Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog A blog for and by Guns and Ammo Enthusiast's

Battle Field and Rifle Basics for All of Us to Study and Learn

While anyone with an elementary knowledge of firearms recognizes the advantages of a handgun for concealed and close quarters defense use, the time where a battle rifle could be used for self-defense is rapidly approaching. The size and weight of a handgun provides many advantages but these factors also become a liability if one is forced to defend themselves at a distance of more than a few yards. While there exist handguns used for hunting and target shooting, those are not usually carried or used for self-defense and their effective range is still limited, especially when compared to a battle rifle.

Everyone, with the possible exception of those who still believe answers to our financial woes can be found within the democrat or republican paradigm, know that eventually those economic issues will lead to chaos in this country. When that happens, some 40 million plus who have been told by politicians that they are “entitled” to the property of others will use whatever means available to forcibly take that which they want. The logical scenario will see these folks banding together, most likely in roving bands. They will use numbers and force to steal what others who have seen this coming have set aside for themselves and their loved ones. This criminal activity very possibly could happen with the blessing of the government, for those who are stockpiling food, water, guns and ammunition are already being demonized. The Lever Act of 1917 gave government control over food and fuel storage amounts; it can and will happen again.

Using the events that occurred after Hurricane Katrina as a template, one can see that those who were armed were able to secure themselves and their property on several occasions by simply displaying a firearm when confronted by these roving bands of criminals. Of course after this happened the government moved to forcibly disarm law-abiding citizens. Simply stated, the criminals in government moved to protect their brotherhood among the street gangs and criminal element by disarming law-abiding citizens. This explains in vivid detail why the government continually seeks to disarm the public: it is easier to steal from and enslave those who are unarmed. Considering the police in New Orleans became thieves themselves continues to blur the distinction between government employees and thieves.

Several factors should go into the selection of a battle rifle; there are many platforms and calibers available and strong consideration should be given to the environment in which one believes they will operate when events lead to chaos in this country. What is the maximum range one can actually see and determine if a possible target is a threat? Is one’s environment urban or rural? Is there a chance the environment could be fluid due to attempts to move about in both environs? What is the experience level with rifles and engaging targets at distance?

Bolt-action rifles are more inherently accurate at long-range than semi-autos, especially in the larger calibers. Semi-auto rifles offer greater firepower and magazine capacity as a rule. Lever action rifles are accurate and shoot well at short to medium range, (200 yards max) mainly due to caliber selection. If one were to determine the maximum range at which they believe they would encounter someone bent on mayhem at 300 yards or less, lever guns and smaller calibers could suffice. Consideration should also be given into the amount of time a person is willing or able to devote to practice. To master a battle rifle at distances over 400 yards requires a great deal of time, effort, and projectiles down range. I have been shooting long-range battle rifles for over 50 years and certainly do not consider myself a master.

For the great majority of people interested in a battle rifle I suggest the AR-15 platform for several reasons. The platform is extremely accurate for a semi-auto. Five shot groups at 100 yards measuring less than an inch are certainly not uncommon with this rifle with some quality time at the range. Extreme accuracy can be expected if one is willing to spring for an upper designed for that type shooting. If this tweaks your interest, check out White Oak Precision here. When one thinks of an AR-15, usually the immediate thought as to caliber is the 5.56 NATO round or the .223. What I consider to be the greatest advantage is the number of calibers available in this platform with the purchase of an “upper” in different calibers which can easily and simply be attached to your existing AR-15 lower. While I consider the .223 round to be marginal for a self-defense round, the firepower, accuracy and availability of ammo makes it a must-have. There are a wide variety of uppers in different calibers, many of which can be found here. This gives the shooter the capability of several calibers with the purchase of only the basic AR-15 lower assembly. My personal choice for the off-the-shelf AR platform is Rock River Arms. I have a Rock River lower with uppers in .223 and .458 SOCOM. As previously stated the .223 for accuracy and ammo availability and the .458 for sheer knockdown power out to 200 yards. Due to the availability and price of the ammo to feed the .458, I reload my own. I like this combination for I can use the same magazines for .458 that I use for the .223. For those who choose to have some longer range capabilities for their AR platform I recommend the 6.8X43 or 6.5 Grendel calibers, which provide longer-range capabilities. With the new available ammunition and for those who reload, the Grendel gets the nod in my estimation.

