A Dreadnought was the title given to a new warship design that was heavy on armor and big guns. The HMS Dreadnought of 1906 started the title and afterward there was a focus on large ships of the line with massive long range armament. Pre-dreadnoughts had scaling armament designed with closing distance in mind.
Although the title Dreadnought went away the spirit of the design remained. Yamato, Bismarck, and the USS Iowa were the final titans of the design with displacement five times greater than the “17,000” tons of the originals. The USS Arizona was 32,249 tons and the typical behemoth battleships of WWII were around the 30k range if they were build prior to the war.
A few German builds began to flirt with 40,000 in the 30’s but Bismarck shattered it at 50,000 tons. It out massed and out gunned the 20 year older HMS Hood in battle and Bismarck and Prinz Eugen sank the British Warship. Bismarck was defeated mostly by damage from long range heavy guns as its armor effectively stymied most lighter attacks.
In the Pacific, the true titans where out in force with the Yamato at 71,659 tons and the Iowa at 58,400, dwarfing most others. Yamato dwarfed all others, in fact, as the class was the largest battleship ever designed and fielded 18.1 inch guns. It was conceived as a battleship that could take on and defeat multiple US battleships at the same time.
Yamato was taken on and sunk by aircraft on its way to Kamikaze itself into a permanent artillery emplacement on Okinawa. Yamato lasted 46 minutes under attack in the final engagement before capsizing and exploding. Proving ultimately that aircraft needed to be part of any naval screen to protect from aircraft.
While Dreadnought as a term went away, that Battleships and Battlecruisers of WWII were ultimately the spiritual inheritors of the moniker.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a law professor at Notre Dame University, poses in an undated photograph obtained from Notre Dame University September 19, 2020. Matt Cashore/Notre Dame University/Handout via REUTERS./File Photo
A stream of headlines in my inbox have reminded me that today is Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s hearing. Most of those headlines were so rather enjoyable hand ringing from the “Gun Safety Advocate” crowd who love themselves some infringement in the morning.. especially if they promise it isn’t infringement.
Now gun rights haven’t played a major seat in this election although they are absolutely at risk. With COVID-19, the protests and riots, and the national elections own internal drama as Trump faces Biden, guns really haven’t come up in the debate. We are left to both of the side’s default positions as their face on guns.
Trump who has spoken at the NRA Annual Meeting, whose son is even more heavily invested in the industry, and who heads the party known for protecting gun rights… but who has failed to do so in crucial ways. The Bumpstock Ban was proof of what we suspected, if the 2A is valuable to Trump at the time then he’ll protect and praise it… but he’s not dying on that hill. Now with the Honey Badger/SB Brace issue in the pot we do not have a good foundation with Trump to expect a positive outcome.
But with Biden the prospect is far worse. He openly brags of his 1994 support for the Assault Weapons Ban as part of the Clinton Crime Bill and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Both of which had tremendous negative and few positive consequences.
The claim is that Brady (which established NICS) has kept 3 Million firearms out of dangerous hands but we all known that’s a whole semi-truck of horse shit. That’s just a metric of the ‘Deny’ rate from NICS, not follow-up investigations, prosecutions, or number of rulings that were later rescinded. Depending upon the parameters used, up to 95% of NICS initial denials are false and by any metric the number of prosecutions compared to denials is atrocious. There is also no comparative metric to cover those denied vs those who later acquired an illegal firearm in some other manner, making the denial rather moot.
In short the Democrats continue to be Democrats and the Republicans are Republicans. But Amy Coney Barrett’s written opinions on the Second Amendment make her appointment and confirmation the best stacking of the deck we can ask in the 2A’s favor we could ask for.
Especially if Trump loses and the Senate flips in November…
What are those odds? Well…
Bookies.com Senate Odds.
Republicans are now the longer shot to have a majority in the Senate which, combined with a Biden win, would leave the Supreme Court as the only 2A supportive branch of Government at the federal level.
