Categories
All About Guns War Well I thought it was neat!

A Naval Battle in the Red Sea during WWII!?! Huh!!!

The Attack on Convoy BN 7 (20–21 October 1940) was a naval engagement in the Red Sea during the Second World War between a British force defending convoyed merchant ships and a flotilla of Italian destroyers. The Italian attack failed, with only one merchant ship being slightly damaged. After a chase, the British destroyer HMS Kimberley torpedoed the Italian destroyer Francesco Nullo which was beached on Harmil IslandKimberley was hit, disabled by Italian shore batteries on the island and towed to safety by the cruiser HMS Leander.

Manoeuvring in two groups to increase the chance of intercepting the convoy had succeeded for the Italians but sacrificed the benefits of concentration against the escorts and a destroyer was lost for no result. The British command at Aden criticised the escorts (excepting Kimberley) for a lack of aggression but leaving the convoy defenceless to chase ships at night and in misty weather was risky. The Italians made another fruitless sortie on 3 December, cancelled one in January 1941 after the destroyer Daniele Manin was damaged by a bomb and conducted an abortive sortie on 24 January.

Background

Red Sea

The Red Sea is an area of high temperatures and humidity, its coasts vary from desert to high mountain ranges and navigation is fraught with danger from offshore reefs and false horizons caused by atmospheric refraction.[1] From May to June 1939, French and British military officials met at Aden to devise a common strategy to retain control of the waters around Italian East Africa if Italy declared war. It was expected that Italy could close the Mediterranean to Allied traffic and that supplies to the Middle East would have to be transported via the Red Sea. Control of the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Suez at the northern terminus and the maintenance of the bases at Aden and French Somaliland (Djibouti) was equally important but a withdrawal from French and British Somaliland had also be contemplated.[2]

The British-controlled Port Sudan, lay on the west coast of the Red Sea, about half way [600 nmi (690 mi; 1,100 km)] between Suez and the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait (باب المندب, Gate of Tears). The Italian port of Massawa in Eritrea was about 350 nmi (400 mi; 650 km) north and Aden about 100 nmi (120 mi; 190 km) east of the Bab-el-Mandeb.[2] The ports along the coast of Italian Somaliland and the entrance to the Red Sea were to be blockaded (Operation Begum) to prevent the Italians from receiving supplies and reinforcements. Allied merchant ships in the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea were to proceed in escorted convoys. Naval ships were to sweep mines, patrol the Gulf of Aden and the Bab-el-Mandeb to isolate the Italian Red Sea Flotilla and protect Aden from sorties by Italian ships; the Italian naval bases in Eritrea were to be attacked.[3]

Red Sea Force

Topographic map of the Red Sea

In April 1940 the Royal Navy established the Red Sea Force with the light cruisers HMS Liverpool and HMAS Hobart (Senior Naval Officer Red Sea, Rear-Admiral Murray); HMS Leander (New Zealand Division) replaced Liverpool on 26 May. By September the Force comprised the cruisers HobartLeanderCaledon and the anti-aircraft cruiser Carlisle; the destroyers HMS KimberleyKingston and Kandahar; the sloops HMS FlamingoAucklandShoreham and GrimsbyHMIS CliveIndus and Hindustan; and HMAS Parramatta. Aden was the base for two minesweepers, two small Armed Merchant Cruisers and two armed trawlers. Ships attached temporarily included the light cruisers HMS Ceres and Colombo, the 8-inch cruisers HMS Dorsetshire and Shropshire.[3]

Red Sea Flotilla

The Italian naval and air bases in East Africa were convenient for attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and the Indian OceanMassawa was the home port of the Red Sea Flotilla (Flottiglia del mar rosso) commanded by Rear-Admiral [ContrammiraglioMario Bonetti, from December 1940 to April 1941. Massawa had been fortified and lay behind numerous islands and reefs with mined approaches; there was a smaller base at Assab.[3] The scout cruisers (esploratori, also Leone-class destroyersPantera and Leone (Commander Paolo Aloisi) had an unusually powerful armament of eight 4.7 in (120 mm) guns, in four turrets on the centre line. Only two turrets could aim fore and aft but the eight-gun broadside was unique for destroyers.[4]

