No, I haven’t lost my marbles and gone in on bans as the “proper”common sense” non-solution to the unsolvable conundrum of human free will. But with Washington becoming the 10th state to pass an ‘Assault Weapon’ ban, this one being particularly egregious by preventing manufacturer of weapons within the state for sale out of state (except for the government of course), I want to take a look at how these laws are being defended in the courtroom.
Illinois recently had their ban enjoined into inefficacy until the case is progressed, that should give you some indication… they aren’t well defended. For further exploration of the defenses we are going to step away from the Washington law, which has been sued appropriately by state and national actors looking to preserve American rights to effective firearms and to put away this nonsense of ban efficacy on actual safety. We are instead going to look at the source of the nonsense itself.
I am, of course, speaking of California.
CPRA vs. California is one of the challenges to the state’s long standing assault weapon ban. Since the ban is being challenged, it needs defense. Attorney General Bonta, those of you who read here regularly know I hold Bonta in highest contempt as an imbecile, picked his expert witness to convey the sheer ferocity and devastating power of the semi-automatic rifle. This expert testimony is to support the state assertion of the absolute necessity of AR’s and their ilk to remain prohibited weapons. He chose retired United States Marine Colonel Craig Tucker.
Tucker’s professed expertise is qualified with his service record… and whatever this means,
I have fired the Colt AR-15 5.56 rifle and the Smith and Wesson 5.56
AR rifle. Both are advertised as the civilian version of the M16 combat rifle. In
addition to my automatic rifle experience, I have extensive experience with the
AK-47, having been on the receiving end of hundreds of 7.62 rounds; an experience
best typified during the Battle of Hit when a single individual with one rifle and
apparently inexhaustible supply of 7.62 ammo and magazines kept nine Marines
pinned down for 15 minutes until a LAV-25 20mm chain gun solved the problem. I
have extensive experience with the Colt 1911 .45 caliber semi-automatic and the
Berretta .9m semi-automatic pistol and used both weapons in Iraq. –Pg. 3
This reads like the professional equivalent of, “I grew up around guns.” A statement that makes firearm trainers and experts everywhere cast the side eye to one another because it does not convey any of the proficiency the words themselves might otherwise imply. It is usually a herald of a problematic student filled with poor, sometimes dangerously so, habits, attitudes, and behavior.
The designation error about the Beretta at the end of the last sentence (perhaps a typo) aside, which is a 9mm NATO or 9x19mm semi-automatic pistol and not a .9m, his qualifications listed really are no deeper than any veteran who has gone to any rental range. The anecdote about the Battle of Hit only serves the purpose of exaggeration, as 9 Marines (presumably with the standard issue 5.56x45mm or 7.62x51mm weapons of their own) were in a position of disadvantage compared to one of advantage by the insurgent. The “20mm” shot was effective, safe, and available to the Marines, but it wasn’t necessary to stop the insurgent. A couple well placed rounds back at the insurgent would have ended the fight just as well as the “20mm” did, and the nine Marines each had one. But that would have been a risk to the Marines that they didn’t need to take, the safest method of stopping the insurgent who was suppressing the Marines was assuredly the armored vehicle with the cannon and not exposing one or more of the Marines to gunfire from their position of disadvantage. The anecdote is tactically sound, it does not demonstrate any particular superiority of an ‘assault weapon’ alone because both sides had assault weapons. One side also had a cannon. That side won. Armed with a bolt action rifle, like the very common Mosin, a shooter could pin 9 Marines from a strong position and make the use of the LAV-25 still the preferred option to avoid Marine casualties (Reference University of Texas, 1966).
Now I was just a lowly Corporal of Marines, and in the MIANG I was but a humble weapons tech, but the Colonel made another error that causes me to question his credentials as he states them here,
Through my military service, I gained extensive knowledge and
familiarity with the full range of US combat weapon systems. The automatic rifle
is the foundational combat weapon system. Ground and aviation weapon systems
are specifically designed to support the automatic rifle.
No, they are designed to support the infantry Marine, not a rifle. The infantry Marine is the closest decision maker to wherever any weapon the Marines have at hand might be used. He or she is best placed to contribute information to make those decisions about which weapons or movements will win fights and accomplish the mission.
My primary purpose in the
latter stages of my career was coordinating, and teaching others to coordinate, air
and ground weapon systems to support the rifleman and his automatic rifle.
