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

NRA-ILA Asks Court to Stop the California DOJ From Releasing Gun Owners’ Personal Information After Massive Data Leak.

Earlier this week, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that he would be releasing firearms data via the California DOJ’s Firearms Dashboard Portal. That data contained gun owners’ names, dates of birth, gender, race, driver’s license numbers, addresses, and criminal history. Today, NRA-ILA asked a federal judge to stop the DOJ from violating gun owners’ privacy rights and releasing any more data.

NRA-ILA sued the California DOJ in January to stop it from releasing gun owners’ information to university professors for “research purposes.” Throughout this litigation, the Cal DOJ has maintained that it has “robust policies and procedures in place to ensure that personally identifying information is not disclosed to the public,” and that it had “instituted three steps to ensure that personal identifying information is not publicly disclosed.” And just this week Attorney General Bonta declared that the: “DOJ seeks to balance its duties to provide gun violence and firearms data to support research efforts while protecting the personal identifying information in the data the Department collects and maintains.” The court, understandably, relied on those repeated assurances and declined to issue a temporary restraining order blocking the Cal DOJ from releasing gun owners’ information.

But those promises turned out to be empty, and those safeguards turned out to be nonexistent. That is why NRA-ILA asked the court to reconsider its decision on the temporary restraining order. Whether the leak was the result of malice or extreme negligence, the Cal DOJ must be held accountable for its shortcomings. NRA-ILA will continue to prosecute this case until that happens.

The case is captioned Doe v. Bonta.

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

California: Legislature Passes and Newsom Signs Anti-Gun Bills

The California Legislature starts their Summer recess today, but not before a busy week full of defiant action against the recent Supreme Court victory in the NRA case of NYSRPA v. BruenThe legislature passed several anti-gun bills out of policy committees and passed eight anti-gun bills onto the Governor’s desk, two of which he signed yesterday immediately after receiving them. With this swift action, the NRA is continuing to fight these proposals and looking at all available options including litigation. Contact Governor Newsom at (916) 445-2841 and urge him to veto AB 311, AB 1594, AB 1769, AB 2156, SB 915, and SB 1327!

Signed by the Governor

Assembly Bill 1621, introduced by Assembly Member Mike Gipson (D-65), expands what is considered a “precursor part” under existing law and requires serial numbers on those parts. Further, it expands the definition of “firearm” for purposes of criminal and regulatory penalties to include “precursor parts.” And finally, it prohibits the possession, transfer, sale, or advertising of milling machines that have the sole or primary purpose of manufacturing firearmsto anyone other than licensed firearm manufacturers or importers. . *AB 1621 was passed with an urgency clause meaning it went into effect immediately.

Assembly Bill 2571, introduced by Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-16), bans advertising or marketing firearms or ammunition in a way that is “attractive to minors,” replacing the language in current law banning specifically “advertis[ing] to minors.” This legislation is so broadly worded that it will be devastating to conservation, safety, and education efforts throughout the state. *AB 2571 was passed with an urgency clause meaning it went into effect immediately. ​

Passed by the Legislature and Will Soon Be Eligible for the Governor’s Consideration: 

Assembly Bill 311, introduced by Assembly Member Christopher Ward (D-78), prohibits the display or sale of any “precursor firearm parts” at gun shows on the Del Mar Fairgrounds of the 22nd District Agricultural Association.

Assembly Bill 1594, introduced by Assembly Member Phil Ting (D-19), creates a private right of action against firearm industry members for failure to implement “reasonable” controls. This intentionally vague term can subject the industry to crippling lawsuits regardless of whether there is any actual violation of law.

Assembly Bill 1769, introduced by Assembly Member Steve Bennett (D-37), prohibits officers, employees, operators, lessees, or licensees of the 31st District Agricultural Association from entering into any agreement to allow for the sale of any firearm, firearm parts, or ammunition on property or buildings that comprise the Ventura County Fair and Event Center or properties in Ventura County and the City of Ventura that are owned, leased, operated, or occupied by the District.

Assembly Bill 2156, introduced by Assembly Member Buffy Wicks (D-15), reduces the number of firearms a private citizen can manufacture in a year from 50 to no more than three. In addition, it prohibits private citizens from using 3D printing to make firearms, precursor parts, or magazines.

Senate Bill 915, introduced by Senator Dave Min (D-37), bans state officers or employees, operators, lessees, or licensees from entering into any agreement to allow for the sale of any firearm, firearm precursor parts, or ammunition on property that is owned, leased, occupied, or operated by the state.