Now that isn’t to say the Democrats would immediately cram gun control into the mix, there is such thing as a pro 2A Democrat and there are more now than there have been in a long time since March made a whole lot of new gun owners. Gun control itself is bad issue to tackle but it plays well with a strong traditionally Democratic base. That base has gotten weaker during the pandemic and may be dead in all but name. It will certainly be kept trudging along to the chagrin of the American gun owner if the capitol turns blue.
Now, Trump and the Republicans upset the polls last time. That could happen again. But the country didn’t know Trump as President then and we were in a different headspace. The country knows the President now, he’s not the new guy anymore. He’s assuredly still Trump and we’ve seen what he looks like in the oval office. I personally think that diminishes the ‘wild card’ effect he held in 2016.
The election comes down to a fair weather 2A friend and a sworn opponent for the White House. That makes Barrett the 2A’s best gain for the foreseeable near term.
The KelTec Sub 2000 is a fascinating PCC. It’s a simple blowback operated gun that comes chambered in 40 S&W and 9mm. The Sub 2000 also uses common pistol magazines from companies like Glock, S&W, SIG Sauer, CZ, and likely some I’m missing. Oh, also the gun folds in half. Yep, the barrel folds in half and locks into a clip on the rear of the stock. This shrinks the package from 29.25 inches to 16.25 inches. That’s cool, but damn does it make it tough to toss an optic on it. You need a specialized Sub 2k scope mount, and a little company called Mcarbo has presented us with a rather creative option.
Mcarbo is a small veteran-owned company that has taken a great interest in the Sub 2000 platform. Sub 2k owners need to check them out. They make tons of upgrades for the platform. From muzzle devices to trigger spring kits, they got it all.
Break it Down
The Mcarbo Sub 2k scope mount allows you to retain the ability to fold your weapon and allows the gun to run a red dot. The scope mount is spring-loaded, and with the push of a button, it pops out of the way and allows you to easily fold the carbine. When needed, the optic can be pushed back into place in less than a second.
The mount plays host to a short section of Picatinny rail that allows you to mount both compact and mini red dot sights. You’ll want a low mount for maximum comfort and to keep the weapon’s height as low as possible.
Other Sub 2K scope mounts attach to the handguard in some way, but Mcarbo went a different route. They pushed it rearward, and it attaches to where the handguard starts. The handguard is held on by four bolts, and the Mcarbo scope mount attaches at those bolt points with four included longer replacement bolts. It’s a simple installation and takes just a few minutes to finish.
In the Field
The KelTec Sub 2000 is a lightweight weapon, and adding a whole ton of weight to the platform doesn’t make much sense. The Mcarbo Sub 2k Scope mount is made from aluminum and weighs just a few ounces. When paired with a lightweight optic, you won’t notice any extra bulk.
The paddle to send the optic to the side is somewhat protected by the top of the scope mount. It seems unlikely, if not impossible, to accidentally trigger the scope mount when firing the weapon. I even dropped it on a semi-hard surface targeting the paddle to see if it can be triggered. Ten drops onto a carpeted floor didn’t trigger the optic to spring to the side. The optic mount locks into place with a bit of tactile and audible feedback that lets you know when it’s locked.
This is the only Sub 2K scope mount that allows you to co-witness with the KelTec’s iron sights. It works perfectly as long as your dot features a low mount option. My iron sights were already zeroed, so it was easy to drift my optic’s reticle in place and be on the money. It’s a nice feature to have, and the optic is placed nice and low for a good cheek weld. Mcarbo also produced a rubber cover that makes aiming with a red dot a good bit more comfortable.
One fear I had was a loss of zero between popping the optic up and down. It seemed like the lock could potentially have some slack and cause a shift. I was able to confirm there was zero noticeable drift via live fire. Heck, I could even look at the reticle position in relation to my front sight and see that it hadn’t moved.