The class also carried two 40 mm pom-pom anti-aircraft guns, four 20 mm machine-guns, four 21.0 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes and 60 mines. The Sauro-class destroyers had an armament of four 4.7 in (120 mm) guns, two 40 mm pom-poms, two 13.2 mm machine-guns, six 53.3 cm (21.0 in) torpedo tubes and 52 mines.[4] Once war was declared, the fuel stored for the Italian ships based at Massawa could only diminish under the British blockade.[5] The accumulation of mechanical faults, fuel depletion and the enervating effect of the climate exercised severe constraints on the operations of the Red Sea Flotilla.[6]

Prelude

Red Sea convoys

Gulf of Aden

In June four of the eight Italian submarines based at Massawa were lost. The Regia Aeronautica (Italian Royal Air Force) commenced operations over the Red Sea and on 11 June a Savoia-Marchetti SM.81 flew a reconnaissance sortie.[7] On 16 June, the Italian submarine Galileo Galilei sank the Norwegian tanker James Stove (8,215 Gross register tonnage [GRT]), sailing independently about 12 nmi (14 mi; 22 km) south of Aden.[8] On 19 June, Hobart sent its Supermarine Walrus amphibian to bomb an Italian wireless station on Centre Peak Island between Massawa and the Arabian coast.[9] On 2 July, Convoy BN 1, comprising six tankers and three freighters, assembled in the Gulf of Aden.[8] On 8 July, an SM.81 of 10° Squadriglia flew a long range reconnaissance sortie over southern Sudan and the Red Sea and was attacked by a Vickers Wellesley. The SM.81 was damaged hit an island trying to force land, bounced into the air and flew on at wave top height, with the Wellesley flying above and to one side for its gunners to keep firing. After ten minutes the Italian aircraft hit the sea and shed its wings.[10][a]

Photograph of SM.81 Pipistrello bomber-transport aircraft

From 26 to 31 July, Guglielmotti failed to find two Greek merchantmen and a sortie by the torpedo boats Cesare Battisti and Francesco Nullo came to nothing. Guglielmotti sortied from 21 to 25 August, Galileo Ferraris (25–31 August), Francesco Nullo and Sauro from 24 to 25 August and the destroyers Pantera and Tigre (28–29 August) failing to find ships, despite agent reports and sightings by air reconnaissance.[11] On 4 September, Italian bombers attacked SS Velko, inflicted serious damage on it and on the next day, five SM.79s attacked Convoy BS 3A. A Blenheim IVF fighter, on convoy patrol, attacked the bombers but was damaged. On 6 September the convoy was attacked again by a SM.79.[12] Convoy BN 4 was spotted by air reconnaissance and on the night of 5/6 September, Cesare BattistiDaniele Manin and Sauro sailed. The destroyers Leone and Tigre followed on 6/7 September but the destroyers found nothing.[13]

The submarines Galileo Ferraris and Guglielmotti patrolling further to the north, also failed to find BN 4 but Guglielmotti torpedoed the Greek tanker Atlas (4,008 GRT) straggling behind the convoy south of the Farasan Islands. Air reconnaissance also found Convoy BN 5 of 23 ships but LeonePanteraCesare Battisti and Daniele Manin, with the submarines Archimede and Gugliemotti failed to find the convoy. MV Bhima (5,280 GRT) was damaged in an Italian air attack, one man was killed; the ship was towed to Aden and beached for repairs.[13] On 19 September five SM.79s attacked a convoy and outpaced two Gloster Gladiator fighters which tried to intercept them. On the next day, Italian bombers were driven off by Blenheim fighters. On 15 October, three SM.79 bombers were prevented from attacking another convoy by two Gladiator fighters and a Blenheim. Five days later, individual SM.79s attacked Convoy BN 7.[14]

Convoy BN 7

Australian sloop HMAS Yarra

Convoy BN 7 was northbound through the Red Sea and consisted of 32 British, Norwegian, French, Greek and Turkish merchant ships. The escort consisted of the light cruiser HMS Leander (Commander James Rivett-Carnac), the destroyer Kimberley (Commander J. S. M. Richardson), the Egret-class sloop Auckland, the Grimsby-class sloops HMAS Yarra and Indus and the Hunt-class minesweepers HMS Derby and Huntley.[6][b] Convoy BN 7 was nearing Perim, a volcanic island off the south-west coast of Yemen in the Bab-el-Mandeb, on the afternoon of 19 October, when an aircraft dropped four bombs close astern of one of the merchantmen. Leander and Auckland opened fire on the aircraft as it flew off to the west; shortly before dark, an undercarriage wheel of an Italian aircraft was picked up 15 nmi (17 mi; 28 km) south of the island. Next morning, Italian aircraft dropped four bombs, two of which fell ahead of the convoy and two bombs harmlessly astern of the French liner Felix Roussel, carrying New Zealand troops to Suez. At dusk Leander took station on the port beam of the convoy between it and the Italian base at Massawa, which flanked the line of advance; the convoy zig-zagged through the night.[16]

