Oppose S. 150--the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" and The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Senate Judiciary Committee Begins Consideration of Feinstein's "Assault Weapons" Bill

Posted on March 8, 2013

On March 7, the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), began consideration of several bills, including anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein's S. 150--the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013."

The controversial bill has already been met with much resistance.  During debate on the bill, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) pointed out that "Congress and President Clinton tried a so-called assault weapons ban 19 years ago and we have the benefit of hindsight as well as some research to examine the lackluster results of that decade-long experiment.  According to the Department of Justice's own study it was completely ineffectual in reducing murder or violent crime rates."

Cornyn continued, "So, are we really going to pass another law that will have zero effect, and pat ourselves on the back and say 'We've accomplished something wonderful?'  Well, we tried this experiment once and it failed, and I think it promotes symbolism over seriousness to repeat that mistake."

Sen. Cornyn also offered an amendment to exempt all U.S. military personnel and veterans from Feinstein's proposed ban, but the measure was rejected by a 9-9 party-line vote.  During this portion of debate, Feinstein argued that a military veteran could be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (which she bizarrely claimed was a "new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq war"), and suggested that they should therefore be prevented from buying or "having a weapon like this."

Feinstein, herself, was quoted as saying, "I've been very concerned because the calls have been coming in as if this is some kind of wild eyed scheme."  We couldn't agree more.

The committee recessed in the midst of debating the bill and will resume markup of the bill next Thursday, March 14.

Please continue to contact your Senators and tell them to oppose S. 150--the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013."  To identify and contact your legislators in Washington, D.C., you can use the "Write Your Reps" feature at www.NRAILA.org, or you can reach your member of Congress by phone at 202-224-3121.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/3/senate...

__________________________________________________________________

Almost One-Third of State Sheriffs' Organizations Now Oppose Obama Gun Control

Posted on March 8, 2013

According to a recent Washington Examiner article, a total of 14 sheriffs' associations now oppose President Obama's proposed gun control measures. 

The article notes that sheriffs' associations in South Carolina, California and, most recently, Nevada, have joined the growing group of other state associations in demanding that Obama stop going after law-abiding gun owners and instead focus on improving the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. 

"We have all seen what persons who have mental illness, who are users of illegal controlled substances, or are members of criminal gangs can do with weapons in their hands; any weapons, not just firearms.  As it currently stands, many of these individuals are not entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for a whole variety of reasons.  This must be addressed at the national, state and local levels," said the Nevada sheriffs.

"The sheriffs of the state of Nevada do not believe that the answer to this issue includes making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding individuals. As the old saying goes, 'As guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.' The answer lies within a myriad of approaches including education, addressing violence, keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, criminal gang members, and illegal controlled substance users, as well as prosecuting and incarcerating those who would use firearms to commit crimes."

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/3/almost-one-third-...

_____________________________________________________________

You Can Help Defeat Proposed U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

Posted on March 8, 2013

Just as NRA warned would happen, following last November's presidential election, the Obama administration immediately moved forward with its plans to support a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.  On Wednesday November 7, the U.S. Mission to the U.N. made clear its support for renewed ATT negotiations, casting a vote in favor of a resolution that calls for a "Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty" to be held in New York City from March 18-28.

If signed, the ATT would be a legally binding treaty that would require parties to the treaty to adhere to the treaty's provisions, many of which (as proposed in a month-long meeting last July) are incompatible with our Second Amendment rights.  For the treaty to be ratified it would have to be approved by a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate.  During the July ATT conference, NRA conducted a successful campaign to stop the treaty.

The latest resolution notes that at the March conference, the last draft from the July conference will be the starting point for new talks.

On November 13, U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) introduced his own resolution  strongly urging President Obama not to sign the ATT.

In a November 16 press release, Rep. Kelly said, "There is considerable cause for alarm regarding the UN’s renewed efforts to forge an Arms Trade Treaty that could trample the constitutional rights of Americans, and could seriously compromise our national security and the security of our allies, whom we will be less able to arm and less quick to defend due to the restrictions placed on us by the ATT. My colleagues and I stand committed to fighting this threat to our sovereignty and to standing up for the U.S. Constitution, which we are all sworn to support and defend.”

Rep. Kelly now has an online petition that you can sign to help protect our Second Amendment rights by urging the president to reject the proposed U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. Again, the final ATT conference starts in less than two weeks!   Please take a moment--right now--to sign the petition by clicking here.  It’s time to stand together to defeat the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty!

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/3/you-can-help-defe...

_____________________________________________________________

Gun Rights Legal Action

Current Litigation Index:

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Pro-gun voters put heat on Democratic senators

(AP) – U.S. Sen. Max Baucus has been here before.

