The M67 flamethrower tank is one of the iconic American weapon systems from the Vietnam War. Nicknamed the “Zippo,” these flame tanks gave soldiers and Marines a tactical advantage against fortified enemy units.
Since March 7, 1994, the United States Department of Defense has prohibited smoking worldwide in all workplaces and vehicles owned by the Pentagon. Moreover, smoking is even prohibited during basic training. Yet, there was a time when smoking and the U.S. military went hand in hand. During the Second World War, Zippo ceased production of lighters for the consumer market and dedicated all production to the U.S. military. Even today, Zippo produces a line of military-themed commemorative lighters.
However, the lighters aren’t the only connection between Zippo and the U.S. military.
One of the most effective flamethrower tanks in the U.S. military’s arsenal was the “Flame Thrower Tank M67” — more commonly known as the M67 “Zippo.” It saw service with the United States Army, and later by the United States Marine Corps during the war in Vietnam. Though it was the last flamethrower tank used by the U.S. military, it wasn’t actually the first.
A Brief Service History of Flamethrower Tanks
Modern flamethrowers saw their horrific entrance on the battlefield during World War I. German flammenwerfer units experienced moderate successes, prompting the other powers to explore the use of the weapons also. World War I also introduced the tank to the battlefield.
It isn’t any significant surprise to find that the world’s armed forces might want to combine the two. The Soviet Union experimented with flamethrower tanks in the interwar era and adopted several models, including the KhT-27 and the KhT-26 among others.
During the Second World War, the Axis nations of Germany, Italy, and Japan also produced a number of tanks that could shoot flames to varying degrees of success.
The first U.S. flamethrower tank was actually the ominously-named “Satan,” a modified conversion of the M3 Stuart light tank. In place of its main gun, it was fitted with a “Ronson” flamethrower. The M3 Satan was used alongside M4 Sherman tanks that were also fitted with bow-mounted E4-5 flamethrowers to great effect against the heavily entrenched Japanese forces in the Pacific.
United States Marines experienced firsthand the capabilities of flame tanks in the Pacific, as it primarily used tanks in a close infantry support role due to the fact that the type of island hopping campaigns meant there were no significant tank battles — at least not on the scale of those in the European Theater.
During the Korean War, the U.S.M.C. sought a more effective platform to replace the aging M4 Sherman. That led to a request to the development of a M67, which was based on the M48 Patton with its 90mm gun.
Enter the M67
Production of the M67 began in 1952 and continued until 1954. The tank was, however, too late for the war in Korea. Nevertheless, the Marine Corps leadership apparently liked what they saw in the newly designed flame tank. A total of 109 were produced, and while the Army also adopted it briefly, only the Marines actually headed into combat with the flame thrower tank.
What is also notable is that there were actually three versions produced including an M67 on the M48A1 chassis, the M67A1 on the M48A2 chassis, and the M67A2 on the M48A3 chassis. The only difference was in said chassis, as the flamethrower was identical on all models. Each tank weighed around 48 metric tons, a bit heavier than the M48 Patton — due to the flamethrower system and internal fuel tank.
Externally there were a few differences from the basic M48 Patton medium tank.
The M67 was fitted with a flame tube that was actually disguised to resemble a 90mm main gun, albeit the shroud was noticeably wider in diameter and a bit shorter. In hindsight, it was actually somewhat ironic that efforts were made to conceal the flamethrower as it proved to be a terrifying weapon, and one genuinely feared. However, the mock-up gun was fitted to the M67 to disguise it while on the move.
The flame tube was also heavier than the 90mm T54 gun, and though it shared many of the elevation and traverse components that were employed on the M48, the M6 Flame Gun required a complicated shroud, which made the muzzle heavy. This required that a hydraulic equilibrator device be introduced so as to balance the weapon.