Limitations Worth Noting
Like anything, there are always downsides. The limitations of this Sub 2K scope mount are mainly related to the type of optic you can mount to it. The short section of rail prohibits anything larger than a red dot sight. The height requirement prevents you from mounting any optic that isn’t low mounted. Also, something like a 1X prism isn’t going to be possible since the eye relief is rather far out there. It’s purely a red dot sight mount.
A red dot is perfect and provides you with plenty of precision inside a 9mm’s potential range and accuracy.
Final Thoughts
The Mcarbo Sub 2K scope mount was made to last and made to retain the Sub 2000’s famed folding ability. Like any weapon, the Sub 2000 is made faster and more precise by the presence of a red dot. Mcarbo knocked it out of the park and designed an excellent Sub 2K scope mount that gives you unbeatable performance for such a niche product. This isn’t the only Sub 2k Scope mount, but it’s clearly the best.
Militia is (again.. still) the dirty word. It is heavily associated with the right-wing of politics and this latest plot will cement that further, while the left-wing will continue to dominate words like ‘rioter’ or ‘agitator’ even for similar acts of violence or plots for violence.
Both, for instance, have plotted and some have executed attacks against Law Enforcement officers and buildings. Both have used or plotted to use explosives and/or incendiaries to commit these attacks. But the ones associated with ‘Militia’ sound scarier than the ones associated with ‘Agitators’ or ‘Rioters’, mostly because those latter two titles sound less organized.
1:3 casualty rates sound swell? And you can just smell the collateral damage, pain, and suffering. It all pairs splendidly with apple cider [/sarc]
Just look at those numbers. No seriously. LOOK! Who the fuck is excited for that?
I’m not our Governor’s biggest fan by any stretch but the Supreme Court already did their job and struck down the Governor’s order. Almost like the system is still on the tracks and working the best it can…
And yet we still got Trailer Park ISIS…
What is the Militia?
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country. -James Madison
Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.- George Mason
I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. -George Mason
The Militia is the community. Your friends, your neighbors, your fellow citizens of sound body and mind. They are the militia. You are the militia.
It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency. – George Washington
That a community may rise up and provide for its own defense in times of emergency. That every able citizen be capable and practiced in those duties enough to rise to the occasion to defend themselves, their community, or their nation as need may be.
That is the Militia. But George Washington also held realistic views on the militia.
To place any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life – unaccustomed to the din of arms – totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves when opposed to troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge, and superior in arms, makes them timid and ready to fly from their own shadows.
Which is why course work and practice are necessary. Training in emergency aid both personal and communal (yes, disaster prep), concealed carry handgun (no not just your state mandated check in the box course), and basic rifle skills are important.
It is why knowing your neighbors, your community, is important because these are the people you will be helping and who will be there to help you.. or not if they have no incentive to do so. What you and they have to bring to the table are what you and they have, whatever comes from further off isn’t there when you need it. Build that community. Whose political sign is in their front yard doesn’t change that, you can debate that by a fire and talk policies if you want but that person is still your community. They’re there when something happens, because they live there with you.
Now, a group looking to actively destroy a community over disagreements and grievances, however valid or invalid, and who “seek political action through violence and intimidation” have another well known moniker.
Terrorist.
“Your Truth” vs The Truth
We’re big on feelings over facts right now. Live your truth and all that. But that works both ways. Actually, it works a whole mess of ways and a whole mess of “truths”.
“In all honesty right now … I just wanna make the world glow, dude,” Fox said, according to the affidavit. “That’s what it’s gonna take for us to take it back, we’re just gonna have to everything’s gonna have to be annihilated man. We’re gonna topple it all, dude.”
That was, is perhaps, Adam Fox’s “truth”. The man who masterminded this insanity was convinced it was the only sane thing to do. Understand that, actively understand that another person was convinced of this to the same degree you hold your personal political views. The extremist often believes they are the only, or one of few, ‘sane’ people paying attention and convince themselves they need to act.
“I don’t know what’s scarier: the COVID or the politics,”
It should be COVID. The contagious infection. The force of nature that we can’t debate, negotiate, or compromise with. That should be our point of healthy concern.