Back during the Clinton era, the Democrat faced a choice: support an assault weapons ban urged by a president from his own party and risk angering constituents who cherish their gun rights, or buck his party. He chose the ban, and nearly lost his Senate seat.

FAX BLAST SPECIAL: Don’t Let The Government Take Your Guns! Protect Your Second Amendment Rights!

Now, as he begins his campaign for a seventh term, Baucus faces the question again. For weeks, gun foes have sought assurances he would oppose the assault weapons ban. But it was only this past week he said he would oppose it.

That decision alone doesn’t settle the issue for his re-election campaign. His opponents are watching closely, eager to pounce as he navigates a series of other gun control proposals, including an expected call for universal background checks.

Baucus’ predicament is one that a group of Democrats like him in the West and South are facing. They hail from predominantly rural regions of the country where the Second Amendment is cherished and where Republicans routinely win in presidential elections.

From Montana to Louisiana, these anxious voters have made at least six Democratic senators a little uneasy heading into next year’s election season. Both sides are aware that gun-owners’ rights are taking shape as a campaign issue that could shift the balance of power in the U.S. Senate.

“Make no mistake – it is a very delicate dance for rural state Democrats,” said Barrett Kaiser, a Democratic political consultant.

“I would be stunned if the Montana congressional delegation said anything but `hell no’ to gun control measures,” he added.

Part of the concern comes from a proposal by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would ban assault weapons and high-capacity clips. The plan is a response to calls for new gun restrictions from President Barack Obama in the aftermath of the shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school.

Gun control is a top-agenda item for many Democrats, and they’ll need all the votes they can to push changes.

Baucus knows, though, that a gun control vote “opens the door for whoever challenges him, because Montanans do not want the federal government restricting guns. That is clear as day,” said Republican state Rep. Scott Reichner, who was Mitt Romney’s campaign chairman in Montana.

“It would be a monumental mistake on his part” to support federal gun control legislation, Reichner said.

Gun rights carry sway in Montana. The state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks says Montana “boasts more hunters per capita than any other state in the nation.” State lawmakers have been discussing measures to expand gun rights. And a pro-gun group, the Montana Shooting Sports Association, has set up a website that is updated with Baucus’ public statements on gun policy.

Other Democratic senators that Republicans are watching closely include Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Democrats control the Senate, but if Republicans pick off these seats they could take the chamber.

Pryor already has said he won’t support an assault weapons ban, and the measure is unlikely to clear the Senate. Gun activists still worry that other restrictions they oppose are in the works.

“I don’t think the assault rifle ban, the semi-auto ban, has been the real objective,” said Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. “I think that is where the rubber meets the road, federal gun registration.”

The gun rights crowd considers mandatory registration as an unconstitutional overreach of federal authority and the close attention paid to all discussions on the topic show how carefully Baucus and others must tread.

Baucus would appear to be a shoo-in for re-election. He’s the third most senior U.S. senator and the chairman of the Finance Committee, which lets him prioritize many Montana projects.

He’s also a consummate dealmaker who routinely collects endorsements from Republican-allied groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And he’s worked hard over the years to become the only Senate Democrat with an A-plus rating from the National Rifle Association.

But one wrong gun vote could energize his opposition.

Though Baucus specifically rejected the assault rifle ban, he stopped short of mentioning expanded background checks by name. Baucus indicated he prefers the focus was elsewhere.

“Instead of focusing on new laws, Max believes the first step should be effectively enforcing the laws already on the books,” Baucus spokeswoman Jennifer Donohue said Thursday.

The entire debate represents a potential replay of the most difficult fight of his career, when Baucus voted for the 1993 Brady Bill that established background checks and the original 1994 ban on assault rifles and high-capacity clips.

Those votes led to the closest election in four decades of politics for Baucus, a narrow victory in a bitter campaign against Republican Denny Rehberg.

The other Democratic senators in rural states could find themselves in similar fights and have been cagey over the issue. Most have taken a wait-and-see approach.

The NRA last month launched an advertising campaign aimed squarely at this group, sending a strong message. The organization did not return a call seeking comment.

Democratic political operatives say the NRA could be overplaying its hand this time, arguing some sportsmen may be willing to listen to moderate proposals.

Still, Baucus and his colleagues aren’t likely to take risks and by next year’s election, he and others could seek to turn the issue to their advantage by using a pro-gun stance to appeal to conservative and libertarian-minded voters.

“Why wouldn’t he want to talk about guns?” said Montana State University political scientist David Parker. “Sen. Baucus is as about as middle of the road as they get in the United States Senate. What he doesn’t want to do is have himself painted as a national Democrat or as an Obama Democrat.”