Instead of a crew of four that was employed on the M48 Patton, the M67 actually had a crew of three — as it required no loader. Instead, a huge fuel tank was placed in the loader’s position within the turret. This meant that the gunner was charged with operating both the flame gun as well as the coaxial .30 caliber Browning M1919 air-cooled machine gun. It wasn’t an ideal setup, but there weren’t really any other options available.
All tanks can be described as cramped, and the M67 even more so.
Within the turret was a large 398-gallon central “tank,” which held “thickened gasoline,” more commonly known as napalm, which was put under pressure, and ignited by a 24,000-volt electric spark. The total burn time in operation was around a minute, depending on the size of the nozzle employed. Nozzles of 19 mm (.75-inches) and 22 mm (.88-inches) were the most common. The flame tube had an approximate range of 280 yards (256 meters).
Due to the fact that the M67 didn’t need to carry standard ordnance, the ammunition racks for the 90mm ammunition to the left and right of the driver were removed and replaced by stowage bays. This allowed for tools, spare parts for the equipment, and ammunition for the machine gun to be stored.
Baby, Won’t You Light My Fire
In what can only be described as perhaps one of the most bizarre coincidences in modern military history, in January 1967 the American rock band The Doors released their hit single “Light My Fire.” The song would go on to spend three weeks at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 Chart later that same year, and while not as potent of an anti-war song as the group’s “The Unknown Soldier,” it has come to be associated with the Vietnam War.
It was, of course, in that conflict where the M67 Zippo saw its only actions.
Details are sparse on how many of the flamethrower tanks were actually sent to Southeast Asia, but it was first employed in combat in August 1965 during Operation Starlite, the Battle of Van Tuong. It was the U.S. military’s first major action in the war, and during the battle, a number of M67s were ambushed and destroyed.
It wasn’t an ominous baptism of fire, yet the M67 did prove to be well-suited to the guerilla nature of the Vietnam War, and it was often employed to incinerate patches of jungle that may have concealed an enemy position. Such attacks took on the name “Rods of Flame,” and the Zippo was widely feared by the Viet Cong forces.
Urban Combat with the Zippo
It wasn’t just in the jungles where the M67 saw success.
During Operation Dozer, and the Battle of Hue, a pair of M67 Zippos accompanied by a number of M48 Patton tanks led the armored strike into the ancient Vietnamese city. The M67 proved even better suited to the urban combat in Hue than it did in the jungles. However, throughout its service, the M67 needed to be accompanied by a pair of 2 1/2 ton trucks that carried the equipment and supplies for the flamethrower. In most cases, one truck would carry the Napalm supply, while another would be employed to recharge the compressed air system. The need for such support restricted the type of operations where the tank could be used, while it also meant that efforts needed to be made to protect those trucks.
Another issue that limited the success of the M67 was that the flamethrower was noisy — even by tank standards. When the flamethrower was in use, the level of the internal noise within the vehicle was so loud that the commander and gunner would barely hear each other over the intercom. There are reports of tank commanders putting their heads out of the turret so as to direct the gunner. In a firefight that was also far from ideal.
Legacy of the M67
The M67 wasn’t actually the only armored flamethrower to see service in the war. The other was the Self-Propelled Flame Thrower M132, a modified M113 armored personnel carrier (APC), which was fitted with much of the same equipment. It was employed in a limited role by the United States Army. However, the Army never had the same faith or success with the M132 as the Marines did with the M67.
Soon after the U.S. withdrew its forces from Southeast Asia, the Zippo was essentially snuffed out. The M67 was officially retired from service in 1974 without a replacement. It was the last flamethrower tank to be employed by the U.S. military.
Of the 109 that were produced, it is an actual mystery as to how many actually survive. According to Tanks-Encyclopedia.com, one was on display at the now-closed U.S. Army Ordnance Museum at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. All of the vehicles have been relocated to Fort Benning, Georgia — but as of press time, the M67 Zippo isn’t believed to be on display. Another can now be found outside the Engineering School at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
These serve as the final reminders of the M67 Zippo.
