Remember, we live in a land governed by our Constitution, and only our Supreme Court has the final say on exactly what the individual parts of the Constitution mean. It doesn’t matter what any of us thinks as an individual, or if we do or don’t agree with a court ruling. Any law, as interpreted by this highest court in the land, is a law we must all obey. The only way the Constitution can be legally altered is via amendment. Therefore, if individuals or groups don’t agree with any segment of the Constitution, they should either accept it or try to change it via an amendment. — from Gun control: Watch out for that first step at blueridgenow.com
BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys for Glock, Inc. have filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the Second Amendment Foundation’s case in California, Pena v. Lindley, a lawsuit challenging the state handgun roster requirements that include microstamping and magazine disconnects. Read the rest of the press release here.
Some local officials in the tiny town of Exeter, Rhode Island are feeling the heat for what some perceive was a Second Amendment infringing measure, and may lose their jobs over it. Four of the five town council members are facing recall after asking the state’s General Assembly to allow the state attorney general to process the applications for concealed weapon permits. Under current law, those seeking a permit may apply to either the attorney general or their local police. Since Exeter doesn’t have a police department, the job now falls to the town clerk. The four council members argued that the clerk — also the town’s lone elected sergeant — lacks the resources to conduct proper background checks. Gun owners say the change will make it harder to get permits, and are angry. The difference is that by state law, local authorities “shall issue” permits, while the attorney general “may issue” permits. This certainly seems to be one more example of gun owners who are sick of giving up their freedoms, and are determined to do what they have to in order to keep them.
OK, I’m going to warn you. This story doesn’t have guns in it. But it’s pretty funny. KTAR, the Voice of Arizona, reports that two men are in custody following a high speed chase in Pinal County Sunday night. Officers got a call about people loading marijuana into a car near I-8. When officers arrived, the vehicle sped away, reaching speeds of 100 mph. The car eventually stopped. Sherriff’s spokesman Tim Gaffney says the driver, 25-year-old Ruben Soto-Gonzalez, ran through a nearby dairy farm and was tripped by a farm worker, causing him to fall face down in manure and to be stepped on by a startled cow. The passenger, 40-year-old Daniel Aguilar-Alvarez, was found hiding under a bush. Inside the vehicle, deputies found 160 pounds of marijuana worth $120,000. The cop probably had a gun. That’s my hook to TTAG.
Guns.com has a recap of a series of tests done by Ballistics By The Inch (BBTI) to see if polygonal rifling is really as good as its proponents insist. They took two 18″ barrels, one of each type, and tested several types of ammo in it. They then chopped an inch off, recrowned, and tested again, repeating this process until there was only 2″ left. The goal was to see if at any point polygonal rifling delivered higher muzzle velocities than traditional rifling, and with what consistency. Go here to read the guns.com writeup, and for that test plus brain-melting amounts of additional data, the full BBTI site.
Richard Ryan torture tests a Samsung Galaxy Gear watch and then puts a hole in it with an HK417. As far as a destruction video goes, it’s not terribly interesting; he’s done much better ones. However, what I did find interesting was how much the scope and mount walked around under recoil during the slow-motion part of the video. You can see the front end of the cantilever mount flex down toward the top rail, the whole scope pushes forward and down, and I seriously expected the top turret to come flying right off. Pretty crazy.
.
Exeter. Home of one of the nation’s most elite prep schools. This is my surprised face.
My apologies. Wrong Exeter.
Philips Exeter is actually in Exeter, New Hampshire, not Exeter, Rhode Island.
And we know what wonderful goodies come from Exeter, NH.
Well, apparently I’ve been living under a rock. The only other time I remember any Exeter mentioned in any Lamestream Media it was about flying saucer sightings. Is that what you’re referring to?
Exeter, NH is the US home of Sig Sauer.
They’ve made SIGs there since 1990.
SBR full auto .308? sign me up! then sign me up for obamacare so i can get my shoulder popped back into its socket.
To donate to the Exeter recall election, go to rifol.org/pac.php
Yeah, I made mention of the scope/mount flex/turret dance as well in the comments section. Additionally, one of the scenes seems to show the bolt not going back into battery completely until the trigger is released. What’s up with that?