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PRO_GUN_DEMOCRATS?SITE=AP...

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Lawmakers Propose Sin Tax On Guns & Ammo

• Posted by RJ on March 11, 2013 at 10:11pm

Lawmakers are frustrated as at every turn they are met with resistance against gun bans. Now they are seeking to regulate firearms and ammunition with taxation, a sin tax of sorts.

According to Fox News,

The proposals range from the modest — a proposed 5 percent tax in New Jersey — to the steep — a proposed 50 percent ammo tax in Maryland. The bills follow efforts to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and expand background checks, measures that have had mixed success at the state level.

The taxes — much like so-called “sin taxes,” like those on cigarettes — serve a dual purpose. They can deter buyers, while using the extra revenue for favored programs. In this case, the sponsors want to direct the money toward mental health services, police training and victims’ treatment.

Obviously this is punishing law abiding citizens and a gross abuse of the power of taxation.

Senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation Lawrence Keane said,

“If anything, gun owners ought to be getting a tax rebate for helping reduce crime.”

“We’re obviously extremely opposed to try to tax the lawful exercise of the Second Amendment rights by law-abiding Americans,” he said.

Representative Linda Sanchez (D-CA) introduced a bill that would impose a ten percent tax on “any concealable” firearm and this is supposed to be used to fund a national buyback program. Fortunately the bill is still in committee and will probably die there.

California has already seen a bill introduced by Democrat state representative Roger Dickinson that would impose a five cent tax on every bullet, while Oakland’s Rob Bonta introduced a similar measure to aid law enforcement in high violent crime areas. Still a third measure would require licenses for ammunition dealers and have them report all sales.

“It shouldn’t be so easy to buy bullets, the very thing that makes a gun deadly,” said Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, a Democrat from Berkeley. “While we have numerous safeguards in place to purchase a gun, it’s easier today to buy bullets than to buy alcohol, cigarettes or some cold medicines.”

First, it seems it is always Democrats pulling this kind of unconstitutional BS to restrict firearms and ammunition from law abiding citizens. Second, do you always see how they want so badly to disarm the public, yet build up their police force? Third, police officers are not protectors per se. They are enforcers of the law. This means they respond to violations of the law once they have been committed, at least that is what they are intended for.

Liberal Democrats are blasting away at the Second Amendment with all they’ve got on all fronts. They are Hell bent on ultimately disarming the American citizen.

However, all of this activity cannot be allowed to stand. With Republicans caving on various issues and now claiming that they will work with Democrats on more gun control and immigration, it looks like we are being set up here for a Second Revolution and it isn’t because law abiding citizens have broken the law. It’s because lawless, godless representatives have violated their oath of office and we have not held them accountable. We must begin to do so now.

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

N.J. Mother Arrested, Guns Confiscated- By Attending Property Tax Dispute Forum

Eileen Hart and her husband, Keith, are property owners in Newfield, New Jersey.

On Saturday, March 9 there was an informal meeting at the Gloucester Community Center, to discuss the findings on "revaluations" by Appraisal Systems, Inc.- a company which has been contracted by the state of New Jersey- to assess the fair market property values for each county or borough- for the tax assessor's offices.

There has been much derision caused by these "revaluations" by homeowners, because property values have fallen dramatically- and the real estate market has been hit very hard . There is nothing "fair" about the market or the home values that have been assessed, according to many New Jersey families.

Ms. Hart attended the meeting, armed with- as she said "her Constitution and the facts."

Said Hart "I tried to express my opinion and tell them that my Constitutional rights had been violated. I began quoting the Constitution, line by line.

Ms. Hart tried to explain, that Appraisal Systems, Inc. was attempting to inspect her property without her husband being present. As an Orthodox Jew, this is against the tenets of her religion. Her husband had to be present. According to Ms. Hart, she was unable to express this concern.

A representative of Appraisal Systems, Inc. -(<List of Appraisal System Employees at this link) apparently took offense to her objections and brought in Robyn Glocker-Hammond, the Tax Assessor - who stated that her job was to "enforce the law."

(This writer was under the impression that Tax Collectors collected taxes. They are NOT "law enforcement." But then, I am not a Tax Collector in New Jersey. )

Relates Hart: "She also wouldn't let me speak and told me to sit down and shut up and listen as well. That's when the young man came toward me. I knew he was going to put his hands on me. I saw him out of the corner of my eye. I said to him "Don't you dare touch me." Then they threw us out of the auditorium. The young man from Appraisal Systems, Inc. was the one going postal, and I believe if HE HAD A GUN, he would have shot me, Keith and Khloe on the spot. I was calm the entire time."