A 21-year-old man by the name of Elivelton Neves Moreira, is seen in footage (attached below) approaching a group of women and children outside of a school in São Paulo, Brazil.
Moreira was wielding a firearm with the intent to rob them, swiftly approaching the group with his gun pointed directly at them.
However, unbeknownst to Moreira, one of the mothers was packing heat of her own.
Katia da Silva Sastre is a 42-year-old off-duty military police officer and intervened at the most pristine time, whipping out her gun and firing shots at Moreira.
Moreira fell to the ground, dropping his gun and gripping on to his chest in very visible pain.
Katia da Silva Sastre approached the fallen Moreira, kicked his gun out of reach, and circled around to the other side of his body, kicking him over on his stomach, pinning him to the ground with her foot as she awaited backup.
Moreira passed away from his injuries later while at the hospital.
Don’t let a perceivably ‘weak’ crowd fool ya!
Check this out –
The shape of the integral hammer shroud on a Bodyguard creates a stop point at
the web of the hand, which keeps gun from rolling up in the grasp during recoil.
If you think the double action revolver is obsolete for self-defense purposes, you’ve spent too much time listening to the wrong sources. Trainers who do the courses to certify people for concealed carry permits tell me the short-barrel revolver is among the most popular guns with their students, and in some classes, the most popular. From NYPD to Chicago PD to LAPD, the “snub-nose .38” is still the most common backup gun among uniformed cops, and one of the most popular styles as a primary weapon for off-duty carry.
Over the years the Taurus Model 85 series of 2″, five-shot wheel guns has been consistently its best seller. Smith & Wesson is famous for its multiple styles of successful semiautomatics, and literally introduced the big Magnum type revolver, but still one of their best-selling lines is the J-frame: a small, five shot revolver generally produced with a barrel measuring 1 3/8″.
A little recognized advantage of the hammerless. Note how bore axis sits in relation
to hand and wrist with conventional J-frame, a Model 37 S&W Airweight .38, but
with web of hand all the way up on higher backstrap of “hammerless” S&W Centennial style
Model 340 M&P .357, bore axis is significantly lowered, giving shooter
much better control of muzzle rise in hard kicking rapid fire.
Variety
You can get small frame “snubbies” in a wide variety of calibers, though .38 Special is the traditional choice with .357 Magnum rising in popularity. You can also get them in a lot of brands. I knew a security professional in New York whose Charter Arms Undercover .38 saved his life when a psycho killer got his service weapon away from him. One friend of mine owes his life to a 2″ Colt Detective Special, with which he outdrew and instantly killed an armed robber who started the encounter by pointing a gun at his head. I debriefed two brothers in Virginia who killed a pair of vicious professional armed robbers who were holding up their jewelry store: the brothers returned a withering hail of fire with multiple Rossi fiveshot .38 snubs until one of them could unlimber a 12 gauge to finish off the last of these dangerous felons. A California Highway Patrolman of my acquaintance killed a man who had already wounded him and was reaching for the Patrolman’s dropped duty handgun when a Smith & Wesson 2″ Model 36 came into the CHP man’s hand, fatally ending the fight with five hits for five shots.
I guess what I’m saying is, the brand of snubby you carry may be less important than its configuration. There have been cases where the shape of the gun caused problems, such as snagging on a coat lining or a pocket lining when its legitimate user desperately needed to quickly clear it to save his life. You want to have a gun that is built and shaped for your particular needs.
The four formats. From top, spur hammer (Taurus 85 Ultra-Lite .38 Spl.), spurless exposed hammer (Ruger SP101 .357), shrouded hammer (.38 Spl. S&W Model 638), and “hammerless” (S&W Centennial Airweight Model 642 .38 Spl.).
The Four Formats
Unlike larger service, target, and hunting revolvers, double action small frame models can be had in four different configurations. Not every maker produces all four, but most have produced at least two and two do offer all four choices.