Senate Bill 1327, introduced by Senator Robert Hertzberg (D-18), creates a private right of action that allows individuals to file civil suits against anyone who manufactures, distributes, transports, sells, or imports firearms banned in California, as well as precursor firearm parts. Current law already allows for remedies for illegal activities by firearm dealers and manufacturers.

Passed by the Assembly Public Safety Committee

Senate Bill 918, introduced by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), was amended to defy the recent Supreme Court ruling placing significant reforms on California’s existing conceal carry laws. Some of the provisions include:  significantly expanding gun-free zones, requiring signage for private businesses where you “can” carry, doubling training requirements, and maintaining the ability to do in-person interviews, psychiatric evaluations, and allowing “time place, and manner” restrictions on permits.  *SB 918 will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 3. 

Passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee

Assembly Bill 1227, introduced by Assembly Member Marc Levine (D-10), was gutted and amended to contain language from Assembly Bill 1223. It places an excise tax of 10% on the sales price of a handgun, and places an 11% excise tax on the sales price of all long guns, rifles, firearm precursor parts and ammunition. These taxes are to be collected from California retailers and placed in a newly created fund for appropriation by the state legislature. *AB 1227 will be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 1.

Assembly Bill 2870, introduced by Assembly Member Miguel Santiago (D-53), expands California’s gun violence restraining order to allow additional reporters, to now include roommates, dating partners, and additional family members, out to the 4th level of consanguinity and affinity (this could include out to the first cousin in-law or a great-great-grandparent). *AB 2870 has been referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee but has not been scheduled for a hearing at this time.

Passed by the Assembly Judiciary Committee

Senate Bill 505, introduced by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-9), makes a person who owns a firearm strictly civilly liable for each incident of property damage, bodily injury, or death resulting from the use of the firearm. Additionally, the legislation requires a firearm owner to obtain and continuously maintain insurance as well as keep evidence of this coverage with the firearm at all times. *SB 505 will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 3.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Gun permit process in NY could include social media check New York lawmakers want to require people applying for a handgun license to turn over a list of their social media accounts so officials can verify their “character and conduct.” By Marina Villeneuve Associated Press

ALBANY, N.Y. — New York would require people applying for a handgun license to turn over a list of their social media accounts so officials could verify their “character and conduct” under a bill headed toward passage Friday in the state Legislature.

The provision was part of a proposed redesign of the state’s firearms licensing laws hammered out by lawmakers after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down rules that had severely limited who could get a permit to carry a handgun outside their home.

A bill advanced by Democratic leaders would eliminate the most strict barriers to getting a permit but also impose new requirements for applicants.

Among the requirements: Applicants would have to show they have “the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself and others,” according to the bill.

And as part of that assessment of good character, the bill says, applicants would have to turn over a list of any social media accounts they have had in the past three years “to confirm the information regarding the applicant’s character and conduct.”

“Sometimes, they’re telegraphing their intent to cause harm to others,” Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, said at a news conference.

Gun rights advocates and Republican leaders were incensed, saying the measure intrudes on constitutional rights.

“What is being proposed in New York is a violation of Second Amendment rights, but they are also asking you to sign away your privacy rights for social media accounts, signing away your First Amendment rights,” said Mark Liva, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s managing director of public affairs. State Republican Chair Nick Langworthy said “New Yorkers’ constitutional freedoms were just trampled on.”

The bill didn’t specify whether applicants would be required to provide licensing officers with access to private social media accounts not visible to the general public.

People applying for a license to carry a handgun would also have to provide four character references, take 16 hours of firearms safety training plus two hours of practice at a range, undergo periodic background checks and turn over the contact information of their spouse, domestic partner or any other adults living in their household.

Aaron Dorr, the executive director of the New York State Firearms Association, called the measure “the kind of bill that the Gestapo would be proud of” or “you’d see in Communist China.”

“This will never survive a court challenge,” he said.

Hochul’s chief lawyer, Elizabeth Fine, insisted the state was setting out “a very clear set of eligibility criteria” and noted that the legislation includes an appeals process for applicants who may feel a reviewer acted inappropriately.

The state Senate approved the measure Friday during a special legislative session called to address the state’s gun laws. The Assembly was expected to consider the measure later in the day.

The Supreme Court ruling struck down a previous rule requiring people to demonstrate an unusual threat to their safety to get a license to carry a handgun outside their homes. That restriction generally limited the licenses to people who had worked in law enforcement or had another special need that went beyond routine public safety concerns.

Under the new system, the state wouldn’t authorize permits for people with criminal convictions within the past five years for driving while intoxicated, menacing or third-degree assault.