I wondered the same thing re: the bolt. I was going to ask, but didn’t want to demonstrate my ignorance.
That was a cool write up on L&G versus polygonal rifling.
Love that stuff.
“Remember, we live in a land governed by our Constitution, and only our Supreme Court has the final say on exactly what the individual parts of the Constitution mean. It doesn’t matter what any of us thinks as an individual, or if we do or don’t agree with a court ruling. Any law, as interpreted by this highest court in the land, is a law we must all obey. The only way the Constitution can be legally altered is via amendment. Therefore, if individuals or groups don’t agree with any segment of the Constitution, they should either accept it or try to change it via an amendment. — from Gun control: Watch out for that first step at blueridgenow.com”
Somebody at blueridgenow.com needs some serious constitutional reeducation.
“and only our Supreme Court has the final say on exactly what the individual parts of the Constitution mean”
No, only the Constitution has the final say on what its parts mean, and that is they mean exactly what they say.
” It doesn’t matter what any of us thinks as an individual, or if we do or don’t agree with a court ruling. Any law, as interpreted by this highest court in the land, is a law we must all obey.”
This is purest BS. The author completely ignores articles 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights:
“Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
It is not subject to the whims of a progresslve-loaded gang of supremes. Any law which extends beyond the powers expressly granted to the Federales by the Constitution are null and void by definition.
We have recourse in various levels of Nullification down to personal nullification, and as a last resort, outright secession.
So we’ve got a ways to go before an actual armed uprising is necessary. All we need to do is cut off the head of the beast – quarantine Washington DC and render them and their little empire irrelevant.
“No, only the Constitution has the final say on what its parts mean, and that is they mean exactly what they say.”
Uh huh, and since the Constitution can’t fucking talk, the final arbiter of constitutional law is the US Supreme Court. I know it’s gotten a little muddy lately, but let’s go back to like third grade: the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, the judicial branch interprets the laws.
As for the rest of your jibber-jabber… I don’t have the energy.
Although I do think it’s somewhat sad this is the last post of the day, because I’d like you to have just one more chance to insert that nullification link to another post, so you can make a nice even half dozen times for the day.
Nowhere in the constitution is scotus allotted power to determine constitutionality. The scotus also is not allowed to delegate itself powers not granted it. Per the constitution, those powers are the province of the states or the people. We need to stop the apathy and reclaim that power.
It depends how the individual wishes to interpret if a law is good or bad, and what they intend to do about it. If the Supreme Court declares the 2nd null and void, I really don’t think that would be the final say for the (mostly armed and ANGRY) populace. There would be an ugly body count, come enforcement time.
No, you’re right, but it’s a matter of degree. The editorial was written in the spirit that we are still a nation of laws with a system that works, and we are, mostly. On the other hand, the point of the full editorial was that if the law of the land is “shall not be infringed,” then every step the grabbers take beyond that is against the law at its most basic level, and therefore an assault on the system itself. Although the author doesn’t couch it in these terms, I interpreted that to mean that if the people in power disregard the system on a regular basis, how long can the system be expected to last?
We had a post on Saturday that had a fantastic one minute video that said basically the same thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ImvKIR5cyA
“If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”
“Uh huh, and since the Constitution can’t fucking talk, the final arbiter of constitutional law is the US Supreme Court. I know it’s gotten a little muddy lately, but let’s go back to like third grade: the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, the judicial branch interprets the laws.”
All of whose very existence is the result of the states delegating certain enumerated powers to it
by way of the Constitution. You’re simply parroting the party line there. “Well, the supremes say that the Constitution says something other than it says, so you MUST OBEY, since they’re the final authority.” Well, let that steaming pile of fecal matter go have sex with itself.
We are a Constitutional Republic, governed by Rule of Law, not rule of men.
That’s what the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is for, to enforce the CVonstitution and protect itself against domestic enemies, which we seem to be up to our asses in.
What we need to do is get off our complacency and whole-heartedly embrace Nullification. and be done with the DC thugs once and for all.