While the original platform for the AR was the AR-10 in .308, uppers and lowers for this weapon are not interchangeable with the AR-15 platform. The AR-10 is a fine choice for those who like the AR but desire the versatility of the 7.62X51/.308 round. Also available is the FN/FAL configuration. This too is a fantastic rifle with great dependability and accuracy.

My personal choice in a battle rifle in .308 caliber is the M1A made by Springfield. I own more than one with full size and carbine versions known as the M1A SOCOM, which has a 16″ barrel and composite stock. The .308 is a most effective round out to 800 yards and beyond with an accomplished rifleman. Again, this caliber and platform is harder to master than the AR platform in .223. While the ideal situation is to have a caliber and platform in which one could engage an adversary at a greater distance than they could engage you, being able to hit that target is of primary importance. Again, a couple of hits with a .223 are far superior to 8 misses with a .308.

If one is available, a M1 Garand is also a very effective battle rifle. While limited in firepower due to the 8-round “clip,” the 30-06 caliber is very effective at ranges up to 1000 yards and has been battle tested for almost a century. Owning an original M1 Garand allows one to own a piece of history and a fine battle rifle as well.

Of course there is the choice of the venerable AK-47. Packing more knockdown power than the AR-15 in .223 and at greater range, it is the favorite choice of many. At one time the cost of the firearm and the availability of cheap ammo made this a great choice. The increase in price of both the weapon and ammo over the past couple of years now brings this choice into the price range of the AR platform. The discussion of which weapons platform (AR/AK) is the best battle rifle began over 40 years ago and is still the subject of some great conversations.

Having the ability and the equipment to engage, at distance, roving bands of criminals who are bent on stealing, confiscating and imposing their will on others could prove an invaluable asset in the coming months. Those who fail to plan, plan to fail.

While this article should provide some basics on selection of equipment for long range shooting, the challenges are many if one seeks to become proficient with such equipment. To that end, I am teaming up with a friend and fellow long-range shooter, Mr. James Lawson, in a series of articles dealing with optics, ballistics, bullet trajectories, wind, temperature, relative humidity and shooting uphill and downhill for those who are interested. The first of these offerings should appear shortly.

This from lewrockwell.com

Happy Veterans day

We here at the Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog would like to thank all of our veterans, currently serving in the military, and no longer serving. As well as those who have left us. We say Thank You to those people throughout Americas history. Thank you all. And Thank You to the families of said members of the military. Without you the soldiers job would next to impossible.
The Staff

Gun Control: Schemed by Tyrants, Supported by idiots

This found on http://www.lewrockwell.com a very good read. Well worth the time.


I’m sure my environment while growing up had a great deal to do with my attitude towards the rights of a free people to own firearms. To me it has always been a no-brainer. From the simple act of providing for the defense of one’s life and property and the defense of those with whom we have a responsibility, to preventing criminals from enslaving us, it all seems to be so fundamental. Relinquishing of that right to those who seek domination and control over our very existence is absurdity squared. Yet, a great number of our population continues to believe the propaganda that we can and will be protected by the state. I totally understand the propensity of many to attempt, with intellectual facts, to change their minds. My life’s experience has taught me this is analogous to taking a knife to a gunfight.


If one is to enslave a people and get them to participate in the process, logical, cognitive discourse must be replaced with emotional claptrap. It must become all about how a person “feels” about a subject rather than how they view the subject intellectually. Everything in our society today, by design of course, is based on emotion. TV shows and movies are filled with heart rendering music and dialogue; 24-hour news networks ply the heartstrings with one emotional story after another. Public education is centered on emotions; that is why History has been replaced with Social Studies and Physics and Chemistry have been replaced with diversity studies and “green” everything. Facts must never get in the way of emotions if the state is to be properly served.


