Restaurant Carry Passes AZ Legislature

If my understanding of the email I received from Karen Winfield at the Arizona Legislature is correct, SB1113 (“Restaurant Carry”) passed both the House and Senate last night.
Due to Fun Happy Budget issues and the fact that the legislative “day” doesn’t end so long as the legislature is in session, both the House and Senate stayed in session throughout the night until 7:30am.
SB1113 was the last bill to be voted on (at 6:12am) in the House.
While I’m neither a lawyer nor play one on TV, my understanding is that the bills will now go to the governor for her signature.
Perhaps we can soon join many of the other states that don’t arbitrary prohibit law-abiding people from carrying arms into restaurants that happen to serve alcohol, even if the person carrying does not imbibe.
Update: Of course, the Arizona Daily Star demonstrates PSH while claiming that the bill would allow guns in bars! ZOMG! There’s a few people in the comments thread who freak out, but the majority of comments and “votes” on comments are pro-gun and actually provide some facts. Is it too much to ask for neutral, unbiased news reporting (( Note that I don’t claim to be an actual journalist, nor make any claims about being unbiased. At least I’m upfront about it, though. ))? The bill is, after all, available for anyone to review — couldn’t the Star (or some legal expert on their staff) review it and realize that it’s not a big deal at all?

Fisking the Daily Star

The Arizona Daily Star published an article in their Sunday Edition that stood out to me when I was grocery shopping today: it had a large, above-the-fold headline entitled, “US makes it easy for gun traffickers.”
While their article is long and makes a weak attempt at appearing balanced, it has some absurdities that I really must point out. I’ve made a few statements in my response that are likely to be common knowledge to gunny folks, though I’d appreciate it if readers could point out where I might find good sources for such statements so I can cite them properly.
Also, I wrote this post rather late at night, so I’m likely to have a few spelling or grammar mistakes. Mea cupla. Continue reading “Fisking the Daily Star”

On Odors

I’m almost afraid to ask what it is that foreign, mostly eastern European/Asian countries (e.g. Serbia, Russia, etc.) put in their powders, but one of the ingredients smells horrible.
I really like Prvi Partizan ammo, as it’s reliable, consistent, well-made, and easily reloadable. The fact that it’s loaded to NATO spec and is commonly available (unlike, say, Federal XM193/XM855) is a big plus. I’ve never had any practical problems with it at all…but it, like the Russian Wolf-brand ammo, smells awful when fired.
You’d think they’d figure out how to make non-stinky ammo…

Tumbling Brass for Fun and Profit

One of the nice things about being in the lab all day is that my apartment is unoccupied. That, combined with the good soundproofing between units means that I can run my tumbler all day without me or my neighbors going crazy from the droning sound.
Due to this fortuitous situation, I’ve been tumbling all my spent brass, both once-fired stuff I’ve shot but also stuff I’ve harvested from the range. I’ve still got a bunch left, but it’s going at a pretty good pace.
I’ll probably run out of brass to tumble in the next few weeks, and so I wanted to extend an offer to my readers: if you mail me your brass in bulk ((Preferably in the same caliber, or at least the same neck diameter — this prevents cases from “nesting.”)), I’ll tumble it to a high shine (( ~7 hours in crushed walnut shells treated with Flitz tumbler additive. )) and send it back. You need only pay for shipping both ways (( Whatever’s cheapest works fine. If you’re in the Tucson or Chandler areas, no shipping is needed.)) and make a small donation to the New Shooter Ammo Fund, say $20/1,000 pieces of brass with a 250 piece minimum.
For a slight additional donation (to be negotiated), I can deprime your boxer-primed cases.
You’ll get your own cases back — I don’t do “case exchange” processing.
Due to size and capacity limitations of my tumbler and press, I can’t accept very large cases like 20mm, .50 BMG, and so forth. Basically, I’ll take anything that can fit in the Lee Universal Depriming Die.
Tumbler time will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, and is dependent on the number and size of cases. Large numbers of big cases will take longer to process than smaller numbers of smaller cases, obviously.
Any money collected will go to the New Shooter Ammo Fund for the purpose of buying ammo for teaching of and use by new shooters, rather than for my own personal use. Donations to the fund are not tax-deductible.
If you’re interested, please send me an email.