When the Harts left the gathering, they were followed into the parking lot of the community center, and the same young man who had been so upset by Ms. Hart's comments in the community center, started screaming and shouting at her, took down the license plate number of her vehicle and said - "See if you are able to pay your property taxes NOW!"

Eileen didn't understand what that shouted threat meant, until she returned to her home with her family.

When they arrived, there were 5 police cars from the Franklinville Police Department. They advised her that the Clayton Police wanted to talk to her about the allegations.

States Hart "For the record, both the police officers DID acknowledge that it was "an allegation."

Her purse was taken from her and she was put into a "paddy wagon," transported to the police station-

Her young daughter witnessed the events and was traumatized to see her mother being treated like a common criminal.

She was arrested and booked for "terroristic threats" and "contempt."

At the police station, she was handcuffed to a chair.

The cops ran a background check- and it revealed that she had absolutely NO criminal record. It also showed that she was the lawful owner of two hand guns. She was advised to turn in the guns over to the court (surrendered or confiscated) - and they would be held for "safe keeping." If she did not- she was told by the police- her bail would be VERY high. And- if she could not make the bail- she would sit in the county jail until an unknown date.

The complaint (in part) states: The State of New Jersey vs. Eileen B. Hart -"The Defendant was yelling and screaming and making the threatening comment. "If the door is locked. I'll be back with a gun."

Ms. Hart denies she ever made this statement, as does her husband, Keith. However, this is how the complaint was written up by Clayton County Sergeant J. Dick- who, it may be noted, was not present during the meeting.

She surrendered her guns and was released on her own recognizance.

This is not America, ladies and gentleman.

This is TYRANNY.

Eileen Hart's parents were survivors of The Holocaust.

To her- this is like "Deja Vu all over again."

Google it.

# # #

Follow @HarrietBaldwin on Twitter

http://www.examiner.com/article/n-j-mother-arrested-guns-confiscate...

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Obama Willing To Trade Guns For Votes?

2 March 2013

Some call it compromise.  Others call it a normal day in Washington, DC.

The practice of “I’ll vote for your bill if you’ll vote for mine” is as predictable in Washington as cherry blossoms.

Get ready for the mother of all compromise offers that President Barack Obama will quietly suggest as a great example of his willingness to meet Republicans “halfway”.

While the economy continues to be mired in the dumper, several distraction issues have been kept on the front burner – including gun control and immigration reform.  Only one of those two is winnable for Obama, but he’ll try to “compromise” his way to winning both.

Obama publicly promised Hispanics that he’d move quickly on immigration reform during his first week in office – in 2009.  Four years have slipped by and he hasn’t done anything to keep that promise.  And the Hispanic voting bloc is important, if not critical, to Democrats from coast to coast.  It will be even more-so next year.

With his lieutenants, like Senator Dianne Feinstein, doing all of the heavy lifting on gun control legislation, Obama has been planning his compromise to trade off that unwinnable project to Republicans who would then approve his immigration reform plans with only minimal obstruction on petty issues.

Read More:  http://www.independentsentinel.com

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Senate Panel Oks Demo Gun Background Check Bill

March 12, 2013 By Breaking News

WASHINGTON— A divided Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a Democratic bill expanding required federal background checks for nearly all gun purchases.

The panel approved the measure by 10-8, supported by all Democrats and opposed by every Republican. Expanded background checks is the heart of President Barack Obama’s proposals to curb firearms.

The sponsor is New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer.

Read More at OfficialWire . By Alan Fram.

Photo Credit: Donkey Hotey (Creative Commons)

Related posts:

1. Senate Committee Approves “gun Trafficking” Bill WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved stiff federal…
2. GOP House Panel Chairman Will Consider Gun Bills WASHINGTON— The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says…

Get Informed! Read More About this topic::

1. Senate Panel Ready To OK Gun Background Checks WASHINGTON— Democrats are ready to muscle expanded background checks and...
2. Senate Panel Approves Kerry Nomination WASHINGTON (OfficialWire) — The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday...
3. Senate Committee Approves “gun Trafficking” Bill WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved stiff federal...
4. GOP House Panel Chairman Will Consider Gun Bills WASHINGTON— The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says...
5. Video: Mark Levin: Background Check Needed For Barack Obama Mark Levin is calling for background checks for all politicians,...

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Senate Panel Ready To OK Gun Background Checks

March 12, 2013 By Breaking News

WASHINGTON— Democrats are ready to muscle expanded background checks and other gun curbs through a Senate committee, giving President Barack Obama an initial if temporary victory on one of his top priorities.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was to debate a bill Tuesday that would broaden the requirement for federal background checks to nearly all firearms purchasers. It was also considering a ban on assault weapons and an increase in federal aid for school security, though senators may not consider the assault weapons measure until later in the week.

