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
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

Categories
All About Guns

Smith & Wesson 500 Magnum

Categories
All About Guns

S&W M&P Shield 9 NOT Reliable

Categories
All About Guns

You need two hands to decock a 1911 pistol !

Categories
All About Guns War

The Vickers Machine Gun in the Far East