“the final arbiter of constitutional law is the US Supreme Court”
You want to quote the part of the Constitution that gives them that power?
They have assumed that power, usurped that power, but that does not make it legitimately theirs
You’re right, and people often forget that. It’s been “the way things are” for so long that many people don’t know it wasn’t originally written that way.
So how does “the way things are” get changed? Can it be changed? What mechanism is there under our existing system to fix the situation?
Unfortunately, no serious political effort has been made to contest the Court’s claim of exclusive privilege in more than a century – with the exception of Massive Resistance, which only gave the effort a bad name. But there is an honorable tradition of arguing that the people, not the Court, have the final say on constitutional matters. Here is a relevant portion of Lincoln’s famous speech against the Court’s decision in Dred Scott in 1857:
“If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent. But when, as it is true we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country.”
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-on-the-dred-scott-decision/
In other words, a judicial decision that is more like usurpation is not sufficient to decide a constitutional question, even if that decision is made repeatedly. Settling a constitutional question generally requires much more – including unanimity of the court; lack of partisan bias; a solid foundation on historical fact; and a consistency with our longstanding legal practices.
The Court blatantly broke with this approach in the 1930’s and 40’s, and has continued to do so ever since. (The Heller and McDonald decisions are exceptions to the rule.)
That, and the Zero’s antics, are the primary motivation behind the “Tenther Movement,” who are advocating Nullificaton of unconstitutional laws and imperial edicts.
One more! One more! One more!
😀
Matt in FL says:
“One more! One more! One more! ”
How’s this?
http://tomwoods.com/blog/interview-with-a-zombie/
http://youtu.be/TrcM5exDxcc
As for the rest of your jibber-jabber… I don’t have the knowledge.
Fixed.
Stick to what you are descent at, the daily digest.
The final arbiter is actually the state governments as the Constitution is a contract between them.
The average actual speed on the interstates in AZ is somewhere north of 80, so 100 is not exactly screaming. I am seriously curious why they decided to do a hi viz drug deal near a major interstate when there are literally thousands of miles of desert in every possible direction.
Using to much of their own product? Or judging by their names(I know, pc minefield) Maybe they’re used to doing business where the cops are bought and paid for. Forgot they weren’t in Mexico.
Ol’ Jose baby and his compadres probably became complacent because they got away with it so many times. Besides, ‘stupid is as stupid does’.
Last time I drove through the posted was 75, and outside of ABQ, 90+ was the default setting.
“Any law, as interpreted by this highest court in the land, is a law we must all obey.” Really? Any law? You will blindly obey whatever your masters in Washington command?
I recommend all of you go read the full editorial from which that came, and then climb down off your high horses. You see, that guy is making the argument that gun control legislation can’t just be created out of whole cloth, in opposition to what should be the law of the land, which is the Constitution. His point is we have a system, and that system has rules, and everything you go off half-cocked and say about nullification, and ignoring the rules, and “I don’t have to do it if I don’t agree” can be turned right around and used against you by those who would create new laws in defiance of those rules. If you can ignore how the USSC interprets a given law because you disagree, what’s to stop Obama (or anyone else) from doing the exact same damn thing from the other direction?
Rough day?
Not even a little. That definitely came off a little stronger than I really intended. Such is life.
Matt,
And that is why some of us like you, Robert and the rest. There’s no guessing where you come from or what you mean.
” what’s to stop Obama from doing the exact same damn thing”
Uh, hello? Maybe a “Well-regulated Militia?” Maybe the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms? Maybe people who don’t just roll over and say, “Thank you sir may I have another?”
And maybe, just maybe, State Nullification. And if worse comes to worst, outright secession and armed restoration of Constitutional Law to its right place as the Supreme Law of the Land. Do the feds really have enough firepower and manpower to engage in a full-on coup on 48 fronts simultaneously? Manpower comprising American men and women? And Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers, and Oath Keepers, and Me, and whoever?
Maybe. Or maybe not; it will depend on how many people sane up in time.