Requiring background checks for private gun transactions between individuals — they’re currently mandatory only for sales by licensed dealers — is a centerpiece of Obama’s proposal to reduce firearms violence. The system is designed to prevent criminals, people with severe mental problems and others from getting guns.

Tuesday’s meeting comes five days after the panel approved Congress’ first gun control measure since December’s carnage at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that left 26 students and educators dead. That bill, by the Judiciary Committee’s chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and others, establishes long prison terms for illegal gun traffickers and straw purchasers, people who buy a firearm for criminals or others forbidden to buy one.

The Judiciary Committee is expected to approve all three bills it is debating this week, with full Senate consideration next month.

Read More at OfficialWire . By Alan Fram.

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

California Seizes Guns As Owners Lose Right To Keep Arms

March 12, 2013 By Breaking News

Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who’d recently spent two days in a mental hospital.

They knocked on the door and asked to come in. About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms.

California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris. Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable.

“What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?” Harris said in a letter to Vice President Joe Biden after a Connecticut school shooting in December left 26 dead. She recommended that Biden, heading a White House review of gun policy, consider California as a national model.

As many as 200,000 people nationwide may no longer be qualified to own firearms, according to Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. Other states may lack confiscation programs because they don’t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most weapons sales go through a licensed dealer and be reported.

Read More at Bloomberg . By Michael B. Marois and James Nash.

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

The History and Evolution of Guns as Told Through Pictures

Mar. 12, 2013 8:52am Billy Hallowell

This article is part of a series on Guns in America that explores the use of firearms in our country and the debate over gun control. This is an editorially independent series sponsored by Tactical Firearms Training Secrets.

–

While people on both sides of the Second Amendment debate are consumed by the contemporary legalities surrounding guns, few have taken the time to pause and consider the unique history of firearms — a robust and colorful timeline that dates back centuries. Regardless of where one stands on the legislative front, it’s hard not to appreciate the unique developments that have been ingrained in the protection and progression of our society.

Firearms have been around for quite some time. Believe it or not, guns were being used as early as 1364. Obviously, the weaponry being employed in early days is nothing like what we have today, but understanding this expansive history offers a fascinating lens into the past. From primitive guns to modern-day automatic weapons, the evolution is noteworthy.

Medieval hand cannon from around 1350 (Photo Credit: National Firearms Museum)

 

THE WORLD’S FIRST GUNS

It was in 1364 that mankind first recorded the use of a firearm. These weapons, called “hand cannons,” were the first step in the creation of guns. Just 14 years later, handguns were already making their way across Europe.

Guns, in their infancy, were very different from today’s multifaceted weapons, as PBS notes. Originally, a wick was tied to “touch hole” inside of the barrel of guns. Then, when one lit the wick, the powder would inevitably be ignited inside, creating the reaction needed to launch the projectile.

19th century matchlock musket (Photo Credit: Metropolitan Museum of Art)

It wasn’t until the matchlock gun arrived in the 1400s that guns began to evolve. This particular firearm was the first gun that used mechanics to release a bullet. Finding early examples of these guns is difficult, as they are rare. The NRA’s National Firearms Museum provides more information about how these weapons worked:

The first gun to combine all three components was the matchlock, in the early 1400′s. Many early hand cannons were ignited with a “slow match” – a length of slender rope or cord that had been chemically treated so that an end could be ignited and would continue to burn or smolder, much like a 4^th of July punk used to shoot fireworks.  Obviously it was awkward to hold both gun & slow match while trying to dip the match to the touch hole of the hand cannon.

The matchlock solved this problem by using an arm called a serpentine on the gun to hold the slow match.  By mechanical linkage, a trigger on mounted on the bottom of the lock could be pressed to lower the match to the touch hole, which now included a small pan of fine gun powder that would be ignited first, transmitting the fire through the hole to fire the main charge in the barrel.

16th-17th century matchlock musket (Photo Credit: Metropolitan Museum of Art)

 

THE GUN’S FIRST MAJOR EVOLUTION

In 1498, the gun experienced its first major evolution with the discovery of rifling (putting grooves in the barrel of a gun to improve accuracy). The National Firearms Museum explains the concept:

Archers had found that if the fletching feathers on the rear of their arrow were at a slight angle, causing the arrow to rotate in flight, their ability to hit the target was improved. This concept was applied to gun barrels by cutting slowly twisting grooves down the interior length of the barrel, imparting a spin to the bullet as it left the muzzle.  These grooves were called rifling, and “rifled muskets” or “rifles” so equipped were found to be much better at hitting their mark over further distances than “smooth-bore” muskets.