Those choices are: (1) Conventional, with spurred hammer, it can be thumbcocked for a light, short, single-action trigger pull. (2) Spurless hammer, in which the hammer is exposed but has no extension for the thumb to grasp for cocking. These may or may not be truly double action only in terms of internal mechanism, depending on the manufacturer and even the given production run. (3) Shrouded hammer, in which only the very tip of a hammer spur is exposed to the thumb for single action cocking, with the rest of that part shielded in a manner that renders it snag-free when the gun is drawn. (4) “Hammerless” designs, so called because even though there actually is a true hammer in the mechanism, it is completely enclosed inside the gun’s frame and not accessible to the hand
when shooting. The “hammerless” is a true “double action only” design.
Here, conventional hammer spur (on Ruger SP101 .327 Magnum) is easiest and
safest of all. Thumb on hammer spur allows trigger finger to be safely clear of guard.
Author has found no safe way to rotation check a “hammerless.” Note that
cylinder-turning hand is ALWAYS well behind the muzzle, muzzle ALWAYS in a safe direction.
No conventional spur hammer style revolver is more famous than S&W Chief’s
Special, this one being the new Classic version of the all steel Model 36.
Hammer Spur Style
This is your conventional double action revolver style as generally encountered with larger guns of the type. The hammer has an extruded strut called a “spur.” It is designed for the shooter’s thumb to “ear it back” for a careful, single-action precision shot. The cocked revolver will have a much shorter and lighter trigger pull than when fired double action, which requires a longer, heavier pull that rotates the cylinder and raises the hammer before dropping it to fire the next cartridge in line. In single action, the cylinder-turning and hammer-raising labor is done by the thumb, leaving much lighter work for the trigger finger.
With a light trigger pull, the good news is, “It’s easy to shoot,” and the bad news is … It’s easy to shoot.” Cocked revolvers led to so many accidental and/or negligent discharges over the years that a huge number of police departments had theirs altered to double action only. LAPD was the first of these, followed by New York City, Miami PD, and even Montreal. When this hit the radar screen of anti-cop lawyers, there arose a new and underhanded tactic: claiming that the shooter had cocked the gun and accidentally fired it even when they had in fact deliberately fired in double action. The reason was simple: in court, the most outrageous BS argument can be dignified as “plaintiff’s theory of the case” and given weight and credence, and it is established at law that while there can certainly be justifiable deliberate shootings in defense of self or others, there is no such defense as “justifiable accident.”
Some people who have not yet mastered double action shooting feel it’s imperative to have single-action cocking capability if they need a precisely accurate shot. As a rule, precisely accurate shots demand a different tool than a small-frame, short barrel revolver with short sight radius, but hey – I don’t make other folks’ decisions for them.
Cocked hammer, shown here on .357 Colt Magnum Carry, has become associated over
the years with unintended “hair trigger” discharges.
Retention Issues
The hammer spur has its uses apart from cocking the gun. Most thumb-snap holsters secure on the hammer spur, and if it is cut away,
the holster will no longer securely hold the gun. We old-time revolver shooters also like to perform “cylinder rotation checks” when we “load for serious purposes.” This means the hammer or trigger has to be drawn back just enough to lower the bolt stop, allowing the cylinder to turn freely and assure the user that there are no high primers that will lock up the gun he or she may need to fire tonight to save their life. Retracting the hammer slightly is the easiest and safest way to do it.
I own a number of revolvers that have been rendered double action only internally and which cannot be thumb-cocked, but still have the hammer spur so they’ll secure on holster safety straps and allow a perfectly safe cylinder rotation check.
Long before the cocked, lighttrigger revolver was recognized as having civil liability potential, street-wise cops and armed citizens had realized when drawn from concealment, the hammer spur could catch on fabric and stall their draw, perhaps fatally. One of the great police gunfighting authorities of the mid-Twentieth Century, Inspector Paul B. Weston of the NYPD, was perhaps the
first to point out a conventional revolver’s hammer spur was shaped remarkably like a fish-hook. Though it could snag on a coat lining, it was more likely to catch on a pocket lining. For about a century and a half, coat and pants pockets have been among the natural homes of compact defense revolvers.