Now let’s address the error in Tucker’s “extensive knowledge”, the M242 Bushmaster cannon in the LAV-25 is a 25mm. That now makes two errors, both in caliber, in this ‘expert’ testimony that Tucker was paid $200/hr for. The remainder of his professed qualifications could be met, as stated in brief here at least, in an hour by any service member who rented a Smith and Wesson AR-15 at a gun range. They too have ‘automatic rifle’ experience through their basic training and annual qualification, but I can attest that even those who “qualified expert” on those qualifications rarely hold any deeper understanding of the function of their service weapon. Most were just able to pantomime the proper motions of a fairly simple drill and achieve a score that we label “expert“. This title is mostly for feel good reasons and to promote a competitiveness in the qualification.
I’ve trained officers. I’ve trained enlisted. I’ve trained them to the military standards the range or drill and time allowed. Those standards can best be described as learning to complete a long form drill for a score, and not as any sort of expertise or understanding of the rifle and its capabilities. They are training to qualify, not understand. That understanding was always extra, always above the norm, and almost always came from enthusiasts for these systems and not those in a professional role alone. The higher the rank, usually, resulted in greater disregard for understanding the individual weapon system, it was beneath them and they had ‘better things to do’ to administer their unit’s function than something so base as annual ‘qualification’.
One of the worst examples of this I saw was a 1st Sergeant who had jammed up their rifle badly by continuously trying to ‘tap rack’, instead of knowing what was actually wrong with the rifle (double feed, that became a triple feed and a round over BCG, caused originally by slapping the bottom of the magazine while loading the rifle with the bolt open which is known to cause this problem) who then just stormed off the range. Just rage quit and penciled in their qual score instead of owning up to the fact that they failed.
If I sampled 100 service members right now on a service rifle or service pistol, I would count myself lucky to find one with the technical knowledge and practical experience to qualify as competent, to say nothing of expertise. Military ranges consist of a tremendous amount of hand holding, step-by-step dependency on range commands, and looking to the few who know just enough more to be considered the ‘experts’ in a unit to get through the day.
Taking those 100 random service members, of any rank, and placing them alone on a range with an AR, magazine, and some ammunition and then giving them the simple direction of “Shoot the target.” and we would see most service members struggle, second guess what they’re doing, recite a verbal reminder of the steps they think are correct, and do things incorrectly or in a very inefficient manner. It would be, in a compound word the USMC favors, a clusterfuck. A few, maybe even more than half, would likely manage… eventually… but the odds of getting one service member to properly load a magazine, load and check the the rifle, and then fire an acceptable group of rounds on a target at a reasonable distance in a reasonable time are long odds indeed.
So how does our $200/hr Colonel (I’m only $150/hr Bonta, hit me up) describe the AR?
I am familiar with the features, accessories, and capabilities of rifles
regulated by Penal Code § 30515(a).
Okay.
The AR-15, like the M4, is an offensive
combat weapon system.
Subjective to context.
Tucker has used the M4/M16 offensively because he is a Marine. He has also used the full assets of a MAGTF, of which the individual rifles are but a small component (see the earlier referencing of an LAV-25). The AR-15 is used defensively constantly by law enforcement, civilians, and by military personnel defending bases and positions. It is an offensive weapon when troops are in the offense. The personnel evacuating Afghanistan and protecting the airport were not using their weapons offensively, they were used defensively. Small arms in particular are offensive or defensive based on their user’s current intent. They are not strictly offensive or defensive.
The only difference is the AR-15 cannot fire on full-auto
(continual shots fired in succession so long as the trigger is pulled) or burst (several
shots fired in succession with a single pull of the trigger)—a picayune difference
that cannot serve to support a non-combat role for the AR-15.
True, but we’re not talking about the near identical nature of the two rifles function, we are talking about the role. We’re not talking about non-combat roles. Defensive combat is combat. Combat is not limited to the military. The 2nd Amendment is about combat, the absolute right and ability to defend oneself, family, and community as those needs arise. Just because a civilian self defense shooting is likely to be brief and against a limited number of opponents does not change the fact that is combat. An individual encounter between troops in conflict can be equally brief and resolved with very few shots.
In my experience,
soldiers are trained to set select-fire weapons to semi-auto mode, so that a single
round is fired with each pull of the trigger.
True.