And just a few years later in 1509, the creation of the wheel lock made for an even more intriguing and advanced weapon. Contrary to the matchlock, which required a wick to ignite the gun for usage, the wheel lock was a steel wheel that created the spark needed to ignite the gun.

Wheel lock gun (Photo Credit: Small Arms of the Bavarian National Museum, Munich/Nick Michael)

As PBS notes, the wheel lock technology was extremely expensive, leading some to still choose the matchlock despite improvements (the latter was half the price of the former).

Double-barreled wheellock pistol circa 1540-1545 (Photo Credit: Metropolitan Museum of Art)

 

THE EMERGENCE OF THE FLINTLOCK

The next major advancement in gun technologies came in 1640, when the first true flintlock emerged. As PBS notes, this particular technology solved a problem that had been hampering shooters for quite some time. For much of the gun’s existence up to this point, a lid was used to protect or expose powder — a tool that had to be moved manually.

U.S. model 1816 flintlock pistol (Photo Credit: NRA Blog/American Riflemen)

The flintlock solved this annoyance by being designed to both push back the lid and spark a flint simultaneously. The development was so profund, in fact, that it lasted for two centuries without any major alterations. Here’s how HowStuffWorks.com describes the technology:

The basic goal of the flintlock is simple: to create a spark that can light the gunpowder stored in the barrel of the gun. To create this spark, the flintlock uses the “flint and steel” approach. The idea behind flint and steel is straightforward. Flint is an amazingly hard form of rock. If you strike iron or steel with flint, the flint flakes off tiny particles of iron. The force of the blow and the friction it creates actually ignites the iron, and it burns rapidly to form Fe₃O₄. The sparks that you see are the hot specks of iron burning! If these sparks come near gunpowder, they will ignite it.

A diagram showing the parts of the flintlock technology (Photo Credit: HowStuffWorks.com)

Before guns there were swords (known as rapiers). Men would carry these weapons and use them for self-defense and duels. But around 1750, PBS notes that people began carrying guns rather than rapiers.

While a variety of firearms were initially used, around 1777, a more standard practice of using a flintlock was being employed. These pistols were used in this fashion until the mid-1800s when dueling was no longer a fad.

Lavish flintlock pistols from England circa 1800-1801 (Photo Credit: Metropolitan Museum of Art)

 

PERCUSSION-CAP GUNS

The flintlock’s technology finally peaked around 1825 when the percussion-detonating principle was in general use. About.com claims that percussion-cap guns, invented and patented by the Rev. John Forsyth in the early 1800s, no longer required a flash pan. By the time the Civil War rolled around, both the Union and Confederate forces were using the newfound technology.

HowStuffWorks.com further explains the intricacies behind the technology:

The percussion cap was made possible by the discovery of a chemical compound called mercuric fulminate or fulminate of mercury. Its chemical formula is Hg(ONC)₂ – it is made from mercury, nitric acid and alcohol.

Mercuric fulminate is extremely explosive, and it is shock sensitive. A sharp blow, or even too much finger pressure, can cause it to detonate. By putting a small amount of mercuric fulminate in a pre-made cap (a tiny cup about the size of a pencil eraser) and affixing the cap to a nipple and tube leading into the barrel, the cap can ignite the gunpowder in the barrel.

Colt Third Model Dragoon Percussion Revolver (Photo Credit: Metropolitan Museum of Art)

 

THE COLT REVOLVER

The first multi-shot, revolving firearms that were mass produced came from Samuel Colt. Colt produced a gun that enabled people to fire multiple shots without reloading — a development that forever changed warfare. By mass producing these weapons, the inventor made them more affordable and, as PBS Notes, their accuracy and reliability made them useful among hunters and soldiers, alike.

The first Colt revolver emerged in 1835. The Colt web site has more about this fascinating history:

Sam Colt’s success story began with the issuance of a U.S. patent in 1836 for the Colt firearm equipped with a revolving cylinder containing five or six bullets. Colt’s revolver provided its user with greatly increased firepower. Prior to his invention, only one- and two-barrel flintlock pistols were available. In the 163 years that have followed, more than 30 million revolvers, pistols, and rifles bearing the Colt name have been produced, almost all of them in plants located in the Hartford, Connecticut, area.