The Stupid, It Burns!

I’ve posted a few videos on YouTube, including several of me demonstrating my Gem-Tech Outback II silencer on my Ruger 10/22 rifle.
Now, as you may be aware, YouTube commenters are widely known for being mind-numbingly stupid, and today was no exception. I had a commenter claim that in 45 out of 50 states, including his state of Mississippi, silencers on “sniper rifles” were illegal.
Specifically, he claims that silencers on “sniper rifles” are illegal unless one is in the “US Army Sniper School and it doesnt matter if you paid taxes and signed paper work, silencers on a sniper is illegal, other guns its different but snipers … its illegal”
Of course, he didn’t define what a “sniper rifle” was, nor did he give any sort of link to state laws that would suggest that silencers on such rifles would be illegal.
As far as I’m aware, he’s completely full of it, and silencers are legal on just about any firearm (with the payment of the appropriate NFA tax for the silencer itself) in states that do not prohibit silencer ownership. I’m not aware of any legal definition of a “sniper rifle” in any state or federal law, nor any law that would restrict the use of silencers to a specific subset of guns.
Anyone know for sure?

You know what I love about the Brady Campaign?

They’re so out of touch with reality and na?ve that it’s amusing to read their press releases. It reminds me of the North Korean Central News Agency and the “articles” that they publish.
I just stumbled across this release, which has the following gems about the Holocaust Museum shooter. It was written several days ago, so the mention of “yesterday” refers to the day of the shooting itself, not yesterday relative to this post.

Yesterday, a bigot took the life of a museum security guard because he thought the Government was coming to take his weapons.? We can only wish that their guns had been taken away.

Wait, what? I read up a bit on this guy, and it seemed like his motives were “ZOMG JOOS!” and didn’t involve anything about gun control. Anyone have any confirmed info?
They continue with this:

I have to believe most Americans think that a man who spent time in prison for trying to assault the Federal Reserve Building and spread as much hate as this man did, who left a note saying ?Jews captured America?s money? and ?Jews? are America?s enemies? should indeed have had his guns taken away.

I also find it hard to believe that most Americans would believe that. Indeed, I think any reasonable person would agree that as a convicted violent criminal, he should be prohibited from owning arms. My understanding is that he was, in fact, prohibited from owning guns, and his ownership of said guns was illegal.
What do the Bradys propose? Making gun ownership by convicted criminals more illegaler ((“Illegaler” is a perfectly cromulent word.))? We might as well put them on double-secret probation for all the good it’ll do.
That said, I don’t think that he should have his right to keep and bear arms infringed simply because he’s a flaming douchebag who promotes hatred and intolerance. Last time I checked, people have a right to free speech, and so long as one is merely speaking (as opposed to acting on their hate by committing violent acts or encouraging others to do so), I see no justification for disarming them.
In the end, though, he wasn’t allowed to own guns due to his previous convictions, he did act on his hatred and intolerance,? he did commit acts of violence against the innocent, and he did end up murdering a security guard. I don’t think that making his illegal ownership and use of guns more illegal would have stopped him. The only thing that seems to have stopped him was bullets from the other security guard, yet the Bradys never seem to mention that.
Fortunately, the actions of the security guards kept him from killing others,? he is likely to survive his wounds, and will have his day in court.


After a few minor quirks with the theme I was using, I’ve reverted back to using the previous theme here.
Any graphic/theme designers interested in designing a custom (or semi-custom) theme for me?