An M4 or M16 on full-automatic is an
area fire weapon: the auto rate of fire makes the weapon too difficult to control on a
point target.
Subjective and circumstantial.
Rifle fire on full automatic is not aimed fire,
Completely incorrect. Automatic fire in indirect fire are both aimed, they are just aimed somewhat differently than direct fire.
uses an excessive amount
of ammunition and will damage the weapon if used too often.
Subjective and circumstantial.
In fact, in my 14
months of combat, I did not once see an M4 or M16 fired on full auto.
So? Are we merely trying to say the M4 and M16 are AR-15’s? Because that is true.
Semi-auto
function is used almost exclusively in combat.
True. It is also almost exclusively used here in self-defense firearms.
When operated in semi-auto mode,
the AR-15 and M4 share the same rates of fire, the same maximum effective range,
the same maximum range, use the same magazines designed for combat and the
same ammunition.
True-ish. But again, so? With the exception of M855A1 ammunition. The magazines weren’t ‘designed for combat’ either. They were designed to feed ammunition into the rifle at the speed it needs to in order to keep the rifle cycling properly. The magazine does not care if it is in combat, on a competition field, in a rifle loaded with only a few rounds to be zeroed or to hunt, the magazine does not care. The magazine’s job in all situations is to properly feed ammunition, that does not make it ‘designed for combat’ except in abstract.
The desirable qualities of the M4/AR and its peer group as ‘combat’ weapons are exactly why the 2nd Amendment protects it, it is the ideal individual tool for a life threatening fight. That fight, here in the states and under the rule of law, will always be of a defensive nature, but that defensive nature does not lower the efficacy threshold of the tool you are entitled to defend yourself with. We are not limited to inferior firearms merely because our threat is not a nation state or organized paramilitary enemy. The police aren’t, and their daily potential threats are also our daily potential threats.
The AR-15 and M4 are both designed to fire a .223 round that
tumbles upon hitting flesh and rips thru the human body.
As opposed to a bolt action 30.06 which fires… a round that tumbles and expands upon hitting flesh and rips through bodies, severely damages internal organs… or a .22lr which when fired into the center mass of a body will tear through flesh and cause significant potentially lethal damage to internal organs. Poking extra holes into people and letting the red stuff out, especially in the heart and lung region, is bad for continued health of the body and all firearm ammunition is capable of it.
A single round is capable
of severing the upper body from the lower body, or decapitation.
…
And here we are folks… here is the EXPERT testimony being used to deny the legitimacy of the AR-15 as a civilian rifle unless it has goofy annoying features added to it or useful features removed from it. This is the airtight defense, paid for and submitted by AG Bonta, to keep their Assault Weapon Ban, and by extension other states and potentially a national ban, in place. These absolutely ludicrous assertions from a retired Colonel who merely existed near AR’s professionally and who seemingly cannot be bothered to do anything more than bloviate about how the 5.56 is somehow the ultimate weapon of war. Yet… NINE of his Marines armed with them were not able to severe one insurgents upper and lower body with a single shot. They had to use the 25mm cannon instead.
The round is
designed to kill, not wound,
All conventional firearm ammunition is lethal. ALL. OF. IT. There is no safe way to poke the internal organs and make someone lose blood. Does 5.56 cause more damage than .22 or 9mm? Yes. 30.06 and 12 gauge arguably cause still more. But here we are using hyperbole to justify the physically ludicrous ban on a decidedly middle power ammunition when all conventional ammunition surpasses the lethality threshold.
and both the AR-15 and M4 contain barrel rifling to
make the round tumble upon impact and cause more severe injury.
That isn’t what rifling is for. That isn’t how external or terminal ballistics work. That isn’t how any of this works.
The
combination of automatic rifle and .223 round is a very efficient killing system.
The same can be said of the AR-15.
The same can be said of any firearm designed in roughly the last century. Does it feed metallic cartridge ammunition? Yes? Than it can be used as a ‘very efficient killing system’ if someone wants. Does it hold five rounds of ammunition or capable of loading reasonably quickly five single rounds of ammunition? Yes? Than it is capable of causing what is commonly termed as a ‘mass shooting’, one with four or greater casualties.
If a doctor were to give such testimony about a surgery or medicine, or an engineer were to defend a bridge or road design with this level of inaccuracy I would expect their peers to immediately remove them from their fields. This is dangerously incompetent. This is the appeal to expertise fallacy writ official and devoid of actual credibility.