Civil War-era Colt revolver (Photo Credit: North Carolina Museum of History)

 

GUN TECHNOLOGIES VASTLY IMPROVE

It was the second half of the 19th century that gun technologies monumentally expanded. In 1840, the pinfire cartridge was introduced (more about this here). And by 1850, true shotguns were in use. As PBS notes, guns were given new life, again, in 1860, with the introduction of the Spencer repeating carbine:

Introduced at the start of the Civil War, Spencer repeating guns were technically advanced, used cartridges (a recent development), and could fire 7 shots in 15 seconds. But the Army didn’t want a repeating gun, fearing that soldiers would fire more often, constantly need fresh ammunition, and overtax the supply system. But in 1863, President Lincoln test-fired a Spencer. His approval led to the purchase of 107,372 Spencer repeating carbines and rifles (of 144,500 made), and the Spencer became the principal repeating gun of the Civil War.

Spencer Repeating Rifle (Photo Credit: North Carolina Museum of History)

While most guns in use until the mid-1800s were muzzle-loading (from the front of the barrel), breech-loading (from the back of the barrel) firearms were in common use by 1861. To provide some context, most guns originally required the former system of loading bullets.

From the matchlock phase through the percussion era, muzzle loading was the norm. Through this system, the projectile and powder were dropped down the muzzle at the front of the gun’s barrel and rammed to the rear prior to firing a shot, the National Firearms Museum claims. Eventually, breech-loading took precedence.

 

MACHINE GUNS COME TO FRUITION

Photo Credit: National Firearms Museum

In 1861, the Gatling Gun came on the scene — a magnificent technology, considering its usefulness. About.com provides a snapshot of its capabilities and history (it is considered the precursor to the modern machine gun):

In 1861, Doctor Richard Gatling patented the Gatling Gun, a six-barreled weapon capable of firing a (then) phenomenal 200 rounds per minute. The Gatling gun was a hand-driven, crank-operated, multi-barrel, machine gun. The first machine gun with reliable loading, the Gatling gun had the ability to fire sustained multiple bursts.

Richard Gatling created his gun during the American Civil War, he sincerely believed that his invention would end war by making it unthinkable to use due to the horrific carnage possible by his weapons. At the least, the Gatling Gun’s power would reduce the number of soldiers required to remain on the battlefield.

The 1862 version of the gatling gun had reloadable steel chambers and used percussion caps. It was prone to occasional jamming. In 1867, Gatling redesigned the Gatling gun again to use metallic cartridges – this version was bought and used by the United States Army.

Gatling gun at the National Park Service at Fort Laramie in Wyoming (Photo Credit: Matthew Trump)

 

THE WINCHESTER RIFLE EMERGES

In 1873, the Winchester Rifle emerged, distinguishing itself as an immensely-popular firearm. In 1887, the first repeating shotguns were released by the company and, in 1903, Winchester again made history when it created the first automatic rifle.

Winchester Model 1873 rifle, which was produced in 1897 (Photo Credit: National Firearms Museum)

And in 1892, as PBS notes, the first automatic pistol was created by Joseph Laumann. Just just one year later — in 1893 — the Borchardt pistol emerged, complete with a separate magazine. Within eight years, automatic weapons were in regular use.

A Borchardt Pistol from 1893 (Photo Credit: National Firearms Museum)

According to the National Firearms Museum, the first truly fully automatic machine guns (firearms that fire continuously while the trigger is held down) emerged in the 1880s when Hiram Maxim perfected the technology. Then, John Moses Browning followed these weapons up with the .30 caliber Model 1917 and the .50 caliber M-2 “Ma Deuce” — the latter of which is still used today.

In 1900, the historical firearms period came to a close and contemporary technologies abounded. You can read more about modern gun advances in the National Firearms Museum web site.

(H/T: PBS)

–

Other Must-Read Stories:

• Has Gun Ownership in American Homes Really Decreased This Dramatica...
• Dem Rep. on Candid Camera Admits: ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Just the Be...
• 3 Real-Life ‘Miracles’ That Took Place on the Set of ‘The Bible’
• Obama Will Make His First Trip to Israel as President — and Here Ar...
• EXCLUSIVE: ‘The Bible’ Facebook Game Launches — And You Can Be Amon...

 

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Feds buying 100 years worth of ammo

Government's argument 'could only fool a career civil servant'

When the numbers are put in perspective, the federal government’s extraordinary buildup of ammunition looks even more ominous than critics already have portrayed it.

An analysis by Forbes contributor Ralph Benko shows the 1.6 billion rounds of ammo that the government is acquiring would be enough for more than 100 years of training.

As WND previously reported, it also would be enough ammunition to fight a war for more than 20 years.

It would give the federal government enough ammunition to shoot every American more than five times.

Concerned about surveillance drones, tanks in the streets and gun c...

The Department of Homeland Security argues it is buying in bulk to save money, explaining it uses as many as 15 million rounds a year for training law enforcement agents.

Forbes columnist Benko, who worked for two years in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division, doubts the government’s explanation.