Battle

Italian sortie

Italian destroyer Pantera

The Italian flotilla sailed on 20 October, the destroyers operating in pairs, Section I, comprised the faster Sauro (Commander Moretti degli Adimari) and Francesco Nullo (Lieutenant Commander Costantino Borsini). Section II, the slower, more heavily armed Pantera and Leone were to divert the convoy escort and then attack the convoy with torpedoes. At 21:15 the two sections separated and at 23:21, Pantera sighted smoke from the convoy.[17] Pantera signalled Sauro and moved ahead of the convoy to intercept, with Leone following 875 yd (800 m) behind.[17] The convoy was about 35 nmi (40 mi; 65 km) north-north-west of Jabal al-Tair Island at 02:19 on 21 October, when Leander sighted two patches of smoke bearing north.[17]

Auckland reported two destroyers 4 nmi (4.6 mi; 7.4 km) off and Leander altered course to intercept, the captain assuming that they would run for home through the South Massawa Channel. After a challenge from AucklandPantera fired over Yarra at the convoy, inflicting some splinter damage to a lifeboat on the convoy commodore’s ship. Auckland opened fire and the Italian ships separated and turned away at full speed, west-south-west, towards Massawa, firing their aft guns. The destroyers were broad on the port bow of Yarra when Pantera fired two torpedoes at 23:31 and another pair at 23:34.[17] Yarra avoided two torpedoes by turning towards them and combing their tracks.[16] Observers in Yarra thought that the leading enemy vessel was hit by their fourth or fifth salvo.[18]

Sauro and Nullo had been manoeuvring to a more favourable position after receiving the sighting report from Pantera, turned towards the convoy and spotted Leander at 01:48 (21 October). Sauro fired a torpedo at Leander which missed and Leander opened fire but lost sight of Sauro after two minutes. Sauro made another torpedo attack at 02:07 and turned away towards Massawa. (Nullo was not able to attack after its rudder jammed for several minutes and it went round in circles, losing contact with Sauro.)[17] Borsini ordered Nullo towards the Italian batteries on Harmil Island off Massawa. When the gunfire ceased, Leander altered course to north-west to intercept the ships at the South Massawa Channel (the Harmil Island Passage) and at 02:45, opened fire with 6-inch HE and star shells on a ship that was firing red and green tracer. The range was increasing and the ship was lost to sight after the first salvoes.[19]

Leander altered course westwards to bring all guns to bear if the ships were making for the South Massawa Channel. At 02:20 Leander spotted Nullo by searchlight and exchanged fire for about ten minutes at about 4,600 yd (2.3 nmi; 4.2 km), Leander scoring several hits which damaged Nullogyrocompass and gunnery director. At 02:51, Leander lost contact in the haze and ceased fire (having fired a hundred and twenty-nine 6-inch rounds).[20] Nullo headed toward Harmil Island with Leander in pursuit and at 03:00, Leander challenged a destroyer which turned out to be Kimberley, also in pursuit. After five minutes, the cruiser altered course east to rejoin the convoy, since the Italian ship was drawing away at the rate of 7 kn (8.1 mph; 13 km/h) and the convoy would still be vulnerable to attack during a pursuit.[21]

Action off Harmil Island

Harmil Island in the Dahlak Archipelago off Massawa

In the early hours of 21 October, Kimberley continued to sail at maximum speed and at 03:50 sighted smoke ahead, apparently from two ships retiring at high speed. At 05:40, off Harmil Island, lookouts on Kimberley and Nullo spotted each other at 7 nmi (8.1 mi; 13 km) range. Borsini assumed that the ship was Sauro and when Kimberley opened fire at 05:53, Nullo was taken by surprise, not returning fire for four minutes. Kimberley closed the range to 5,000 yd (2.5 nmi; 4.6 km) and at 06:20, Nullo scraped a reef, which damaged a propeller and sprung a leak. As Nullo rounded Harmil Island at about 06:25, it was hit once in the forward engine room and once in the aft engine room.[22]