I almost wonder if the good Colonel made up this nonsense on purpose and then took Bonta’s money laughing to the bank. It is that dismally inept. Tucker then goes onto these non-examples, feature by feature,
Detachable magazines: In order for a rifle to qualify as an assault
weapon under California Penal Code § 30515(a), the rifle must have the capability
of accepting a detachable ammunition magazine (by not having a fixed magazine).
Detachable magazines improve the killing efficiency of automatic rifles, allowing
the combat rifleman to efficiently carry a combat load of 120 rounds in four 30-
round magazines, to rapidly change magazines in combat, and to increase killing
efficiency by significantly reducing reload time. Changing magazines during
intense combat is the most important individual skill taught to Marines. During
intense combat, the detachable magazine provides a rifleman the capability to fire
120 rounds on semi-automatic in three minutes at a high-sustained rate of 45 rounds
per minute.
I can confirm the opposite actually, I had to fight with with higher ups during a training evolution because how they wanted Marines to change magazines was resulting in 30-45 second reloads. They were far more worried about the magazine ending up in the dump pouch than getting rounds into the rifle.
In a civilian self-defense context, by contrast, an individual would not
have a need for such a high rate of fire.
Highly subjective bordering on outright falsehood. They probably need a higher rate of fire, but fewer rounds. Probably. You and I don’t get to set the parameters of their fight, Tucker.
This is, again, cherry picking contexts with no evidentiary basis. Additionally the detachable magazine does more than just provide for an efficient reload, which Tucker cannot argue would be unnecessary in a civilian context (merely unlikely to be necessary which is very different), but also to facilitate fixing a firearm that malfunctions. Repeating firearms with a fixed or low capacity magazine are more complex and much harder to fix if they stop working than those with normal detachable magazines, especially if the firearm was designed with a detachable magazine in the first place.
Changing magazines isn’t the only skill taught to Marines, arguably clearing a stoppage is more important and I can confirm a great deal of emphasis was put on that. You were basically just expected to figure out a reload. But don’t take my word for it, ask Paul Gardner aka Wheelchair_technical (IG) on what skills the Marines were really teaching and emphasizing during that time frame Tucker is talking about. He’ll tell you. It isn’t a good answer.
What’s next, Colonel?
Pistol grip protruding beneath the action of a rifle: I am a 15th Award
Expert on the M16 and M4. I carried an M4 every day for 14 months during my
time in command of RCT-7 in Iraq. I used an M4 in combat, and I killed with it.
The pistol grip beneath the action of an automatic rifle serves only two purposes.
First, the pistol grip allows the rifleman to pull the rifle into her shoulder with each
shot, an action which increases stock weld, reduces semi-automatic/automatic
recoil, and reduces barrel rise. Stock weld or cheek weld refers to the firmness of
the contact between the rifle stock, the shooter’s cheek, and the shooter’s shoulder.
A firm stock weld is required for effective semi-automatic and automatic rapid fire.
Absent any pistol grip, a semi-automatic rifle would be difficult to operate when
fired rapidly, as the rifle barrel would seesaw up and down with each shot fired in
succession. Second, the pistol grip functions as a hand rest to reduce hand/finger
fatigue during long combat engagements. Both actions increase the killing
efficiency of automatic rifles and are necessities in sustained combat operations of
weeks or months when firing a rifle rapidly. – Pg. 6
This reads like Tucker had a word count he had to reach to justify his check, so he just made up stuff about each rifle feature like a high schooler with a report due needing at least 10 pages. Pistol grips are for gripping grippily in the grippiest of gripping manners. Get a grip, seriously.
I love his assertion that semi-automatic and automatic rifles without pistol grips like the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, Mini14, or M1A/M14, SKS, or BAR are somehow so much harder to shoot. It couldn’t be that the pistol grip, while arguably more comfortable and ergonomic, is far more the product of ease of assembly as we got away from single piece carved wood stocks, could it? This akin to arguing that heated seats in a car improve its drunk driving lethality.
Forward pistol grip: The forward pistol grip provides leverage to
tighten a stock weld on short barrel automatic weapons and reduces recoil and
barrel rise on short barrel automatic rifles. Forward pistol grips were added to the
M4 to increase M4 killing efficiency.
That’s… not how any of this works… unless you are a particularly obtuse and motivated DA trying to save your gun ban because its an asinine piece of performance idiocy that hasn’t objectively saved a single Californian life.