“To claim that it’s to “get a low price” for a ridiculously wasteful amount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant,” he writes.

But it’s not just the amount of ammo the feds are buying, it’s the type of ammo that’s also is causing concern.

WND has reported the DHS order apparently includes hollow-point bullets. As WND recently reported, she believes the federal government is “stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”

Last month, Palin said the feds were afraid of what might happen if the sequester went into effect and if the government eventually went broke.

She wrote on her Facebook page: “If we are going to wet our proverbial pants over 0.3% in annual spending cuts when we’re running up trillion-dollar annual deficits, then we’re done. Put a fork in us. We’re finished. We’re going to default eventually, and that’s why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”

Weeks before Palin’s warning, WND CEO Joseph Farah paired the ammo buildup with a statement made ... in 2008 calling for a “civilian national security force” as big, as strong and as well-funded as the Defense Department.

In Colorado July 2, 2008, Obama said: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Farah asked: “Why does the civilian Department of Homeland Security need billions of rounds of ammunition? This is the agency that is responsible for policing the border. But it doesn’t. This is the agency that is responsible for catching terrorists. But it doesn’t. So why does Homeland Security need so many weapons and enough hollow-point rounds to plug every American six times?”

The federal stockpiling of ammunition could cause a problem for local law enforcement agencies. WND reported in January that police and sheriff departments around the country were beginning to experience an ammo shortage.

Brownells, the largest supplier of firearm accessories in the world, reported it had sold several years’ worth of ammunition in just a matter of hours.

The company released a statement apologizing for the delay in fulfilling orders, explaining it had experienced “unprecedented” demand for AR-15 ammunition magazines since earlier in the week.

Gun companies are already fighting back. Olympic Arms of New York, which sells AR-15s and other firearms, says it will no longer sell guns to police. A company statement says that’s because legislation “recently passed in New York outlaws the AR-15 and many other firearms and “will make it illegal for the good and free citizens of New York to own a large selection of legal and safe firearms and magazines.”

“Olympic Arms would like to announce,” the statement said, “that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity – will no longer be served as customers.”

In Texas, LaRue Tactical is refusing to sell its AR rifles to police in states that limit the features of civilian rifles.

Magpul, a gun magazine manufacturer based in Erie, Colo., says it will not sell gun magazines to law enforcement officers unl...

Magpul also vows to leave Colorado if House Bill 1224 passes. The bill would limit gun magazines to 15 rounds.

WND has reported growing federal police power across dozens of government agencies for more than a decade and a half.

In 1997, WND exposed the fact that 60,000 federal agents were enforcing more.... The report prompted Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America to remark: “Good grief, that’s a standing army. … It’s outrageous.”

Also in 1997, as part of a ongoing series on the militarization of the federal government, WND reported armed, “environment crime” cops employed by the Environmental Protection Agency and a federal law enforcement program had trained 325,000 prospective federal police since 1970.

WND also reported on thousands of armed officers in the Inspectors’ General office and a gun-drawn raid on a local flood control center to haul off 40 boxes of paperwork.

WND further reported a plan by then-Delaware Sen. Joe Biden to hire hundreds of armed Hong Kong policemen in dozens of U.S. federal agencies to counter Asian organized crime in America.

In 1999, Farah warned there were more than 80,000 armed federal law enforcement agents, constituting “the virtual standing army over which the founding fathers had nightmares.” Today, that number has nearly doubled.

Also in 1999 WND reported plans made for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to use military and police forces to deal with Y2K.

In 2000, Farah discussed a Justice Department report on the growth of federal police agents under President Clinton, something Farah labeled “the biggest arms buildup in the history of the federal government – and it’s not taking place in the Defense Department.”

A 2001 report warned of a persistent campaign by the Department of the Interior, this time following 9/11, to gain police powers for its agents.

In 2008, WND reported on proposed rules to expand the military’s use inside U.S. borders to prevent “environmental damage” or respond to “special events” and to establish policies for “military support for civilian law enforcement.”

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/feds-buying-100-years-worth-of-ammo/

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Another senator warns of gun confiscation

Posted on: March 12th, 2013

A ban on assault weapons will lead to “gun confiscation,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, today warned the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewing S. 150, the proposed “Assault Weapons Ban.”

With his opening statement, Grassley said that despite banning “assault weapons,” mass shootings will continue and “criminals will continue to circumvent” the law.

He predicted that after these current measures prove ineffective, “then we will continue to debate whether gun registration is needed and it will lead to gun confiscation.”

The senator reminded the committee that criminals do not comply with existing background check laws and this type of legislation would punish lawful gun owners, rather than preventing crime.

Continue reading at www.wnd.com