Nullo lost all power; Borsini gave the order to abandon ship and steered towards Harmil Island. The upper works were hit by shell splinters and the crew abandoned ship, while Borsini tried to run Nullo aground on the island. Nullo was then hit by the second of two torpedoes at 06:35, which broke it in two.[22] (Borsini and his assistant declined to leave the ship and were drowned.)[5][c] At 06:15 the four 120 mm guns on Harmil Island engaged Kimberley and hit the engine-room, wounding three men and holing the steam pipes. While adrift 10,000 yd (4.9 nmi; 9.1 km) from the shore battery, Kimberley silenced two of the guns and wounding four gunners with 45 HE shells from No. 3 mount.[23]

HMS Kimberley (photographed in 1942)

Kimberley managed to get under way, its speed reduced to 15 kn (17 mph; 28 km/h) and the shore battery ceased fire when Kimberley was 19,000 yd (9.4 nmi; 17 km) away. Kimberley had fired 596 rounds of Semi-Armour Piercing and 97 High Explosive shells. Leander left the convoy and at 06:54 increased speed to 26 kn (30 mph; 48 km/h). By 07:34, Leander was making 28.7 kn (33.0 mph; 53.2 km/h) and soon after, Kimberley reported that it was steaming east at 15 kn (17 mph; 28 km/h) on one engine.[23] At 08:25, Leander was 16 nmi (18 mi; 30 km) east by north of the Harmil South beacon and slowed to 10 kn (12 mph; 19 km/h). Leander circled near Kimberley to keep freedom of manoeuvre, in case Italian bombers appeared. Kimberley had lost water in its boilers and Leander sent a boat with three shipwrights and an engine-room artificer; a wounded rating was transferred to the cruiser for medical attention. At about 10:00, Leander took Kimberley in tow.[24]

Aftermath

Analysis

In August the British had run four BN convoys and four BS convoys, five in September and seven in October, the BN convoys comprising 86 ships and the BS (southbound) convoys 72 ships. Despite agent reports and sightings by the Regia Aeronautica, Italian submarines and ships had frequently failed to make contact with the convoys, only six air attacks was achieved in October and none after 4 November.[25] During the Attack on Convoy BN 7, the British found that they were at a disadvantage in night fighting as they were temporarily blinded by the flash of their guns, while the Italian ships used flashless cordite and had good tracer ammunition.[18] The British convoy escorts were blamed for a lack of aggression, except for Kimberley, despite the danger of abandoning the convoy at night and in poor visibility. The Italians had managed to make two torpedo attacks as planned but the division of the destroyers into two sections, after previous sorties had failed to find any ships, meant that neither section had the firepower to face the British escorts.[26]

Casualties

Of the 120 crew of Nullo, Borsini declined to abandon ship and when his assistant Seaman Vincenzo Ciaravolo realised, jumped from his lifeboat to accompany his captain and both were drowned. Of the ship’s company 12 men were killed and 106 were rescued by sailors of the Harmil Island battery.[27] Kimberley was out of action until 31 October, then returned to service capable of a reduced maximum speed, until fully repaired in the spring of 1941.[28]

Subsequent operations

At 10:00 on 21 October, Leander opened fire on three aircraft at 13,000 ft (4,000 m), which bombed about 200 yd (180 m) ahead of the ship, two more bombs turning out to be duds. No damage was done and Leander and Kimberley re-joined Convoy BN 7 just after noon. (As they passed Felix Roussel they were cheered by hundreds of New Zealand soldiers.) In the afternoon, Leander transferred the tow to Kingston which left the convoy with Kimberley next morning, for Port Sudan. The southbound convoy BS 7 with 20 ships, was met by the convoy escorts in the afternoon of 23 October and after an uneventful passage, dispersed east of Aden on 28 October.[29] Later on 21 October, three Blenheim bombers of 45 Squadron found and bombed the wreck of Francesco Nullo.[25] The Italians made another fruitless sortie on 3 December, cancelled one in January 1941 after Daniele Manin was damaged by a bomb and on 24 January, sortied again with no result.[26]