Back in the Old West, the deadly gunfighter John Wesley Hardin was captured on a train by plainclothes cops. He tried to draw his Colt, but legend says the hammer spur caught on the watch chain on his vest and stalled his draw, allowing the officers to disarm him and capture him without losing any of their own. That time, it worked in favor of the good guys but, historically, good guys have realized the same mistakes could happen to them. This is why spur-hammer revolvers have fallen out of favor with those professionals on the side of law and order, at least for concealed carry needs and particularly for pocket carry.
Owning a conventional spurhammer revolver doesn’t mean you’re doomed to die from a stalled draw. When pulling one of these from a pocket, you simply put your thumb on the tip of the hammer spur. This doesn’t mean you’re going to cock the gun as soon as it clears, it means your thumb will act as a “human hammer shroud” to keep the spur from snagging. One of Inspector Weston’s contemporaries, the brilliant holster designer and fast draw champion Chic Gaylord, recognized and recommended this technique back in the 1950s.
Cylinder rotation check is trickier with exposed, spurless hammer, such as Cylinder & Slide
Custom Colt Detective Special shown here. Trigger finger must bring trigger back as shown,
dangerous on a loaded revolver, but at least thumb on flat of bobbed hammer can prevent
it from coming back enough to fire.
Spurless Hammer
With the snag-free draw in mind, some manufacturers began producing double action revolvers with spurless hammers a century or more ago. These days, several companies produce spurless wheelguns: Smith & Wesson (special production runs), Ruger (a regular option in their catalog for their compact SP101), and Taurus with their popular CH line. Charter Arms in its current Charco incarnation likewise offers this option. Even Colt offered such a variation in the last days of their late, great small frame revolver line. I may have missed one or more makers — it’s a popular feature. Countless professionals have “bobbed” conventional hammers by removing the spur.
As noted above, a holster designed with a safety strap that secures on the hammer of a conventional style revolver probably won’t hold it securely once the spur is no longer there. If you want a secure holster for such a snubby, one of the best is the SERPA from Blackhawk !’s CQC line, which secures on the trigger guard internally and is released by a discreet paddle button on the outside of the holster. This holster also works wonderfully with the shrouded hammer and internal hammer style revolvers we’ll discuss momentarily.
Hammer spur on this Colt has snagged on shirt button during draw from
belly-band. Spurless hammer, shrouded hammer, or “hammerless” designs
all eliminate this danger.
This discontinued Colt snubby has snagged on the draw, with hammer
spur caught in pocket lining. This danger was the original reason spurless
hammers came into fashion among professionals.
With thumb on hammer, this standard configuration Taurus 5-shot .44
Special snub can be safely pocketed or holstered. Drawing the same way,
the thumb acts as a “human hammer shroud.”
Too Fast?
In the old days, people who just practiced quick draw and shooting figured it would be a good idea to leave the single-action capability in place internally, and perhaps checker or groove the top edge of the “stump” of the hammer to allow cocking. This entailed pulling the trigger back “slightly” to raise the hammer enough for the thumb to get a good grasp.
Two real world elements were missing from this theory. One is that under stress, damn few people can pull a defense gun’s trigger “lightly.” This practice literally sets the stage for an unintended discharge. Second, the theory overlooked the fact that we often draw without having to fire, and uncocking the revolver without a hammer spur is literally a prescription for disaster. I strongly recommend spurless hammer revolvers be double action only (the way most manufacturers produce them today) to prevent these potential catastrophes.
One final advantage of this format is with neither hammer spur nor “frame hump,” one potential “bulge point” is somewhat reduced.
If you simply must have the “lowest profile possible” in your small-frame concealment revolver, the spurless hammer style may be what you want.