How else could the peoples of a country believe that one could atone for the mistreatment of a race over a century ago by punishing members of another race today, none of whom were alive when the persecution took place? How could the burning of a city and the killing of its inhabitants during the War for Southern Independence be looked upon as a crime while the burning of portions of an entire state and the rape and killing of its inhabitants be seen as morally acceptable? How, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, can a group of people believe the police can protect them from crime, when five minutes of the evening news in any metropolitan area proves the opposite? If one is to believe the propaganda of the state, one must never let facts get in the way; emotions must rule in all decisions.


Decades ago I labored under the belief that if I educated myself on facts, figures and statistics, I could debate those who believed in gun control and might even be able to convert some of them to the truth. I was puzzled and disappointed when my intellectual arguments made no impression at all with those who were even willing to discuss the subject. It was when I began to push the point with many of them that I saw the anger and emotions come bubbling to the surface. At the time I remember discussing this with my grandfather and can still hear his response in my mind: “Son, don’t try to make sense of people who don’t have any.” But, I still could not understand; many of the folks I had been debating were well educated. It was then I learned that being educated does not confer any degree of common sense.


Gun control advocates today generally fall into one of two groups. On the one hand are those who deal with the issue emotionally, while members of the other group have an agenda. Approaching members of either group with intellectual ammunition is a completely wasted effort. I saw the futility of discussing the issue with those who can only address the issue emotionally several years back. I was under contract to provide personal security for a group of software engineers and mathematicians from Europe as they were touring the American Southwest. Over dinner one night in Old Town Sacramento, the subject of discussion was the then recent events at Columbine High School. The consensus of the group was Americans must be mad to allow private citizens to own firearms. Although I did not bring up the subject, I relished the opportunity to provide these mathematicians, those who deal in absolutes and axioms, with facts and figures to support my case. One lady in particular was most vocal in her position and she and I eventually became the only two in the discussion, with the others seeming content to just listen. I felt that I was able to counter each point the lady made with facts and statistics proving her points to be incorrect or based on false assumptions. Finally, she said in frustration, “I don’t care how many facts and figures you present, you are never going to change my mind.” We have all encountered this mindset. Any attempts to reach these folks with the truth will always prove fruitless. Do not continue to waste your time.


This is the problem we face in not only gun control but in many other facets of the quest for liberty. The indoctrination embraced by the public schools, the media, and of course politicians, has taken many people into the abyss of situational ignorance. The other group, those with an agenda, is also easy to identify. Most of these are politicians or employees of government. If they advocate openly their belief that only the police and military should be armed, they are criminals, plain and simple, and should never be trusted on any issue. Those who seek to justify their criminality with some humanitarian approach are simply criminals who want their crimes to appear less invasive and therefore justified. They, too, are to never be trusted on any issue. Many times you will encounter employees of the government who will simply avoid any direct answer to questions concerning their oaths or their willingness to follow orders when those orders are criminal in nature. An answer such as “that will never happen” is simply an avoidance of admitting they will do whatever they are told to do because their paycheck depends on it. Put these folks on your enemies list as well.


Patriots and gun rights advocates, please stop sending your hard-earned money to gun rights groups who exist solely to lobby those in power to do that which they have sworn a sacred oath to perform. If someone, after taking such an oath, has to be wined and dined, taken on junkets, or in other ways influenced into doing that which they swore an oath to do, they too are your enemy. They are nothing but political whores selling themselves, your rights, and their country to the highest bidder. Eventually, someone will offer them more money than the gun rights folks can afford to match. Can you imagine paying your minister to stop pursuing your wife, molesting your children, or paying your neighbor to not break into your house? Anyone who must be paid to do that which is right will at some point be paid more to do that which is wrong. Support only those who will not compromise on basic rights. Others are living high on your money and have consistently supported compromises of your basic human rights. Also, look at their results; after collecting untold millions, are our rights more or less secure? Never fall for the old socialist argument of “look how much worse it could have been had we not been here.”