Attack on Convoy BN 14

On the night of 2/3 February 1941, the Italian destroyers PanteraTigre and Sauro sailed from Massawa, to intercept a convoy known to be in the area. BN 14 consisted of 39 merchant ships escorted by the cruiser Caledon, the destroyer Kingston and the sloops Indus and ShorehamSauro sighted the convoy and fired three torpedoes, then fired again at a ship seen in a cloud of smoke, before turning away at high speed. The two other ships did not receive the sighting report from Sauro but ten minutes later Pantera saw the ships and fired torpedoes, hearing explosions and claiming probables on two merchantmen; Tigre failed to find the convoy. Close to the Massawa in the South Channel, Sauro ran into Kingston but had run out of torpedoes. Fearful that the British were trying to spring ambush, the other Italian ships converged on Sauro and called by wireless for air cover at dawn, reaching port unharmed. Local Italian press reports claimed that two ships had been hit but this report was mistaken.

Categories
All About Guns The Green Machine

Lock N’ Load Armored Vehicles Military Channel Documentary

Categories
All About Guns You have to be kidding, right!?!

A Brief History of Guns in the U.S. By Cathy Shufro (Hint she works for a guy named Bloomberg)

How to explain Americans’ astonishing personal arsenal? Start with politics, fear, and marketing.

Let’s start with a few facts about firearms in the U.S.: Americans own 393 million guns, the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey reports.

Firearms can be found in 44% of U.S. households, according to a 2020 Gallup survey.

And, tragically: Almost half of Americans know someone who has been shot, a 2017 Pew Research Center report noted.

How did we get here? Marketing, politics, racism, fear, and other forces have contributed to America’s exceptional proliferation of guns.

Soon after the end of the Civil War, gunmakers with surpluses sought peacetime customers. They convinced dry goods stores to sell handguns alongside flour and sugar; they ran classified ads in newspapers; and they told parents that a rifle would help “real boys” to develop “sturdy manliness.” Private gun ownership dramatically expanded.

The end of slavery catalyzed the formation of armed groups, some seeking to protect newly freed Black men, others to terrorize them. After Reconstruction failed, supremacist military groups like the White League in Louisiana used guns to threaten and sometimes murder Black men attempting to vote.

While the popular imagination holds that gunslingers sauntered down the dusty streets of Western towns, that’s largely a myth, according to UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, JD. “Frontier towns—places like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge—actually had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation,” Winkler wrote in the Huffington PostWhen visitors arrived in Dodge City, Kansas, they encountered a billboard announcing, “The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited.”

Indeed, by the early 1900s, 43 states limited or banned firearms in public places. Gun control would become sharply divisive only with the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, made law after the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy. The legislation limited interstate sales of firearms but did too little to satisfy gun control advocates including President Lyndon Johnson.

By the late 1990s, fear became a potent selling point as cultural attitudes changed. In a 1999 poll, most gun owners said they kept guns for hunting and target shooting; only 26% cited protection as paramount. By 2015, however, 63% cited self-defense as a primary motivation for gun ownership, according to a 2015 National Firearms Survey. In reality, having access to a gun triples a person’s risk of suicide and nearly doubles the risk of being a homicide victim, according to a 2014 Annals of Internal Medicine meta-analysis. For a woman living with an abusive partner, the risk of being murdered increases fivefold if the partner has a gun, according to an American Journal of Public Health study led by Jacquelyn Campbell, PhD, MSN, a faculty member of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy at the Bloomberg School.

As gun owners increasingly emphasized self-defense in recent decades, restrictions on carrying concealed firearms evaporated. Whereas in 1990 concealed carry in public spaces was illegal in 16 states (including Texas), by 2013 all 50 states and Washington, D.C., allowed some civilians to carry hidden guns.

At the same time, gunmakers have redesigned their wares. “Technology has focused on making smaller and smaller handguns, with more lethality, and with almost no attention to safety,” says Josh Horwitz, JD, who directs the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. For example, the popular $450 Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 2.0 pistol is 6 inches long and carries 15 9mm cartridges. And children now have their own firearms, like the 2½-pound, .22-caliber Crickett (“my first rifle”). Its gunstock comes in pink, camo, and “amendment”—Second Amendment text overlaid on American flags.

  • 1791

    Congress ratifies Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

  • 1934, 1968

    First major federal gun control laws are passed.

  • 1977

    Activists opposed to gun control seize control of NRA at national convention.

  • 1985–86

    Congress creates “gun-show loophole” by limiting federal firearm licensing requirements.