People also wouldn’t be allowed to carry firearms at a long list of “sensitive places,” including New York City’s tourist-packed Times Square.

That list also includes schools, universities, government buildings, places where people have gathered for public protests, health care facilities, places of worship, libraries, public playgrounds and parks, day care centers, summer camps, addiction and mental health centers, shelters, public transit, bars, theaters, stadiums, museums, polling places and casinos.

New York would also bar people from bringing guns into any business or workplace unless the owners put up signs saying guns are welcome. People who bring guns into places without such signs could be prosecuted on felony charges.

That’s a reverse approach from many other states where businesses that want to keep guns out are usually required to post signs indicating weapons aren’t allowed.

Gun advocates said the bill infringes on rights upheld by the Supreme Court.

“Now we’re going to let the pizzeria owner decide whether or not I can express my constitutional right,” said Sen. Andrew Lanza, a Staten Island Republican. “This is a disgrace. See you in the courts. You all know this is unconstitutional. You all know this is just a ruse. Another attempt to say to the people of the state of New York: ‘We don’t trust you.’”

The bill would also fix a recently passed law that barred sales of some types of bullet-resistant vests to the general public, but inadvertently left out many types of body armor, including the type worn by a gunman who killed 10 Black people in a racist attack on a Buffalo supermarket.

If passed, the bill would go to Hochul’s desk for her expected signature, then take effect Sept. 1.

———

Associated Press/Report for America writer Maysoon Khan contributed to this report. Maysoon Khan is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on under-covered issues. Follow Maysoon Khan on Twitter.

Categories
All About Guns Ammo

BIG .38 SPECIAL IS THERE REALLY A DIFFERENCE? WRITTEN BY MIKE “DUKE” VENTURINO

Duke’s current two Big .38 Specials are (left) S&W Outdoorsman (later Model 23)
and 2nd Generation Colt SAA.

 

Today we think of .38 Special mostly as a self-defense round for snub nose revolvers, But, before .500, .480, .475 and .460 revolvers, before .357, .41 and .44 Magnums, before even +P .38 Special factory loads, there was the .38-44. It was introduced in 1930 and featured a 158-gr. RN bullet just like the one used in standard .38 Special factory loads except nominal velocity was a whopping (for those days) 1,150 fps. The idea was to give a hotter factory load for police, one that would penetrate automobile windshields and doors of the many criminals roaming the roads during the 1930s.

Note the much thicker S&W Outdoorsman cylinders compared to the .38 Special J-Frame.

Heavy Duty

Because of its high pressure, S&W had to introduce a new big revolver specifically for .38-44s. It was built upon their large N-Frame that accounted for the somewhat strange name — a .38 caliber revolver on a .44 size frame. In those days S&W, and Colt too for that matter, did not give model numbers to their handguns. Instead they got names. The new .38-44 was named Heavy Duty and came in 4″, 5″ and 61/2″ barrel lengths with the middle one being far more common. I don’t have evidence of that; it’s just my experience-based opinion.

The Heavy Duty was a utility style sixgun with a groove down its topstrap serving as the rear sight and half-moon shaped front sight. Thereafter S&W brought out a second BIG .38-44 named Outdoorsman. It had a fully adjustable rear sight and the square shaped front called Patridge. The only barrel length offered as standard on the Outdoorsman version was 6.5″. After S&W transitioned to model numbers the Outdoorsman became the Model 20 and the Heavy Duty became the Model 23.

Colt was not about to let a good thing pass and soon specified their large frame DA New Service was suitable for .38-44 loads as well as the Colt Single Action Army. The former DA Colt was offered in 4.5″, 5.5″ and 7.5″ barrel lengths and the SA came in 4.75″, 5.5″ and 7.5″ lengths. Both Colts had the traditional grooved topstrap and blade front sights, but Colt also offered their target sighted Shooting Master in .38 Special.

The .38-44 (1930) predated .357 Magnums (1935) by five years. S&W’s .357 Magnum (left)
was identical to the.38-44 Outdoorsman (right) in size, weight and barrel length.

Magnum Impact

 

With the advent of magnums — .357 in 1935, .44 in 1956 and .41 in 1964 — interest in .38-44 pretty much died. And of course, the ability to shoot such loads in any .357 Magnum accelerated its demise. By 1966 S&W dropped both the Models 20 and 23. Colt let the New Service expire in 1944 but when the SAA was reintroduced in 1956 .38 Special and .45 Colt were its caliber choices. By 1964 the company had dropped the .38 Special.