But we are a drastically ‘overfeared’ society. The political leverage that fear provides over, and over, and over again has been used against people who are living in, literally, the best of times to great success. Fear’s effectiveness is the reason why every natural disaster is the worst ever (from this cherry picked period), why every political decision made by the opposing side is the worst thing ever and will literarily tear down the fabric of the republic (regardless of actual practical impact studies), and why when something that your affiliated groups have done that has been harmful gets pointed out we are quick to point out, “yeah, but look how much worse the other is.” It is all leveraging fear.
Meanwhile, medicine and technology have never been better, life spans have never been longer, the available knowledge and ease of access have never been higher (not that we are conditioned to take advantage of that, sadly), and world poverty levels have never been lower. For every real problem the world still faces, and will continue to, we’ve never had more going right than we do right now. Objectively and without any viable argument, it is the best time to be alive.
But fear rhetoric from one or another faction distorts that and eventually results in extreme reactions. It always has and will continue to do so. It doesn’t matter who’s rhetoric triggers it, someone’s will.
The “greatest threat” will almost always be the faction who committed or tried to commit the last atrocity. At least the last atrocity you cared about. Armenia and Azerbaijan are in a literal shooting war right now and being used as a proxy for a few other fights but I’d bet most people feel these 13 chuckleheads are scarier. Granted, they wanted to bring that shooting war here but, even with how high political tensions are, that was about as likely as Vermin Supreme winning the White House in a landslide. It is reality there, though.
“This is more than just political disagreement or passionate advocacy. Some of these groups’ mission is simply to create chaos and inflict harm upon others.”- Michigan AG Dana Nessel
Antifa and what the media are calling “Boogaloo Adherents” (since we had to ruin that word and cannot have inside jokes or nice things) are going to be the boogeymen right now. There are no major visible external threats to focus on so the internal ones have taken the stage. We’ve spent two decades hard against Islamists so that one feels old and beaten, and largely is. But Islamists were never the only threat, nor is ‘largely beaten’ equate to beaten for all time.
Groups like all of the above will never vanish from the face of the earth so long as force remains a viable currency, and force always will. It is naïve to believe otherwise. People’s fear of any particular group is largely based on their personal biases instead of the objective damage that group is capable of. Taken in that objective light, all terrorists, agitators, anarchist groups, and so on start to look like equals, even the ones who espouse points you agree or sympathize with.
No culture, group, society, religion, or political affiliation holds a monopoly on being a bunch of assholes.
So let’s start exercising that wonderful free will that we all can, and just not be. Don’t point at someone else and shout, “Them first!” You can control you, so you do you. That’s all you really can do.
Be Militia
Be the whole people. Be community. Build up your friends, your neighbors, your family, and your nation. Always be building, always be working.
First seen on The Firearm Blog, Sig Sauer (Specifically SIG Sauer Electro-Optics) have been awarded a $77,168,400 contract to provide the US Army’s new Direct View Optic (DVO) which will be used on the M4A1 carbine and likely any remaining M16A4’s retained as DMR’s.
Army is looking to replace the venerable fixed power TA31 ACOGs (designated M150 RCO) that serve beside the Aimpoint CompM series CCO’s. The new DVOs will meld the capabilities of the RCO and CCO and add increased engagement envelope to the M4A1’s
The Marines selected the Trijicon VCOG 1-8x to top their H&K M27 rifles not long ago and this award to Sig Sauer by the Army signals a final shift in the large scale ground combat elements going to LPVO’s.
Along with the standard dimensional and operational environment capability requirements for heat, vibration, environment, durability, etc. The Army required the DVO to have a passive reticle with an ‘Army specified reticle pattern’ with free-floating windage and range adjustment marks/numbers (likely the M855A1) as well as an illuminated center aiming feature visible under all lighting conditions including total darkness.