Thoughts on Microstamping

For many people ((Usually non-shooters.)), the idea of microstamping makes sense, at least at first: spent casings would be marked with some unique markings that would correspond to the precisely gun that fired the round, thus allowing the police to more effectively investigate crime.
Of course, such a plan as several flaws:

  1. There are lots of non-microstamped guns out there. It’s likely that criminals would be able to avoid acquiring such guns.
  2. There are plenty of guns being made in the world that would not bother microstamping. If a black market arises for non-stamped guns, I’m sure that someone will supply the market — they already smuggle illegal drugs and other contraband.
  3. Criminals are not going to purchase their firearms through legal channels, and thus associate the stamped serial number with themselves. They’re probably going to just steal the guns, much as they do already.
  4. Thoughtful criminals could acquire range brass and sprinkle it around a crime scene, thus confusing investigators. It would also open up some identity theft concerns for law-abiding shooters who don’t police all their own brass.
  5. Revolvers do not eject spent brass when fired, and so it would be simple for a criminal to use a revolver in the commission of their crime.
  6. Firearm microstamping equipment is currently produced by only a single company, is not inexpensive, would increase the workload for firearm manufacturers, and would add to the cost of new firearms.
  7. Investigators would only be able to trace the gun to its first lawful owner; if the gun was subsequently lost, stolen, or otherwise not in the possession of the original owner, it is unlikely that identifying the first owner would be of any use. (Indeed, if the gun was stolen, the lawful owner is likely to have reported that information to the police, and thus the gun would be listed in the NCIC stolen gun database — this is accessible by any police department in the country.)
  8. Parts wear out normally from ordinary use. Tiny markings are almost certainly prone to wearing out sooner.
  9. It is trivially easy to defeat firing pin microstamping: firing pins are replaceable, and thus can be removed from the gun. A few passes with an inexpensive diamond file can remove markings from even the hardest steel. One could also buy a replacement firing pin (such as this one for my Glock 19), or even make one’s own pin with only basic machine tools.

Many guns don’t require any sort of tools to disassemble, and it’s rare to require anything more than the most basic hand tools to replace the firing pin. For example, I was able to get the firing pin out of my Glock 19 using only a Bic pen in about 14 seconds:

Taking the spring cups and spacer sleeve off the firing pin takes about 5 seconds, and putting them back on takes maybe 20 seconds (stupid spring cups are tiny). Reassembly takes about as long as disassembly, but requires the blunt end of the pen in addition to the pointy end.
It should be obvious to a reasonable person that, when confronted with reality, microstamping is a non-starter. Of course, that didn’t stop California from passing a microstamping law into effect.
Additionally, California’s microstamping law specifically exempts the police, the one group for whom microstamping would be useful — microstamping departmental guns would be useful in situations where the police shoot at someone. Having police duty weapons leave unique markings on brass would probably help investigators piece together crime scenes better. Due to the small number of weapons involved in a shooting incident, it should be rather easy to figure out which brass corresponds to which gun, even if the stamp is a bit worn or certain characters are unreadable. Departmental armorers could regularly inspect and replace stamping firing pins as needed — something that would be impossible to enforce for the general public.

Restaurant Carry Passes AZ Senate

From Karen Winfield at the AZ Legislature:

SB1113 passed the Senate.
It now goes to the House where it will be scheduled in a committee for hearing next week.
We are on a very condensed schedule right now, so you can expect to see it go to the Committee (probably the Judiciary Committee), then Rules Committee, Caucus, Committee of the Whole and a Floor vote all in the same week.? It will move fast.? So, if you are so inclined, this is the time to start writing to your Representatives.
Here’s the vote on SB1113 in the Senate:
Vote Detail for Third Reading On Reconsideration
Bill Number: SB1113
Action Date: 6/16/2009
Vote Member Name

Update: I can’t spell “restaurant” if my life depended on it. Also, I cleaned up some goofy formatting from the email I received from her.

No Sporting or Civilian Use

That’s what the Brady Campaign says about common guns like the AR-15 and various other features associated with common arms. The full quote from their page is as follows:

The Brady Campaign supports banning military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines. These dangerous weapons have no sporting or civilian use. Their combat features are appropriate to military, not civilian, contexts.