No, I agree with you about those “extreme steps,” and I obviously did a poor job of getting that across. My fault for speaking rashly and quickly. I took the point of the editorial to be a cautionary tale. The point being that yes, those options are available, and every time those in power abuse that power against the law of the land it weakens the system just a little more. Right now, armed insurrection and the like are beyond the pale as far as reasonable, rational responses go. But every usurpation of power is a nudge in that direction. So, as I said, a cautionary tale. To the grabbers. Do it right (amend the Constitution) or live under the existing law in peace. Because doing it incrementally and illegally is an assault to the system, and the system is not invincible. It cannot long stand a continuous assault against its very foundation.
I linked to it elsewhere in here, but I’m going to do it again, the video from a post here on Saturday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ImvKIR5cyA
“If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxP1irQFdto
Nullification is very valid. After all, any law that is unconstitutional really doesn’t carry the force of law. If the Federal Government usurps a power that is not expressly given to the US Govt. and therefor is retained by the states, then the states are well within their rights to nullify that power grab by convening a special convention for the process. Only a constitutional amendment could grant the US Govt. any additional powers and any amendments that a state truly cannot abide by would then cause that state to be freed from its contract with the other states.
Sure, this might lead to chaos, but that chaos is greatly preferred over a totalitarian state.
And even “chaos,” in the pure mathematical sense, doesn’t automatically mean Somalia. In the realm of equations and cartesian coordinates, the forest is a pretty darn chaotic place, but it maintains equilibrium. Dynamic equilibrium, always growing, true, but chaotic as in absolutely unpredictable.
Other than sunbeams, there are no straight lines in Nature.
Obama and his cronies ARE doing the exact same thing in the other direction. Have you been paying any attention to politics in the last 6 years?
Historically speaking, did you miss this article?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/dean-weingarten/subverting-second-amendment-us-v-miller/
Long and short, FDR stacked the courts with activist judges and got his way, constitutional or not.
We do have a system, we do have rules. Anti-gunners just don’t play by them. Ever.
Honestly, no, I haven’t read that post yet. I saw the comments that were coming in that it was well-written, etc., so I put it on my “read it later” list, but I haven’t gotten to it yet.
What do you mean Glocks aren’t more deadly than Sigs or Berettas?!?
I am shocked SHOCKED I SAY! that Glock stepped up to the plate in this long running California case (which started before the new microstamping mandate). It is the first gunmaker to date that has done so, I do believe. And Glock hasn’t to date seemed terribly concerned that the roster prevents it from selling its Gen 4 pistols to the hoi polio since it is still doing a bang up business in Gen 3s, and is free to sell Gen 4s to leos. Nor does the microstamping mandate applies to law enforcement sales, only to “civilian” sales, since both agencies and officers are allowed to buy and possess anything they want (well almost–Barrett doesn’t sell rifles to California governmental entities after his 50 bmg was banned).
I am not saying this is a bad thing, I am only saying that it is surprising.
The most vulnerable aspect of the “roster” law is the new microstamping requirements. Back in 2007 (?) California passed a law that required it when the tech became generally available. The tech was patented, and therefore not “available. When the patent expired, CalGuns Foundation paid to extend it, but the owner of the patent waived the protections of the law, and the AG (famously anti-gun) declared that the tech was therefore “generally available” notwithstanding the fact that not a single manufacturer has adopted the technology nor spent the millions of dollars necessary to implement production.. The net effect is that, except for grandfathered pistols and those already in the testing pipeline, there have been and will be no new pistol models in California since May 2013. It is certainly possible that a court will enjoin the continued enforcement of the new requirement until manufacturers start producing pistols that meet the letter of the law. [Which by the way is pretty unlikely both for reasons of cost and because the stamping is easily defeated either intentionally or simple wear and tear.]
That leaves the mag disconnect, LCIs and various iterations of drop safeties, and now an external manual safety. The law when drafted was intended as a safety measure–to prevent accidental discharges of dropped weapons–and in this respect it succeeded, quite well (even if Colt aficionados all want series 70 pistols and not series 80 pistols because they claim the sear disconnect alters the “FEEL” of the trigger). Unfortunately, the law was expanded as more of a method of keeping guns off the street–guns that are not “unsafe.” For example, Springfield XDs are legal–and quite4 safe with both a trigger safety and the grip safety–but the XDm and the XDs cannot be sold, even though these guns have the exact same features, because they don’t have an external manual safety. Glock has the same issue.