The DVO had to be M1913 Picatinny rail compatible, mount an objective lens Laser Filter Unit that attaches to the objective lens end of the optic (one of the annoying honeycomb things, I believe), and have an optical sight box center line of 38.1 ±2.5mm [1.5 ±0.1 inches] from the top of the rail (inline with the current ACOG and Aimpoint heights). The optic had to be no longer than 10.5 inches and use AA, CR123 or CR2032 batteries if necessary.
The SIG Tango6T SOT61233 Hellfire M855A1 on an M4(gery)
Army may not have picked the SOT61233 specifically but it is the most likely candidate, it is the SOCOM S-VPO. Sig also may have submitted an unlisted variant instead of one of their commercial facing items.
I have been impressed and continue to be impressed by Sig’s high end optical line in both dots and variables. There will be another optical award to go along with the NGSW-R/AR selection in the next couple years but it is good to see that the rifles that will be sticking around while while the new weapons make their way in will continue modernization as well.
Now if only they’d put a decent sling on them and some QD points.
In case you hadn’t noticed, there’s a presidential election in less than a month. Every presidential race since 2004 has carried some fear of gun control with it, but not since 2012 have we seen such elevated concerns about further restrictions of our Constitutionally protected right to bear arms. The purpose of this article isn’t to inspire fear, but rather offer a realistic analysis of the potential gun control scenarios that could result from the 2020 election.
In crafting the 2020 Election Gun Control Analysis, we first have to understand the landscape at the federal level. In the House of Representatives, the Republicans would need to flip 17 seats to take over control of the House, which has about a 3% chance of happening. The Senate is a different story; the odds-makers are calling it a toss up about which party will be in control of the Senate after the election. The Presidential race is similarly close, with Mr. Biden enjoying a lead over President Trump in polling. But, Hillary Clinton enjoyed a similar lead, and everyone remembers 2016. Last, there’s President Trump’s pending appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court; which as of this writing seems like it will go through, but isn’t guaranteed.
Potential gun control threats are outlined in Joe Biden’s “PLAN TO END OUR GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC.” It’s important to remember that these policy positions are a lot like a letter to Santa Claus: they contain goals that the candidate/party would want to do if they got their way all the time, but are infrequently representative of actual policies enacted. For the sake of analysis, we will make two assumptions: Ms. Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court will be confirmed, and Biden wins the Presidency. We’ll look at the potential gun control scenarios that could result with either a Republican held Senate or a Democratic controlled Senate.
Overturning the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act:
The reason this is listed first is because Mr. Biden lists it first on his platform, and also because it’s the greatest existential threat to our continued ability to shoot guns. The PLCAA is a law that protects manufacturers of firearms and ammunition from frivolous lawsuits. This law was passed to stem the tide of organized lawsuits filed by activist groups and anti-gun states; those lawsuits had the goal of overwhelming the industry with litigation and driving manufacturers out of business. Overturning the PLCAA has been on the Democrat party wishlist for some time.
If the Democrats take control of both houses of Congress, the 2020 Election Gun Control Analysis expects to see them try to overturn the PLCAA or to gut it and make it toothless at defending the industry. The latter choice is the most plausible, because overturning the law may trigger a Constitutional challenge, which I believe the Democrats will want to avoid given the odds of a 6-3 court ruling against them. Gutting the law is easier to do, attracts less public scrutiny, and has a smaller chance to end up before an unfriendly Supreme Court. It seems workable that given a Democratic controlled Senate, there will be a serious attack on the PLCAA. If the Republicans keep the Senate, regardless of who sits in the White House, PLCAA will be safe.
A new Federal AWB:
If Republicans keep the Senate, the risk of a new federal AWB is low. While then-President Biden could certainly use executive action to restrict certain imports, a fully fleshed out assault weapons ban is DOA in a Republican Senate.
In a Democratic controlled Senate, it’s a much more interesting story. Even if the Democrats win the Senate, no one is predicting a landslide. If traditionally “red state” seats flip for Democrats, those same Democrats will be vulnerable in the next election if they ram an AWB down their constituent’s throats. Another brake on the Democrat’s ambitions to ban “assault weapons” is the Supreme Court. It’s possible that Democrat strategists would avoid a sweeping AWB like California or New York’s because such a law would face a Supreme Court challenge. If a federal AWB gets tossed 6-3, the trickle down effects also jeopardize any state level bans.