Those who advocate gun control as a means of enslaving the people will never be influenced by an intellectual argument, presentation of facts and figures, or a simple plea to do that which is right. Those who are influenced into making decisions based on their emotions are now being motivated by a stronger emotion: fear, the fear that what we have been telling them for years is true. Countless thousands of folks who previously did not own a gun, have been purchasing guns and ammo at a record pace. Actions by this criminal government have awakened some of the sheeple where our intellectual arguments have failed.


Don’t waste your time, money or efforts on “educating” those who believe in gun control. This criminal government is doing it much better than we ever could.

obama violates federal law again as far as the cdc doing guns and ammo research, violating a law passed by congress decades ago

For a decade, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been forbidden by Congress from doing research on gun-control issues. Such piddling hurdles as federal law don’t matter to the Obama administration.

With a wave of a hand, the CDC has simply redefined gun-control research so the ban no longer applies. They’re not researching guns; they’re researching alcohol sales and their impact on gun violence, or researching how teens carrying guns affect the rates of non-gun injuries. “These particular grants do not address gun control; rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances,” wrote National Institutes of Health (NIH) spokesman Don Ralbovsky.

Gun-control advocates claim that banning the CDC from examining gun control amounts to a gag order on science. After all, what can be wrong with further scientific inquiry? But the issue isn’t about scientific inquiry. It is whether government resources should be used to promote an ideological agenda.

Take the Obama administration’s justification for its new gun research. “Gun-related violence is a public health problem – it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH,” wrote the agency spokesman in an e-mail responding to questions from Republican members of Congress about new grants the CDC is giving out. The statement assumes the conclusion of the research before the first study is done.

The research on right-to-carry laws illustrates the problem with the CDC. Dozens of refereed academic studies by economists and criminologists using national data have been published in journals. While the vast majority of those studies find that right-to-carry laws save lives and reduce harm to victims, some studies claim that the laws have no statistically significant effect. But most tellingly, there is not a single published refereed academic study by a criminologist or economist showing a bad effect from these laws.

Look at the refereed academic research on laws that require people to lock up their guns in their homes. The number of accidental gun deaths and suicides of children remain unchanged, but the number of murders and other crimes rises. This is not too surprising as the locks make it more difficult for potential victims to quickly obtain a gun for protection, hence criminals are less likely to be deterred. Accidental gun deaths aren’t affected because most involve guns fired by adults with criminal records.

The research on guns that the CDC conducted before the ban – and that “public health” advocates continue to produce – is a joke. The statistical methods to research people’s behavior, such as criminal activity, are different from methods used to evaluate drug efficacy, where controlled experiments can be done.

In drug studies, patients don’t determine who gets the real drug and who gets the placebo. In real life, gun ownership isn’t assigned randomly. People who are more likely to be victims are more likely to own guns. They may still be more likely to be victims even after getting a gun, but are much less likely to be a victim than they would have been if they had never gotten one.

The CDC’s brazen end run around restrictions on gun-control research is hardly surprising given that when President Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, it was the largest private funder of gun-ban research in the country. Now he has the resources of the whole federal government.

First we’ll get the half-baked studies followed by fawning press coverage. Then Democratic politicians and activists will pretend the gun restrictions they’ve always wanted were spurred by the new government research.

Some States launch boycott of ‘unconstitutional’ federal laws

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Tennessee is urging 49 other states to come together and create a “joint working group between the states” to combat unconstitutional federal legislation and assert state rights.

Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen signed HJR 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution on June 23. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the resolution created a committee to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and seek repeal of imposed mandates.

State Rep. Susan Lynn recently wrote a letter to the other 49 state legislatures, inviting them to join the group and warning that the role of the federal government has been “blurred, bent and breached.”

“The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay,” Lynn wrote. “Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.”

She continued, “Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.”

Lynn said that the people created the federal government to be their agent only for certain enumerated purposes.

“The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States,” she wrote. “The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.”

She noted that the Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws, nor does it give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. Attempts to include such provisions in the Constitution were rejected by the Founding Fathers.