Of course, this position is demonstrably false: these guns and features have plenty of sporting and civilian uses. I present the following as an example:

This is Louis. Attentive readers will recognize him from previous posts as he is a regular attendee of trips to the range. The gun he is firing ((Note the brass ejecting.)) is a Glock 19, chambered in 9x19mm. It is equipped with a Glock 33-round extended magazine. One will note that Louis is demonstrating good shooting form and is displaying a smile of enjoyment. The extended magazine allows Louis to spend more time shooting and less time stopping to reload magazines.

Here is Rita, who also frequently accompanies me on trips to the range, fires the Glock 19 with the standard-capacity 15-round magazine that is one of two included with the purchase of a new pistol.
This magazine allows for 50% more capacity than the Brady-recommended 10-round low-capacity magazines while still fitting flush with the bottom of the pistol’s grip. At the range, having five fewer rounds means more changing magazines and more time spent reloading — less time having fun.
Next up, we have Danielle:

This was her first trip to the range. Here she’s firing a DPMS A-15, an AR-15 variant. It is equipped with all the standard features: a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, handguards which encircle the barrel, a 30-round standard-capacity magazine, a pistol grip, and a collapsible stock.
In this particular context, the bayonet lug is not being used, and so is no more dangerous than any other piece of metal ((The edges of the lug, however, are a bit sharp.)) on the rifle. The flash suppressor is not really relevant, as Danielle is shooting during the day and so does not need to worry about the flash from her muzzle affecting night vision — that said, the vents on the flash suppressor reduce the amount of dust kicked up from the ground, making her shooting experience a more enjoyable one.
The pistol grip and collapsible stock allow for comfortable shooting: she has adjusted the stock to a length which suits her. The ordinary fixed stock is too long and it is often uncomfortable for smaller shooters like Danielle.
The pistol grip allows for a firm, ergonomic, comfortable grip on the rifle. The forward handguards, which she is not using in this particular picture, prevent her from being burned by the hot barrel when she chooses to use her right hand to hold the gun rather than support her shooting hand.
The 30-round magazine is the standard size for AR-15 type rifles, and allows her to fire for a good period of time without needing to stand up or move around to fetch and load a new magazine. This also allows her to focus more on shooting rather than changing magazines. In this particular picture, she’s also using the magazine to support the rifle, allowing for more stable, accurate shooting.
The very features that the Brady Campaign claims are “combat features” that “facilitate the killing of human beings in battle” are being used by Danielle and tens of millions of other civilian shooters to enhance their safety (e.g. handguards that prevent burns) and comfort (e.g. ergonomic pistol grip and a stock that can adjust to be comfortable for both larger and smaller people).

Here Danielle is seen shooting a Ruger 10/22 rifle, chambered in the lowly .22 Long Rifle cartridge, which is equipped with a threaded barrel and a Gem-Tech Outback II silencer.
The Brady Campaign states that silencers “allow an assassin to shoot without making noise” — while this is true ((Partially, at least — silencers reduce the noise produced by the gun to a safe level, but do not completely eliminate it.)), I think they might be watching a few too many James Bond movies. Assassins are exceedingly uncommon outside of Hollywood films, and any actual assassin will not care about the legality of silencers. They also claim that, “silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon,” a claim which is demonstrably false: the silencer on this gun is perfectly legal, and I have all the appropriate paperwork in order.
Though I’ve addressed the legality of silencers in a previous post, I want to reiterate that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to own and use a silencer: I use mine primarily for introducing new shooters to shooting, as the low recoil and noise of a silenced .22 rifle makes for a very pleasant learning experience. Additionally, the use of a silencer reduces the levels of noise produced by a gun, reducing noise pollution and hearing damage.
In conclusion, there are numerous, perfectly legitimate sporting reasons for the private ownership of “military-style semi-automatic” firearms ((Which, I’d like to point out, are functionally no different than non-“military-style” semi-automatic firearms like the Ruger Mini-14.)) and magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. There are plenty of other, non-sporting reasons (such as self-defense, collecting, etc.) for owning such firearms and accessories.
In short, the Brady Campaign is full of crap.
On a more positive note, it was a glorious, sunny day here in Tucson, and I was pleased to spend the day in the company of good friends, fine guns, and delicious food and (after the guns were put away) beer.