Folding stock: A folding stock causes weapon instability. For that
reason, folding stock automatic rifles are designed for military personnel, whose
primary weapon is vehicle or air-mounted (tank, Bradly, Apache), who may be
required to escape from a mangled vehicle, or who may need to abandon a
destroyed weapon system and need a substitute weapon for offensive combat.
Outside of the military context, folding stocks that are not properly locked in place
can cause significant safety risks to the shooter due to recoil.
Is that why most of the rifles designed for general issuance since the AR-18 was designed in 1963 have folding stocks? The inherent instability? The AR is a notable exception to that because of its recoil buffer design and not anything to do with stability. Vehicle and air mounted troops only? G36? SCAR? MCX? ACR? Several AK variants. The new NGSW M7? Did they pick that and it’s folding stock for the instability?
Is that why the GAU 5, a carbine made expressly for the purpose you are describing above, by the USAF, doesn’t use a folding stock?
Oh, and let’s not pass up that last gem. “folding stocks that are not properly locked in place can cause significant safety risks to the shooter due to recoil.”
So that’s why we got rid of braces and made those guns all cause significant safety risks to the shooter due to recoil.? I know braces is a different case, it is just fun to look at the circular non-logic used to defend an AWB while it inherently undermines the case for removing braces from AR type pistols and makes the case that SBRs are safer. All while the ATFs own data shows that SBRs and the pistols that the ATF has declared to be SBRs are a far cry from the most common crime firearm recovered in crimes despite the NFA’s assertion that such firearms are only suitable for nefarious purposes.
Grenade or flare launcher: A Marine Corps fireteam consists of a
fireteam leader, a rifleman, an assault gunner, and a grenadier. The grenadier is
armed with a grenade launcher. The grenadier uses the grenade launcher to
suppress or kill human beings so the rest of the fireteam can maneuver into position
to kill those humans with automatic rifle fire. The launcher is a separate weapon
system attached to as few rifles as possible dependent on the combat mission. In
my experience, grenade launchers attached to rifles are cumbersome, difficult to
aim, difficult to carry, and are not as effective as a standalone grenade launcher.
They have no legitimate use in self-defense.
That isn’t the grenade launcher being talked about, at all, in the California law that Tucker is allegedly familiar with. They are talking about rifle grenade launchers, which are a special muzzle attachment that older rifles used to launch those older style grenades. They fell out of favor by Vietnam. They went out of style in most militaries in favor of the low velocity 40mm that he is referring to here, M203/M320. The grenades themselves would be regulated even if the muzzle devices are not. Tucker is either hilariously wrong or lying on purpose about the law, I’m actually leaning toward the former due to the current level of accuracy in this “expert” testimony.
Flash suppressor/flash hider: The purpose of the flash suppressor is to
reduce combat signature by cooling and dispersing burning gases. This makes it
more difficult for the enemy to pinpoint a rifleman’s location, especially in low
light conditions. The flash suppressor facilitates night combat operations by
reducing muzzle flash and mitigating muzzle flash impact on night vision goggles.
This accessory serves specific combat-oriented purposes and is not needed for self-
defense.
This is the closest Tucker has come thus far to having a point. It isn’t a point, but it is the closest.
However contrary to Tucker’s assertion, muzzle flash and noise are things to consider for self defense, as self defense at home and at night is one of the most likely times protection would be needed and that a rifle would make the most sense to use at home. A flash hider, and even more effectively a silencer/suppressor, is a high value addition to a home defense firearm as it lowers the disorienting effects of firing a firearm indoors. This is less likely to disorient you as you protect yourself and less likely to disorient people you are protecting who are also inside and subject to the noise.
Stating that reducing the effects of firing a shot upon the defensive shooter has no self defense purpose is false. But his explanation of some of the flash hiders function is at least without hyperbole like the assertion a 5.56 round can rip a person in two.
Fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds:
Automatic rifles are offensive combat weapons systems designed to kill efficiently
and effectively. Any increase to magazine capacity increases the killing efficiency
of the automatic rifle. A 30-round fixed magazine can fire more rounds in a given
amount of time than three 10-round detachable magazines, which would need to be
reloaded to fire the same number of rounds, slowing down the rate of fire.