“With this in mind,” she wrote, “any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty – and unconstitutional. Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.”

(Story continues below)

In one example of Tennessee’s battle against federal government policies, federal gun regulators wrote to gun dealers around Tennessee in July, dropping the hammer on a state law that exempts weapons made, sold and used inside the state from interstate regulations.

The letter was distributed to holders of Federal Firearms Licenses.

In it, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, adopted this year, “purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, from most federal firearms laws and regulations.”

The exemption is not right, the federal agency letter contends.

More recently, the state of Montana filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking a court order that the federal government stay out of the way of Montana’s management
of its own firearms.

As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3.

The law provides guns and ammo made, sold and used in Montana would not require any federal forms; silencers made and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered; and there would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required.

The idea is spreading quickly. Similar plans have been introduced in many other states.

Montana’s plan is called “An Act exempting from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Montana.”

The law cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time it was admitted to statehood in 1889.

“The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889,” the law states.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ litigation team is Quentin Rhodes of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The team includes other attorneys working in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

“We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the SAF, “because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” added MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

Guns and ammo stock pick from The Wall Street Journal

We try not to give stock and financial advice here. However, if this report from the Wall Street Journal is correct, look to buy this stock when it goes IPO. Bear in mind if the other party takes over congress in 2010 or obama gets booted out in 2012 get rid of your stock right before hand. Again this is just advice our two cents worth. We are not stock experts or financial experts here. We are just Guns And Ammo Enthusiasts no more no less.


This from the Wall Street Journal web site.


After bad bets on cars and home loans, Cerberus Capital Management is turning to guns and bullets.

The private-equity firm is in advanced preparations for an initial public offering of Freedom Group Inc., said people familiar with the situation, hoping to sell shares in a little-known company it has built into a dominant player in the red-hot rifle-and-ammunition business.

Over a three-year span Cerberus — while under the spotlight for ill-fated acquisitions of auto maker Chrysler LLC and lender GMAC LLC — has quietly acquired at least seven U.S. gun-and-ammunition makers.

Those companies have been consolidated into a Madison, N.C.-based

Gallup finds a new low of 44% of Americans saying the laws covering firearm sales should be made more strict

PRINCETON, NJ — Gallup finds a new low of 44% of Americans saying the laws covering firearm sales should be made more strict. That is down 5 points in the last year and 34 points from the high of 78% recorded the first time the question was asked, in 1990.

Today, Americans are as likely to say the laws governing gun sales should be kept as they are now (43%) as to say they should be made more strict. Until this year, Gallup had always found a significantly higher percentage advocating stricter laws. At the same time, 12% of Americans believe the laws should be less strict, which is low in an absolute sense but ties the highest Gallup has measured for this response.

These results are based on Gallup's annual Crime Poll, conducted Oct.1-4 this year.

"Compared with views in 2000, each major demographic or attitudinal subgroup has shown a shift toward a more pro-gun stance on the question about whether gun laws should be more strict or less strict."

The poll also shows a new low in the percentage of Americans favoring a ban on handgun possession except by the police and other authorized persons, a question that dates back to 1959. Only 28% now favor such a ban. The high point in support for a handgun-possession ban was 60% in the initial measurement in 1959. Since then, less than a majority has been in favor, and support has been below 40% since December 1993.

The trends on the questions about gun-sale laws and a handgun-possession ban indicate that Americans' attitudes have moved toward being more pro-gun rights. But this is not due to a growth in personal gun ownership, which has held steady around 30% this decade, or to an increase in household gun ownership, which has been steady in the low 40% range since 2000.

Nor are more pro-gun attitudes a specific reaction to the election of a Democratic president, Barack Obama, whose support for gun rights is questioned at times. Though the trends on both the gun-sales and the gun-possession measures have moved in a slightly more pro-gun direction this year compared to last, both trends had been moving in that direction during the latter part of the Bush administration, which strongly supported gun rights.