  • 1993

    “Brady Bill” requires background checks for gun buyers at federally licensed dealers.

  • 1994, 2004

    Federal Assault Weapons Ban becomes law; then Congress lets it lapse.

  • 1996–2019

    Congress imposes limits on CDC gun research, shrinking federal funds for studies.

  • 2005

    New law gives gun industry unprecedented protections against lawsuits.

  • 2008

    Supreme Court votes 5–4 to recognize individual right to bear arms for “defense of hearth and home.”

  • 2009, 2020

    Gun sales spike during Obama presidency and surge again as pandemic begins.

Horwitz says lobbyists and owners of military-style weapons increasingly embrace “the insurrectionist idea.” Since 2009, he has warned of armed citizens who claim that “threatening violence against government officials is within normal bounds of political discourse.”

The multiplication of “stand-your-ground” laws marked another shift in American attitudes, with Florida taking the lead in 2005. Today, 34 states give gun owners the right to use deadly force outside of the home with no duty to retreat or use other means to protect themselves. The laws “make it much easier for a person to legally kill someone,” writes University of Texas sociologist Harel Shapira, PhD, who credits the laws with “the militarization of everyday life.”

“In almost any aspect of public health, culture and policy are reinforcing and reflecting each other,” says Daniel Webster, ScD ’91, MPH, director of the Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy. “You gradually see carrying a gun around as normative.” Forty years ago, if someone brought a gun to a party, Webster says, “you would have been shocked. It would have been incredibly abnormal.” Now, gun ownership is a lifestyle choice, one rooted in the individualism “baked into our culture and our laws.”

In recent decades, the National Rifle Association has identified its greatest foe as the government itself. After Congress passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, NRA President Wayne LaPierre told members that the bill “gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.”

“The gun lobby thrives on fear and drives fear,” says Horwitz. In many ways, he adds, “this is about white men feeling less powerful.”

Horwitz notes that gun sales rose during the past year. “People are afraid of other people with guns, so now they’re buying guns. Breaking that cycle is really important. Are we too far down the road? I don’t think we are, but we’ve got to make major changes in how we approach gun violence, soon.”

Categories
All About Guns

Some geat looking pre-64 Winchester Model 70’s anyone?

Categories
All About Guns Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

Anti-Militia Bill Likely to Hurt Firearm Training By Tom Knighton

With the anniversary of January 6th behind us, we’d think all the insurrection rhetoric would be behind us, at least for a time.

Unfortunately, that’s asking way too much.

You’d think that, at some point, the people screaming about it would recognize that if the political demographic most likely to be armed and pay for training out of their own pockets were interested in overthrowing the government, they’d bring more than signs to the party.

But alas, that isn’t entering most people’s brains.

Yet I can’t help but think at least some understand that on some level.

I say this because of a new bill in the House that I was made aware of Thursday evening.

Washington (January 11, 2024) – Following the anniversary of the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol, Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Congressman Jamie Raskin (MD-08) introduced the Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act, legislation that would create a federal prohibition on paramilitary groups through civil and criminal enforcement. The prohibition would hold individuals liable who directly engage in certain types of conduct, including intimidating state and local officials, interfering with government proceedings, pretending to be law enforcement, and violating people’s constitutional rights, while armed and acting as part of a private paramilitary organization.

“Patrolling neighborhoods, impeding law enforcement and storming the U.S. Capitol, private paramilitary groups like the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters and the Proud Boys are using political violence to intimidate our people and threaten democratic government and the rule of law,” said Congressman Raskin. “Our legislation makes the obvious but essential clarification that these domestic extremists’ paramilitary operations are in no way protected by our Constitution. I’m grateful to Senator Markey for his partnership on this critical effort to protect the rule of law, deter insurrection and defend our democracy.”

A copy of the legislation can be found HERE.A one-page overview of the legislation can be found HERE.

The legislation creates different tiers of criminal penalties based on whether violations result in injury or property damage; provides harsher penalties for repeat offenders; and allows for a probationary sentence for first-time offenders. It also creates civil remedies by authorizing the Department of Justice to seek injunctive relief against paramilitary activity, and by creating a private right of action for individuals harmed by paramilitary activity to seek injunctive relief and/or damages. The legislation contains clear exceptions for activities such as historic reenactments, state-sanctioned trainings, and veterans’ parades.