Similarly, a 100-round drum magazine can fire more rounds in a given period of
time than ten 10-round detachable magazines. As noted above in connection with
detachable magazines, an individual using a rifle in self-defense would not need
such a high, continuous rate of fire.
I have already addressed why detachable magazines, even if you only have one magazine, are the safer option. But the Marine Corps itself has directly contradicted Tucker’s point here. Their adoption of the M27, a detachable magazine fed rifle, in place of the M249 light machine gun, a belt-fed and functionally analogous ‘fixed’ feed system, the Marine Corps cited that the ability of Marines to keep the fire rate sustained was better with lower capacity detachable magazines than the M249 belts. So the detachable 10 round magazines will produce a better sustained rate of fire the moment they go beyond whatever the capacity that the fixed magazine held. Tuckers assertion is false, proven by the very military branch he served with. In addition, magazine capacity (specifically its limitation) has never once conclusively been shown to have limited casualties.
The AR-15 is an offensive combat weapon no different in function or
purpose than an M4. In my opinion, both weapons are designed to kill as many
people as possible, as efficiently as possible, and serve no legitimate sporting or
self-defense purpose.
So Tucker’s opinion is just that, an opinion and not causatively based upon the evidence as the AR-15 is extensively used for both sporting and self-defense. Tucker continually ignores or fails to consider perspectives that would undermine his opinion and states outright physically impossible falsehoods as factual.
Self-defense and military combat are different. The weapons
and accessories needed in one may not be needed or appropriate in the other.
Why do police carry AR-15’s then? They are not in military combat, they face domestic citizen level threats. Why do the police need detachable magazines and 5.56 ammunition? Why has the M4/AR-15 and other 5.56 carbines been overwhelmingly selected as the personal defense weapon of choice for law enforcement?
For
instance, when I was serving in the military, I carried my M4 for offensive combat
and a handgun for self-defense.
So you didn’t understand their combined use, the purpose of a sidearm and primary firearm together. Did use your pistol exclusively if attacked and the rifle only when you were attacking? Did your Marines also receive these same commands? That their M16’s were only for attacking and that they must use the closest officer or other personnel with an M9, that they can probably not operate, if they were attacked and needed to defend themselves?
Defensive combat is generally up close and very
personal.
True.
At that range, it is very difficult to use a rifle as a defensive weapon,
except as a blunt force instrument.
False. Marines actually receive training on fighting with the rifle at contact distance. CQB with a rifle is taught extensively to those military and law enforcement personnel expected to need to fight, with a rifle, inside a building and at close distances.
My 9mm pistol was the self-defense weapon of
choice, and we were trained to expend only 1-2 rounds per adversary in pistol
combat.
So Tucker, you were trained wrong. On purpose? As a joke? This attitude is the product of the institutional inbreeding that stops questioning why something is done or how it can be done better and safer. This is what comes of the ‘qualification’ training attitude that pervades military and law enforcement, you train to pass a qualifier and not for realistic and variant effects on targets. It is the ‘we’ve always done it this way’ stupidity that keeps having troops, cops, and civilians, go throw old motions that are not properly understood and then calling it proficiency.
The features identified in California Penal Code § 30515(a) enhance the
lethality of both semiautomatic and automatic rifles and are most appropriate for
combat applications when used in conjunction with those types of weapons
systems.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 6, 2023 at Sandia Park, New Mexico – Col. (Ret.) Craig Tucker
Wow…
Tucker, through his efforts here, should be ashamed to try and wear the rank and title, Colonel of Marines. He put keyboard to work on 16 pages of hyperbole and subjective half reasoned nonsense and just used his resume to try and make it stick. He was paid $200 an hour to write it though and I cannot entirely fault making off with Bonta’s money.
This is great news
Seriously. It is.
Why?
Because this constitutes their best efforts. This inaccurate, subjective, half-baked FuddMil “expert” sworn testimony is the best they have to defend the banning of ‘assault weapons’ as particularly dangerous in comparison to other firearms or methods of injury. Everything in this sworn statement is either false, hyperbole, or the subjective opinion of an unimaginative politically driven retired military officer. It would be hard to make this pass as an accurate middle school report on the California AWB law, and it is the expert commentary in its defense.
Who are any of the 10 states with bans in place going to find to try and be a better ‘expert’ than Tucker? Who can they produce as a more well read and articulate witness who can use the factual data of the actual risks of semi-autos in comparison to the risks at large?