Rather, Americans as a whole may just be more accepting of gun rights now than in the past. Compared with views in 2000, each major demographic or attitudinal subgroup has shown a shift toward a more pro-gun stance on the question about whether gun laws should be more strict or less strict. (The results are similar on the question of a ban on handgun possession, with nearly every major demographic group less supportive of a ban now than at the start of the decade.)

Even with the change, there are some subgroups among whom a majority continues to favor stricter gun laws, including liberals (67%), Democrats (66%), Easterners (59%), gun non-owners (57%), postgraduates (55%), women (55%), and nonwhites (51%).

The groups least in favor of stricter gun laws are gun owners (20%), Republicans (28%), conservatives (30%), and men (33%).

Bottom Line

Americans continue to trend toward holding attitudes that are more in favor of gun rights, and Gallup today finds new low points in favor of gun control on two separate measures dating back at least two decades. While solidly against a ban on handgun possession, Americans are nonetheless about equally likely to say they favor stricter laws on firearm sales as to say these laws should not change. Still, the current poll marks the first time Gallup has not found a significantly higher proportion of Americans preferring tighter gun-sale regulations.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,013 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 1-4, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

450 Mayors from Bloomberg’s Group Petition Obama To Violate the Second Amendment

A new report from a national coalition of mayors urges President Obama to adopt dozens of reforms to help curb gun violence, including steps to crack down on problems at gun shows and the creation of a federal interstate firearms trafficking unit.


The “Blueprint for Federal Action on Illegal Guns,” a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, presents 40 recommendations that “would dramatically improve law enforcement’s ability to keep guns out of the hands of criminals — and, in doing so, save innocent lives.”
The strategies outlined by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group of about 450 mayors nationwide, focus on the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The agency, which has been sent a copy of the report, declined to comment.


“Implementing these recommendations would achieve a goal that all participants in the gun debate support: enforcing laws already on the books,” says an accompanying letter signed by the coalition’s co-chairmen, Mayors Thomas M. Menino (D) of Boston and Michael R. Bloomberg (I) of New York.


According to the report, hard work by ATF field agents has “been undermined by congressional restrictions, inadequate resources, and a lack of leadership from federal officials in Washington.”


The proposed changes could be accomplished within existing laws through agency reforms, regulatory moves and better funding, the report said. The strategies grew out of academic and government research, an analysis of firearms prosecutions and talks with government and law enforcement officials.


The mayor’s coalition created this document for policy discussion,” said Jason Post, a spokesman for Bloomberg’s office. There are no plans for public release of the document, which is being distributed to key members of Obama’s administration and agencies affected by the recommendations.


The 51-page document suggests a handful of strategies that would tighten ATF oversight of thousands of gun shows held annually. The study noted that a 2007 inspector general’s probe concluded the “ATF does not have a formal gun show enforcement program.”


ATF agents should have greater discretion to conduct criminal investigations at gun shows identified as sources of firearms later seized in crimes, the report states, noting that “criminal activity endemic to some gun shows goes unchecked.”
Agents at gun shows should “develop undercover integrity tests” to determine whether felons or out-of-state residents are making illegal purchases.


The report also calls for a better approach to crime gun tracing, the process that tracks a seized weapon back to its first retail sale. The ATF lacks the structure or resources to “fully realize its power,” the report says, and information is not regularly shared with field offices, and state and local law enforcement.


To this end, the study wants ATF to be funded to create a new “Office of Tactical Trace Analysis,” which would replace the current crime gun analysis branch.

Microsoft Silverlight claims to help gun lovers get the perfect shot You be the judge

Maybe Microsoft is trying to win over NRA members. The company — working in conjunction with Winchester Ammunition — today announced a new “online ballistics calculator” that allows hunters to create virtual shooting conditions in order to test how Winchester bullets will perform.


The calculator uses Microsoft’s Silverlight technology, with Microsoft’s Steve Sklepowich saying the calculator is a “great example of the rich and interactive applications that Silverlight delivers.”