Cylinder rotation checks are tricky with spurless hammers. The thumb must press firmly down on the hammer as the trigger is brought back just enough to free up the cylinder. If doing this with a loaded revolver gives you the creeps, don’t feel bad; that makes two of us.
The defining “shrouded hammer” revolver is S&W’s Bodyguard, this one
being current production Model 638 Airweight .38 Special.
The shrouded hammer of the Bodyguard. This one is current production Model 638 Airweight.
Shrouded Hammer Style
In the mid-20th Century, Colt came up with a bolt-on device to shroud the hammer of their small frame pocket revolvers, such as the Detective Special and the Cobra. They called it, appropriately enough, a “hammer shroud.” It could be installed at the factory, or retrofitted by a gunsmith or even a mechanically skilled end user, by drilling and tapping three holes in the frame, two on either side of the frame below the rear sight, and one at the upper rear of the grip-frame’s backstrap. Leaving only the very tip of the hammer exposed, it allowed single action thumb-cocking, but effectively prevented hammer snag.
S&W saw its popularity, and countered in 1955 with the introduction of their Bodyguard series of small-frame .38s, with a built-in hammer shroud that was much sleeker than the Colt design, and used a differently shaped hammer presented a “cocking button” to the thumb. The downside was hammer shrouds, bolt-on or integral, literally collected “dust bunnies.” The modular Colt was easier to clean, and Bodyguard users who were wise learned to run a Q-Tip™ or a pipe cleaner in there regularly. The shroud of either brand could even pick up coins from the pocket the gun was carried in, though the hammer’s movement would usually just throw the coin
clear when the trigger was pulled.
While this design allows single action cocking, it brings with it all the legal baggage conventional double/single action design carries in that regard. Since only a tiny bit of hammer or “cocking button” was available to the thumb, it didn’t give much assurance of holding the hammer down when the revolver was holstered, if something got in the way of the trigger en route. One advantage over conventional styles was the shroud would catch the web of the hand if the grip turned upward in rapid fire, minimizing the gun shifting in the shooter’s grasp during rapid fire, and of course, there was no hammer spur to catch on the web of the hand and prevent the next shot if the gun did twist upward too much in the hand upon recoil. The Colt and its hammer shroud (which also fit many models of the Charter Arms revolver) are no longer available, but the S&W Bodyguard has remained in continuous production for more than half a century.
Note how much higher the hand can grasp a “hammerless” such as this Model 442 Centennial.
Hammerless Style
Circa 1887, Smith & Wesson introduced the New Departure Safety Hammerless, a top-break revolver with a long, heavy double action trigger pull; a grip safety which became known as the “lemonsqueezer,” and, most enduringly, an internal hammer completely shielded within and inaccessible to the user’s hand. The intent was to create a handgun a child couldn’t fire, and the double action only/ completely enclosed hammer design was to prevent the little ones from cocking the hammer and creating a trigger pull light enough for them to actuate. However, what really sold the gun was its totally snagfree profile.
By WWII, this old top-break relic was history. Not for long though, OSS trainer Rex Applegate got into a shooting in Mexico after the War that changed things. He was carrying a Safety Hammerless chambered for the feeble .38 S&W cartridge because the little snag-free gun was easy to draw quickly in a tropical climate, and when he was attacked by a local with a machete he emptied the gun into him before the attacker went down. He suggested to his friend Carl Hellstrom, then CEO of S&W, the hammerless design should be
adapted to the little J-frame Smith & Wesson had come out with in 1950 for the conventional spurhammer Chiefs Special revolver. Thus, in 1952, the centennial year of a company founded in 1852, was the Smith & Wesson Centennial born.
It was before its time. Why buy a snag-free little revolver capable of shooting only one way when for the same price you could get a
snag-free little S&W in the same caliber that shot both ways? That was the conventional wisdom that killed the Centennial in 1974,
while the Bodyguard still sold well enough to stay in the S&W catalog without interruption. Almost immediately, however, a cult
following developed around the Centennial, and gunwriter Wiley Clapp led the public charge to get the “hammerless” Centennial reintroduced in 1990. In its various shapes, weights, and calibers, it has been the single best-selling S&W handgun ever since.