When making .38-44 equivalent handloads Duke has tried these three cast bullet styles.
From left: 150-gr. SWC, 158-gr. RN/FP and 158-gr. RN. Duke favors the middle one.

Boys Will Be Boys

 

As big .38 Specials disappeared from the catalogs of new handguns a West Virginia hillbilly kid began his handgunning career with a beloved S&W K-38 and a setup for making .38 Special handloads. One of my most fondly remembered friends that senior year of high school was named Mike Bucci (pronounced “Butch”). His father was our town’s chief of police. He approved of our interest in shooting and gave “Butch” his old .38 Special duty gun so we could shoot together. It was an S&W Heavy Duty with a 5″ barrel. The local gun club was only three miles from our high school, so Butch and I spent many late afternoons plinking away with our .38s. Later, when I started loading .45 ACP Chief Bucci would allow us to take the department’s Thompson Submachine Gun out by ourselves. Yes, it was a different era.

Perhaps Butch’s Heavy Duty was the reason I developed a lifelong affinity for sixguns of yesteryear. Factory loads for .38-44 were gone by that time, but as a careful handloader I was able to copy them. Not having a chronograph, we thought .38-44 ballistics were duplicated.

Butch and I still got an idea of how regular .38 Specials and .38-44s differed. For my K-Frame .38 the usual handload was 3.0 grains of Bullseye with 150-gr. lead bullets. For Butch’s Heavy Duty we loaded 11.0 grains of 2400 with the same bullets. My load would knock over old bricks from about 50 feet. Butch’s loads busted them. My .38 Special would knock over chunks of wood. The bullets stayed inside. Butch’s bullets penetrated completely.

By the late 1960s, I began spending summers in Montana and Butch got married. Mid-summer of 1971, I got word Butch had died from a rare form of cancer. I never saw his guns again, but my exposure to .38-44 as a big handgun cartridge stayed with me. I never did land a Colt New Service or Shooting Master .38 Special but have owned all three barrel lengths of .38 Special Colt SAAs. Several S&W Heavy Duty/Model 23s have passed through my hands, including one HD factory lettering to the first year of production. Those are gone but an Outdoorsman (pre-Model 20) given to me by a friend is here as is a like-new SAA .38 with 7.5″ barrel.

The .38-44 factory loads carried the same bullets as standard .38 Specials
but were loaded to be 300 fps faster.

In machine rest testing Duke’s Colt SAA .38 Special grouped (12) .38-44 equivalent
handloads into just 1.5″ at 25 yards.

Home Grown .38-44s

 

So, what does it take to turn a .38 Special into a .38-44? First off you need a big .38 revolver, although S&W K-Frame .357 Magnums and medium frame Colt Python and Trooper .357s will suffice. Next you need some common sense. The .38-44 is not a .357 Magnum. Don’t try to make it one. That old load I used of 11.0 grains of 2400 with 150-gr. bullets is an absolute maximum. It used to appear in old reloading manuals even for K-Frame S&W .38s which is where I found it back in 1966. Modern manuals are far more conservative so hear me — stick with big .38 revolvers for .38-44 shooting.

Here’s an alternative. For me .357 Magnums are ear ringers even with good ear protection. Many people shoot .38 Specials in their .357s for this reason. If an intermediate load will suffice then .38-44 ballistics can be achieved by loading down .357 Magnums. Stick with .357 Magnum cases and still use 2400 powder but go one grain (only) over what I listed for .38-44 — 12 grains of 2400 with 150- to 160-gr. lead alloy bullets. I personally favor the RN/FP designs from RCBS and Lyman. Such handloads will put a .357 Magnum in the old .38-44 ballpark.

Those handloads from my big .38 revolvers gave near amazing accuracy. From my Ransom Pistol Machine Rest, my Outdoorsman and Colt SAA gave 12-shot, 25-yard groups of 1.5″ or less. That’s the sort of sixgun precision anyone can be proud of.

Categories
All About Guns

An Ortgies a semi auto pistol in caliber 7.65mm

 

 

 

 

Categories
All About Guns

Colt 1855 Revolving Rifle at the Range

Categories
All About Guns

The Winchester model 70 supergrade in 308 and 300 mag

Categories
All About Guns War

List of WEAPONS supplied to ukraine by various countries to fight against Russian

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

NY concealed carry case: Leaders vow gun limits in ‘sensitive places’ By BOBBY CAINA CALVAN and MARINA VILLENEUVE

New York‘s Democratic leaders aim to preserve as many restrictions as possible on carrying a handgun in public after the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down key portions of the state’s gun-licensing law.

