting was the result of a breaking and entering.”
According to the New York Post and other sources, the homeowner heard a noise, and upon entering his kitchen, found “an unclothed female” who began hitting him with his own cast-iron pan.
The victim successfully locked her out on the back porch but authorities say that Locklear then found the electrical breaker and turned off the electricity to the house.
She began to beat on the window, yelling that the homeowner had better “get out of his house or she would kill him”.
When Locklear resumed beating on the door that she had originally entered through, the homeowner was forced to fire a shot, hitting her in the leg.
The homeowner is not currently being charged, says Fox News, with authorities deeming it a self-defense shooting.
The Carroll County Sheriff’s Office stated that Locklear is being charged with “breaking and entering with a weapon, assault and battery, and damage of property.”
Locklear was brought by officials to a hospital to be treated for her wound before being incarcerated in the county jail.
The homeowner made a tough call but ultimately it comes down to self-defense and he was lucky to have been prepared for any situation.
Thomas Armstrong spoke at the vigil for his son, Elias Armstrong, on Thursday night and said the man who fatally shot his 12-year-old boy was acting like a “vigilante.”
On the previous Sunday, a man tracked down his stolen car with a GPS cellphone app. The man, who police have not identified, found his vehicle at the intersection of West 12th Avenue and North Decatur Street in Denver, CO.
According to police, the occupants of the stolen car fired at the unidentified owner. The car’s owner fired back in retaliation and wounded the 12-year-old driver.
The young boy then drove the car to West 10th Avenue and Federal Boulevard, where police found him injured with a gunshot wound. He was taken to a local hospital but later died.
Armstrong said he was told by a police detective last week that the perpetrators in the stolen car fired one or two shots while the car’s owner, who tracked them in another car via a GPS cellphone app, fired 15 rounds, “emptying his clip”, The Denver Gazette reported. According to Armstrong, authorities are unsure of who fired first.
A surveillance video shows the Feb. 5 shootout lasted only seconds as the stolen car’s owner drives up and parks in front of his stolen Audi. He gets out and rushes toward his stolen vehicle. After a short burst of gunfire, the Audi drives away.
“He approached the car with the gun, running to the car, and (then he) pulled the gun out and started shooting right away. He was upset at these kids for taking his car and he’s angry. And he’s coming to kill these kids over his car,” Thomas Armstrong said at the vigil. “It was pretty much vigilante justice.”
Police said when the owner of the stolen car approached it, there was an “exchange of gunfire” with at least one person inside the car.
Other than the brief statement, the police have declined to comment further or release any documents on the case because the shooting and the theft are both active investigations.
According to police, witnesses reported other people appearing to flee before officers arrived on the scene.
The office of Denver District Attorney Beth McCann said it would not charge the unidentified owner of the stolen car because it did not believe it could prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a statement Thursday, McCann said she met with the family last week to explain the decision which she said is based on the “self-defense issues which were present at the time.”
“My heart goes out to Elias Armstrong’s family in this time of terrible and overwhelming grief,” she said.
The Denver police are still investigating the incident and searching for the other individuals involved in the car theft.