Cylinder rotation check can be safely accomplished with finger out of trigger
guard on this shrouded hammer S&W Bodyguard. Thumb has held “cocking
button” back enough to drop the cylinder bolt.
Lemon Squeezer
The “lemon squeezer” grip safety was gone (though it would reappear on the “retro” Classic series Model 40-1 of 2007). The Centennial sells in today’s environment because (A) it’s as snag free as you get (B) it can’t be cocked, exposing you to either “hair trigger accidental discharges” or false accusations of same, and (C) because the rear of the grip-frame rises higher than any other small frame revolver, the barrel sits on a lower axis to the wrist and forearm, giving the shooter palpably more recoil control in rapid fire.
The downside is you have to pull the trigger of a loaded gun to do a cylinder rotation check on a “hammerless.” I for one don’t do it. I load the gun, check by fingertip feel on the back of the cartridges for high primers, and close the cylinder. I trust the manufacturing skill of Smith & Wesson (and of Taurus, which makes a similar model called the CIA, which stands for “Carry It = Anywhere”) more than I trust any human hand including my own under pressure.
Thumb on exposed portion of shrouded hammer (S&W 638) has brought
it back enough to drop the bolt and free cylinder for rotation.
Choices Aplenty
Each of us makes our choice according to both our needs and our abilities. In my case, for example, I need a reliable pocket-size revolver. I’ve paid through training, practice, and competition for the ability to shoot it as well double action as I can single action. Therefore, for my personal needs, double action only is my choice. It’s generally one or another S&W Centennial for the
pocket gun, and when working for the police department, the .357 Magnum spurless hammer Ruger SP101 I was issued for backup purposes.
Your needs may differ. In a world where the small-frame, short barrel, double action revolver has proven itself valid for so very many decades, only the individual user can determine exactly which of the four primary formats will fit his or her specific mix of purpose and capability. And don’t forget you have to practice, practice and practice some more.
Categories
History’s Guns: The Steyr AUG
“A California appeals court [Fourth Appellate District, Division One Court of Appeal of California] ruled Friday that the state may continue sharing the personal information of gun owners with ‘gun violence’ researchers,” The Western Journal reports. “California’s Department of Justice had been permitted to share ‘identifying information of more than 4 million gun owners’ collected by the state during the background check process for firearms purchases with ‘qualified research institutions,’ ostensibly to aid in the study of gun-related accidents, suicides and violence.”
The “personal information” includes “names, addresses, phone numbers, and any criminal records, among other things.” What “other things”?
Per the bill that “authorized” this massive privacy intrusion against citizens for claiming their rights (Assembly Bill No. 173), those include “a database of gun violence restraining orders, and a database of firearm precursor parts purchases.” In other words, that will include people who have never been charged with or tried for a crime, let alone convicted, and will identify people who bought parts that may later be declared verboten.
And more, but you have to go to the court opinion to see how much:
“The DROS [Dealer Record of Sale] system and the associated AFS [Automated Firearms System] and APRF [Ammunition Purchase Records File] databases create a unique data set regarding gun and ammunition ownership not available anywhere else. Researchers in California have used this data to conduct empirical research regarding firearm-related violence for some time.”
“The court’s decision is a victory in our ongoing efforts to prevent gun violence,” Attorney General Rob Bonta Bonta crowed in a media release. “AB 173’s information-sharing serves the important goal of enabling research that supports informed policymaking aimed at reducing and preventing firearm violence. Research and data are vital in our efforts to prevent gun violence in California and provide a clear path to help us save lives.”
Left unsaid is how Bonta’s DOJ incompetently keeping databases on gun owners has already demonstrably exposed and endangered them.