Here are the instructions via the Winchester Web site:

1. Choose your ammo – select the cartridge, brand and bullet weight


2. View product description, details and images


3. Choose/edit your shooting conditions – set your own sight-in range, cross wind, temperature, altitude and sight height


4. Hit the “Shoot” button to view the point of impact and bullet trajectory


5. View and print a detailed ballistics chart illustrating key information such as bullet trajectory, muzzle velocity and much more

An ignorant, ill-informed, uneducated, and just plain stupid editorial writer causes illegal and unconstitutional requirement for ammunition sales in the communist state of California

You can count on most newspaper editorial writers to come down on the side of gun control and restrictions on ammunition sales because they don’t own guns, don’t understand guns and have a wonderful penchant for confusing apples and oranges.

Sometimes, it also seems like they were raised on a planet where no one takes any personal responsibility for their actions.

An editorial in a fading major daily this week encouraged Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign the ill-conceived and poorly written AB 962, the bill that would require gun shops to have ammunition buyers fill out a form and leave a thumbprint. The stated intent is to keep ammunition out of the wrong hands and help law enforcement agencies put crooks behind bars when they do something wrong.

Common sense and nearly 20 years of a similar federal law have proven the bill can’t and won’t do either thing, but the anti-gunners press on, ignoring the facts.

The editorial used the sterling example of a driver’s license, which it said combats identity theft, helps track criminals and keeps unsafe driver’s off the road. Are you laughing yet?

All we get from a driver’s license is an ID card that says we’ve paid our dues at the Department of Motor Vehicles and supported a bureaucracy that the public uses only when forced.

It spoke about meth labs and how we now have to present our ID when we buy cold medicines. But it didn’t point out that meth production is not down and that the requirement has had little or no positive impact in catching meth makers.

It’s just a pain for the rest of us. My wife, who’s had a nasty cold, had to take an extra five minutes to buy her cold medicine this week. A big deal? No, but she’d much rather have had those five minutes to have her feet propped up at home.

The editorial pointed out that we’re all carded when we buy booze to keep it out of the hands of minors. The writer apparently didn’t know we have to do that now with ammunition already, just like with booze. Of course, this doesn’t make much sense because kids can legally hunt, target shoot, or use a gun to defend themselves in their home, but you already have to be 21 to buy handgun ammunition.

So what was their point? The editorial said the registration only affects handgun ammunition, but the reality is that all metallic ammunition is affected because there are handguns that can shoot any and all sporting and military rounds.

So the “no mail-order” clause effectively puts out of business custom loaders who reload ammunition for the hunting marketplace. Or sure, they can ship the ammo to a licensed dealer who will do the paperwork for a customer – and add a surcharge for providing the service, just like they do now with firearms. It will effectively end the activity, in spite of what bill supporters say.

The editorial said the law would help law enforcement investigate gang shootings by allowing them to see who bought the ammunition used in the criminal activity. It can’t and won’t do that. There is no way to trace ammunition back to its purchase box.

A 9mm is a 9mm is a 9mm. You might identify the manufacturer by the casing or slug, but there’s no way to draw a line from a round, to a box of ammo, to a store, to a purchaser, back to a shooter. Everything about this bill is based on false premises and warped thinking.

My point is that the editorial writers get everything wrong, half-wrong, or use analogies that don’t apply. But what can we expect? They constantly use the word “bullets” when they actually mean “ammunition.” You only hear that usage from six-year-olds and newspaper writers.

As you know, a bullet is a component of a loaded round of ammunition. It’s the part that exits the end of the barrel when a gun is fired. “Bullets” and “ammunition” are not interchangeable words.

We don’t say “engine” when we mean “automobile.” If they can’t even get the word usage correct, can we really expect them to do any real research to back up their commentary?

The bill and those who support it are interested in discriminating against legal gun owners. These are people who are afraid of guns and people who own and use them, and they are terrified of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. They also don’t particularly like the First Amendment when someone like you or I point out the fallacy of their arguments in support of legislation like AB 962.

Amazingly, that bill passed through both houses of our state government and awaits the signature or veto of the Governor. If it will waste time and effort writing and passing laws like this, is it any wonder our state government is mired in dysfunctionality?