Among specific points brought up regarding what this bill will restrict was, “training to engage in such behavior.”

But let’s be honest, what lawmakers claim a bill will do and what the text says can be quite different. I was already uncomfortable with what I was reading, since “patrolling” has a specific meaning in a lot of contexts, but I can also see someone applying it to a pro-gun march with some folks open carrying.

Was that what this bill was trying to address?

So, I took a look and, frankly, I’m not exactly thrilled with what I see.

For one thing, the word “patrolling” is mentioned several times in the press release announcing the bill and is expressly prohibited in the text of the bill, but is never actually defined by the bill. That means the definition of “patrol” is likely to be subjective.

But there’s worse.

For example, from the bill itself:

‘‘§ 2742. Unauthorized private paramilitary activity

‘‘(a) OFFENSE.—It shall be unlawful to knowingly, in a circumstance described in subsection (b), while acting as part of or on behalf of a private paramilitary organization and armed with a firearm, explosive or incendiary de8 vice, or other dangerous weapon—
‘‘(1) publically patrol, drill, or engage in techniques capable of causing bodily injury or death;
‘‘(2) interfere with, interrupt, or attempt to interfere with or interrupt government operations or a government proceeding;
‘‘(3) interfere with or intimidate another person in that person’s exercise of any right under the Constitution of the United States;
‘‘(4) assume the functions of a law enforcement officer, peace officer, or public official, whether or not acting under color of law, and thereby assert authority or purport to assert authority over another person without the consent of that person; or
‘‘(5) train to engage in any activity described in paragraphs (1) through (4).

Now, based on this alone, all sorts of things will fall under this regulation and, theoretically, be prohibited. Arguably, even your kid’s tae kwon do class would be illegal, since that would be training in “techniques capable of causing bodily injury” at a minimum.

Luckily, it’s not quite that stupid. It does require certain other conditions to be met as well. The problem? Those conditions are kind of a low threshold to clear.

Note that the above section clearly states that a circumstance from section (b) must be met, so that seems to say that if any of those apply, we’ve got a problem. I’m not a lawyer, so I may be misreading this, but it seems they’re pretty easy to meet, including crossing state lines, using “instrumentalities of interstate or foreign commerce,” involve a gun or explosive device, uses a so-called-high capacity magazine, or takes place within the United States.

And since the next to last listed uses the word “or” before going on, it makes it pretty clear that only one needs to be met.

The problem here is that just traveling on a road at all could be construed to be using an instrumentality of interstate commerce.

While it’s unlikely to be enforced that way, it sure looks like the fact that you’ll drive to a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu class could meet this criteria.

However, a far more likely issue arises when we look beyond that.

For example, if you’ve never been in the path of a natural disaster, you probably don’t realize what it’s like to find your local law enforcement overwhelmed. People can and do decide to take advantage of that and a lot of people join together to protect their neighborhoods. One could say they patrol the neighborhood.

It would seem this bill would prohibit that.

More than that, though, it seems that a lot of firearm training classes could be negatively impacted. After all, are we not learning “techniques capable of causing bodily injury or death” when we attend? I mean, isn’t that the point?

Plus, you’re going to take a road at some point or another, meeting at least one of the circumstances laid out in the bill, as well as using a firearm–again, that’s kind of the point–and probably a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, which is how the bill defines “high capacity magazine.” Literally any firearm training class seems like it would violate the law.

Any.

Now, again, I’m not a lawyer. It’s possible that there’s some quirk in how this is written that my layman eyes are missing that prevents it from meaning what it sure looks like it means, but I doubt it.

If there’s any good news to be found in this travesty of a bill, it’s that this is in the House, which the GOP controls. What’s on the page right now will likely never come to a vote. The absolute best-case scenario for this bill would be for the committee to gut this thing and rebuild it to not be a complete and total abomination.

Even then, I don’t see this going anywhere. It’s far more likely to get assigned to a committee where it can die a lingering death.

If it doesn’t, the gun training industry is going to need to lawyer up.

Categories
All About Guns Art War

The Martini-Henry – In The Movies

Categories
All About Guns

Mystery Solved? Buchenwald Concentration Camp Gun

Categories
All About Guns

39 Different Smith & Wessons

Categories
Gear & Stuff Gun Info for Rookies

Tyler T-Grip

Categories
Well I thought it was funny!

What the Aussies call a “Keeper!”