But, a Democrat majority could also perceive a Senate and Presidential win as a mandate, and go ahead with attempting an assault weapons ban. In this event, I would expect a new ban to be worse than the 1994 Ban, but not as aggressive as California’s legislation, to avoid a Supreme Court challenge.
Background Check Expansion and Red Flags:
The most plausible and most dangerous avenue for attack on our gun rights is via Universal Background Checks and Red Flag laws. I rate these laws as the highest probability of happening regardless of who controls the Senate. The problem with arguing against these laws is that the arguments against them are subtle and nuanced, and can’t effectively compete with smooth sound bytes. Most people don’t understand that we already have a robust background check system, and that UBC laws make an already illegal act…more illegal. The same is true with red flag laws, which are easy to message as a public safety measure and difficult to message against.
Republicans in the past have been notoriously soft on these policy issues, and these laws have a better chance to survive court challenges, since Heller does allow for certain amounts of gun control. I think that this will be the avenue of attack that is pursued the hardest by a Joe Biden presidency.
If Mr. Biden wins in November, there will be an attack on gun rights. The ATF reclassified a certain model of arm brace as a stock, and is seeking to reclassify other products. The California DOJ is suing the ATF to reclassify 80% lowers as guns, and we haven’t reached November yet. While a Republican controlled Senate will stave off the worst attacks, we’ll still face challenges as gun owners over the next four years if Joe Biden wins in November.
The vehicle PDW or “Truck Gun” is not a new concept. They were popularized by the advent of the braced pistol (which is currently under fire from the ATF through Q) in that a conveniently sized and legal means to carry a more powerful firearm than a personally concealable pistol was made simple.
A vehicle PDW will generally encompass several aspects above your personal CCW pistol.
Larger Capacity
Able to be moved within confines of a vehicle seat in each lateral direction (front, sides, and rear)
Capable of being shoulder fired and fired folded (if applicable)
Light bearing (especially if your CCW pistol is not)
The firearms that serve me best in this role are my X95, my CZ Scorpion, my XCR, and my LWRC M6 PSD. They are all small enough to move around an interior with relative ease, higher capacity, and capable of firing with or without shoulder/body support. The SCAR16 and Rifle Dynamics RD NATO receive honorable mentions here but the longer barrels when the stocks are unfolded make them suboptimal when thinking of a dedicated gun fighting from a vehicle interior (start of the an engagement) and transitioning in and out of said vehicle under fire and at close distance.
All of these shorter guns give you an easy 100 yards of coverage so longer barrels are not a necessity in role.
9-Hole bring up an excellent point when talking about pistol calibers specifically, low concussion. Three of the firearms I list are 5.56 caliber and two of them have barrels that are under 12 inches in length. The concussion of a rifle round in a confined space is immense and it becomes more so as you shorten the barrel. If you’ve ever fired a rifle inside the confines of an indoor range lane (without hearing protection on) you have an idea what the experience will be in a car. If you’ve done so with a short barreled firearm you are crazier than I.
You mitigate this concussive contention by picking a pistol caliber. A 9mm chambered PDW with a barrel greater than 4″ is already longer than the burn space estimated by ammo manufacturers, unlike short barrel (under 14.5″) 5.56x45mm carbines. You aren’t going to experience extra concussive force from the barrel length, just the confined space, and pistol cartridges are already operating at significantly lower internal pressures, 35,000 PSI for maximum 9mm vs 62,000 PSI in some 5.56 loads.
This change will make concussing yourself from within the vehicle and causing natural flinching much less of a problem, especially with unprotected ears.