“California’s Department of Justice mistakenly posted the names, addresses and birthdays of nearly 200,000 gun owners on the internet because officials didn’t follow policies or understand how to operate their website,” the Associated Press reported last December. California Rifle and Pistol Association President Chuck Michel “noted the leaked data likely included information from people in sensitive positions — including judges, law enforcement personnel and domestic violence victims — who had sought gun permits.”
As for who the “researcher” is privy to the data, per AB 173:
“This bill would name the center for research into firearm-related violence the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis. The bill would generally require that the information above be made available to the center and researchers affiliated with the center, and, at the department’s discretion, to any other nonprofit bona fide research institution accredited by the United States Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, as specified, for the study of the prevention of violence.”
That pretty much guarantees whose yard they’ll be playing in, and that suits someone who is no stranger to this correspondent just fine.
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING
“The court’s decision is an important victory for science,” University of California’s Davis California Firearm Violence Research Center Chair Garen Wintemute declared. It’s more like an “important victory” for “agenda science”…
Back in 2007, I warned gun show attendees that Wintemute was surreptitiously eavesdropping on and recording gun show transactions to report them to authorities and justify banning private sales. I saw this as a violation of gun show rules and recommended notifying security if anyone saw it happen. He told Slate it was a “Wanted poster” and tied that in with threats against his life and that “federal law enforcement agents recommended that I wear a ballistic vest.” There was also the false accusation that I had “outed” him. The end result was the science journal Nature felt compelled to publish a (incomplete) retraction.
Call the guy a “researcher” and a scientist” if you like. I prefer “prohibitionist” and “apparatchik.” And drama queen.
Reason warned against AB 173 back when Gov. Gavin Newsom first signed it into “law.”
While acknowledging that “the law also insists that ‘Material identifying individuals shall only be provided for research or statistical activities and shall not be transferred, revealed, or used for purposes other than research or statistical activities, and reports or publications derived therefrom shall not identify specific individuals,’” they made another important observation:
“[A] gun owner might understandably not be thrilled that people in the business of coming up with reasons why no one should be allowed to own guns (largely true of people in the ‘gun violence research’ field) can easily know their name, address, and all the weapons, parts, and ammo they bought legally. What’s more, nothing in the law as written applies any stern level of oversight or punishment over misuse of the information.”
That “misuse” can be deliberate by activists gone wild or due to lax/incompetent security protocols. And it’s not like sensitive and supposedly secure government systems at the highest levels can’t be breached and hacked by anyone, from cyber criminals to foreign enemies. It’s not like names, addresses, and lists don’t have real-world street value, and it would be just like the prohibitionists to have their efforts actually increase violence and its incentives.
It also looks like it might be a good way for someone with list access and an agenda to call in an anonymous tip and give police “probable cause” for sending out militarized confiscation teams. It’s not like law enforcement won’t do so with information targeting owners of previously registered but now prohibited items.
A truism about “gun control” laws is that criminals don’t obey them, and they end up infringing on those who have. A case in point is 1968’s Haynes v. U.S., in which the Supreme Court (correctly, if you think about it) decided that forcing a convicted felon to register an NFA weapons he was prohibited by law from possessing violated his Fifth Amendment-recognized right against self-incrimination. So, oath-breaker Bonta’s vaunted database, relied on by the Davis gun show mole and his gaggle of anti-gun eggheads, by design, does not include the very reprobates initiating the lion’s share of the “gun violence” they’re purporting to “study”—California’s armed-to-the-teeth criminals who get their guns the old-fashioned way, by breaking the law.
It’s all Kabuki theater designed to divvy up the tax plunder and subject a population they hold in contempt (and, truth be known, fear) – gun owners – to more demoralizing in-your-face harassment.
There’s another break afforded exclusively to criminal suspects, the reading of their “Miranda rights.” Noting another well-documented prohibitionist tactic, declaring what was once legal to now be banned, gun owners buying what could be prohibited later should be advised that whatever they admit to on a required registration form can and will be used against them in a court of law if the Democrats get their way.