In short, California is trying to legislate to prevent accidents caused by shear stupidity. (“I didn’t know the gun was loaded, and I’m so sorry my friend….”) People who think that dropping the mag means the gun is empty, or who fail to personally ascertain whether a gun is loaded.
As you probably know from some of my previous comments, I follow CA gun law developments VERY closely. I’m not familiar with any new requirement for an external manual safety, and in fact this is the first time I’ve heard of such. I ran several Google searches but was unable to come up with anything regarding such a requirement — can you please post a link or two to sources for this?
There most certainly is a way to change the U.S. Constitution without amending it: the U.S. Supreme Court issues a “ruling” any way they want.
I found a Massad Ayoob post which is apropos of the 2A and provides an interesting response to people who use the term “take the law into your own hands”.
They should take two rifles, polygonal vs lands and grooves, and see which produces more lethal bullets when fired. On goats or hogs, like the FBI did. Polygonal rifling is well known to vaporize targets, while lands and grooves rifles produces perps who merely fall on the floor dead.
What would happen if you shot a .45 out of a polygonally rifled barrel? Would the world end?
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas boiling, forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.
Real real wrath of God type stuff.
Dammit, that’s usually my line, and usually linked to the video. Oh well, everyone misses occasionally.
God, I don’t want to think of the complete carnage and destruction that would ensue. Oh, the humanity!
Re polygonal rifling, one thing I didn’t see was standard deviation of the speeds, or a min/max range as well as an average. You can argue whether 10 shots per barrel length will give a good measure of variation, but I think it would still have been interesting to see which type of rifling provides more consistent shot-to-shot speeds. My guess is that less variation = better accuracy, all else being equal, and that would also be a good marketing ploy… for ammo as well as gun manufacturers.
Magazine disconnects are the worst thing ever! Very rarely, sometimes when I pull my G19 out of my holster at the end of the day only to discover at some point the mag release was depressed and it ever so slightly removed the mag. It doesn’t normally happen, only if I’m jammed up on an awkward seat of a car.
If I ever had to use it with the mag slightly dropped, It will one shot and then fixed with a tap, rack, bang. Even with the mag in this state and its weight, it’s never fallen out. There is still enough lockup and friction keeping it, even when I discovered it like this and the pistol held horizontal.
Matt,
Two things to note on the Constitutional issues…
1.) In addition to amendment, there is also the Article V option of calling a Constitutional Convention. While it may sound extreme, there’s a bit a push growing in certain sectors, both progressive and libertarian for just such a thing. Makes me a bit nervous.
2.) About the Supreme Court being the final arbiters. That’s only *mostly* true. Remember that there is a check/balance to this. Congress does have oversight authority over all federal courts in that it does have the power of impeachment. This is a power that is there to ensure that the Judiciary does not exceed its Constitutional authority. Unfortunately, Congress doesn’t have the courage to use this power. That more than anything will be the cause if this country falls into a judicial oligarchy.
The apparrent flex you are seeing is likely the effect of the scope being scanned while in motion. This can also be seen when shooting video from the side of a fast moving car. The trees and light poles appear to bend.
I understand the effect you’re referring to, but I’m pretty sure you’re mistaken in this case. You’re comparing a video shot out of a moving car at 24-36 frames per second to a video shot at 20,000 frames per second. That flex is so fast it can’t even be seen in the normal speed footage. You can see the springs on the bipod move, the barrel move within the forearm, and even see the forearm to upper receiver gap change, all of which happen in a split second. The bending you’re referring to takes place when the object moves while the shutter is open, within the time that it takes to scan the frame. That’s not happening at 20k fps, because the gun isn’t moving that fast. At that speed, even a bullet is almost slowed down to have no blur, and that’s moving significantly faster than the gun or scope.
Comments are closed.