The one point I will conflict with Josh and Henry on here is the point to point on their ‘snag points’. While it is true that the Kriss runs flush when you’re using the 17 round Glock magazine, making the only potential issue the rear of the firearm, it was compared to everything else running a 30 round magazine. The Kriss with anything over 17 rounds adds the magazine snag point while all the comparative firearms with 20 round magazines mitigate that to a great degree by having the magazine shorter than the weapons grip. It doesn’t eliminate it as a possibility but if the hand and grip fit and then the shorter magazine is much less likely to hit something you didn’t already hit unless you significantly change the angle of your presentation before getting the gun clear.
I run 20’s in vehicle guns for this very reason, it makes the grip the longest point on the gun while being the point of direct control and easiest to fix should it snag. Snagging is also an valid argument for stashing a sling instead of leaving it on the rifle. While it necessitates grabbing the sling as an extra step on exiting to use it if/when you leave the vehicle[Hint: use QD’s], that may be a valid compromise for the immediate mobility gain on the presentation. The sling might not be the only thing you grab either, you might be grabbing a whole emergency bag and you can stash your sling in there for when you get a second to pause.
The MP5, AK, and AR all have smaller capacity magazines that bring the length of the magazine to less than that of the grip and in the cases of the AR and AK give it 3 more rounds. The traditional short magazine for the MP5 is 15 rounds but 20’s also exist now from a couple of sources. Firearms like the CZ Scorpion also have 20 rounders. Guns like the XCR, MCX Virtus and its Rattler variant, or the Brownells BRN-180 in 300 Blackout with their gas settings set to run subsonic will also not over pressure. The sectional density on the 220gr 300 BLK in an expanding cored projectile may also offer desirable characteristics.
While I agree the Kriss is certainly a choice with many merits, it isn’t the only one.
The McCloskeys, the couple who drew national attention during a BLM march through their private neighborhood by waving an AR-15 and a small semi-automatic handgun at trespassing group, have been indicted on two charges. The couple is charged with felony ‘unlawful use of a weapon – exhibiting’ and ‘evidence tampering’.
Ironically perhaps, the McCloskeys’ lawyer has accused the prosecutors office of tampering with the pistol that Patricia McCloskey was seen holding by taking it from an inoperable condition to operable. The claim is that the pistol had been made inoperable so that it could be safely presented in court by the McCloskeys, who are also lawyers, and that the pistol had remained in the inoperable state since then. The claim is that someone who was handling evidence for the case made the pistol operable again after it was taken into custody to be inspected. It is unknown what the evidence tampering charge against the McCloskeys is specifically.
The unlawful use of weapon – exhibiting charge is fairly straightforward. The McCloskeys are on video pointing the rifle and handgun at the trespassing crowd. Claims have been made that the rifle was unloaded just as the claim that the pistol was inoperable but that usually has no bearing on a menacing or exhibiting charge just as a faux firearm or facsimile can still be considered a reasonable threat in a use of force case.
The couple now faces the task of proving that their actions with the rifle and the handgun were justifiable under the circumstances with the trespassing BLM crowd. The misdemeanor charges of trespassing against nine of the protesting crowd members were dropped by the prosecutor’s office. The destination of the protest was the mayor’s residence in the neighborhood.
Arguments can be made with merit from both perspectives that what the couple did was within reason or outside of reason, but in a time full of political and prosecutorial tension the odds that there is no political motivation behind the indictment are slim. Making an example of the McCloskeys even with a Governor’s pardon already spoken about, perhaps especially with that, is a show of solidarity towards the protestors.
The gate of the private community was passed, allegedly broken through, but none of the BLM crowd entered the McCloskey residence. It is unknown if any of them even got on the McCloskey property within the neighborhood or if, as the protesters state, they kept to the privately shared street.
The McCloskeys themselves have become national names and even appeared at the Republican National Convention to speak on their experiences and the topic of law and order.
“The government chooses to persecute us for doing no more than exercising our right to defend ourselves, our home, our property and our family,” Mark McCloskey said. “We didn’t fire a shot.”