State and New York City officials are zeroing in on specifying “sensitive locations” where concealed weapons could be forbidden, including a concept that would essentially extend those zones to the entire metropolis. Other options under consideration include adding new conditions to get a handgun permit, such as requiring weapons training.

Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, vowed to call the Democrat-led Legislature back for a special session to pass new rules.

“We have a whole lot of ideas,” said Hochul, who said she discussed policy options Thursday with the mayors of the state’s six largest cities.

New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, also a Democrat, said state lawmakers should ban people from carrying handguns in any place containing more than 10,000 people per square mile (259 hectares), or anywhere within 1,000 feet of mass transit systems, hospitals, parks, government buildings, schools, churches, cemeteries, banks, theaters bars, libraries, homeless shelters and courts. That would effectively include the whole city.

While it’s not yet clear what might come of the discussions, what was clear was the sense of urgency that New York’s Democratic leadership feels about retaining some curbs on guns in public places. The officials argue that such restrictions are life-saving: Statistics show the state, and its biggest city, consistently have among the nation’s lowest firearm death rates.

“We are prepared to set an example that will lead the country as to: how do we fight back on this decision?” said New York Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat and a former police officer and gun owner.

“We cannot allow New York to become the Wild West,” he said.

New York, like many other U.S. cities, has contended with rising concern about violent crime, though New York City police statistics show shootings have declined about 12% and murders 13% so far this year, compared with the same period last year. But murders remain at their second-highest level since 2012.

The high court opinion comes shortly after New York state tightened semi-automatic rifle regulations following a May 14 shooting in Buffalo, where a white gunman with such a weapon killed 10 Black people in a racist attack. Officials said the gun was purchased legally, but New York doesn’t allow sales of the ammunition magazines that were used.

As state leaders reacted to Thursday’s ruling, Republican Chairman Nick Langworthy said it was “disgusting yet highly predictable” that Hochul and other Democrats “are trying to gin up fear and division over a legal gun owner’s right to protect themselves and their family.”

Rep. Lee Zeldin, a Republican candidate for governor, tweeted that Hochul “better not make her next move on this another assault on law-abiding NYers.”

New York state’s law dates to 1913. It requires people to demonstrate “proper cause” — an actual need to carry the weapon — to get a license to carry a handgun outside their homes.

There are similar standards in a handful of other states, including California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland and Hawaii.

New York’s law did not define what proper cause meant, and it gave local authorities — often police — discretion on whether to issue a license. In practice, that meant most applicants had to show a need that went beyond routine public safety concerns, such as being in a profession that put them at special risk.

In New York City, few people beyond retired law enforcement officers and armed guards could get such a license.

In Thursday’s ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court majority said the New York rules prevented “law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that the decision didn’t bar states from imposing handgun licensing requirements, such as fingerprinting, mental health records checks, firearms training or prohibitions on carrying the weapons in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings.

But the majority opinion suggested there were limits to how sweeping the place-based restrictions could be: “There is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded” and policed, Thomas wrote.

Brooklyn Law School professor Bill Araiza said the court “seemed to suggest that it’s certainly OK for governments to restrict carrying guns in sensitive places,” but “poured cold water” on the idea of expansive gun-free zones.

New York City officials insisted that nothing would change immediately, noting that the high court sent the case back to a lower court for further proceedings that could iron out implementation details.

But the decision instantly raised fears among supporters of New York’s handgun limits, saying that loosening the rules could create a marketplace for handguns that now barely exists in the state.

New York has among the nation’s lowest rates of firearm deaths, including from suicides: 3.9 deaths per 100,000 people in 2019 and 5.3 deaths per 100,000 people in 2020.

Manhattan, a symbol of urban America, had the lowest rate of gun deaths in the state with 1.7 deaths per 100,000 in 2019, according to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

Columbia Law School professor Jeffrey Fagan, an expert on gun laws, said research indicates that the firearms homicide rate immediately rises in places where restrictions are lifted.

Adams raised the specter of everyday disputes turning into shootouts in New York’s crowded streets and subways. He suggested that police officers would face greater danger, as well as a greater burden of distinguishing between legal and illegal guns in public places.

Some business groups are also concerned. Andrew Rigie of the New York City Hospitality Alliance, a restaurant and nightclub owners’ group, said small businesses should be able to decide what is allowed in their establishments.

Associated Press writers Michelle L. Price, Michael Hill and Jennifer Peltz contributed to this report.

Categories
All About Guns

M60: Its Purpose, Mechanics, and Development