The Contension
Political motivations aside, the case comes down to whether or not the McCloskeys were exercising menacing force within their rights, and that is a rather big if, since the BLM protesters had broken through a private communal gate and not the McCloskeys’ own front or back doors.
They were well within their rights and good sense to be worried about a more violent outcome, as had been borne out across the nation in several cities, but did the McCloskeys have a right to intimate and menace deadly force from their porch to the protesters for trespassing, even if the supposition that the protesters broke down the gate is accurate.
I am not a lawyer, but an unmanned private communal gate to the community would likely be treated similarly to an unattached shed or unattached garage. The right to protect property with lethal force is almost universally disallowed, lethal force is limited to protection of life.
Missouri recognizes the “castle doctrine” and allows residents to use force against intruders, without the duty to retreat, based on the notion that your home is your “castle.” This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to repel their advances.
Missouri’s law is more extensive than the law in other states because it permits property owners to use the amount of force reasonably perceived as necessary, including deadly force.
However, case law suggests it does not go so far as permitting the use of deadly force to merely protect property. In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held in State v. Whipple that deadly force under the castle doctrine can only be used when you reasonably believe such force is necessary to protect yourself or someone else from “the use or imminent use of unlawful force.”
Just like someone breaking into a nonresidential structure, the gate is unlikely to count under ‘Castle Doctrine’ or stand your ground. It might be private property and be used to control entry into the neighborhood as a whole, but it is not a barrier directly to a residence.
A parallel example would be that I cannot threaten someone with force just for them parking in my driveway, I cannot do that even if they hit my parked and unoccupied truck and I believe they did so deliberately. Neither of those acts put my life at risk so lethal force would not be reasonable.
“Well what if they come after you next!?”
Fair question, hypothetical advocate. At the moment they switch from going after my unoccupied truck to going after me, then it is reasonable. But not a moment before.
The McCloskeys have the task of proving that they felt their lives were reasonably at risk from the crowd and that exhibiting the firearms to the crowd was reasonable and prevented an assault on their persons. Not an impossible task, not something I will even say is an inaccurate assumption on their parts especially since it is the action they took so they clearly felt it was necessary.
The question is, was it reasonable? Is the privacy of the neighborhood enough to make their actions and assumptions reasonable especially considering what had happened at past BLM protests. Were they within their rights to brandish the firearms outside their home but from within their property?
Were I on the prosecution this is exactly the argument I would be pursuing to include that protesters did not encroach into the McCloskey residence. Any evidence that protesters did enter the McCloskey property, approaching even if they then backed off later, could complicate that argument for the prosecution who are largely contending that the protesters kept to the road and are thus simple trespassers at worst.
Were I defense, the damage and breach of the gate combined with the reasonable knowledge of past riots in other locations would be central to that argument along with every instance where the crowd did encroach into the McCloskey property from the street. The closer to the residence and the greater the number of encroachments, the more reasonable the McCloskeys’ actions become. If there is definitive evidence that the crowd approached onto the property, especially close to the residence, before the McCloskeys emerged with the firearms and that the firearms came out as a response, that would be the crux of the argument.
The McCloskeys case is a hard one, like the Rittenhouse one, because of subjective social complexities within it, everything is subject to perspective. Without a doubt boundaries were crossed by both the protesters and the McCloskeys that, in wisdom and hindsight, probably should not have been. But is crossing them worthy of a felony charge? Is the felony charge spurious and inconsistent with current realities? Does the prosecutor’s office dropping the charges of misconduct against the trespassing crowd indicate a bias? Again, all highly subjective and very much based upon the opinion of who you currently think is ‘in the right’.
Hard cases are on deck in the courts right now and in the era where ‘feelings > facts’ and ‘make your own truth’ I don’t know where this leads.
According to Kevin, the ATF has not given a lot of clarity to Q on where the Honey Badger Pistol offended the ATF’s definition of Pistol vs SBR. They did not and do not give clarity and have left Q to keep guessing in the dark on why their braced firearm is an SBR where everyone else has a pistol.
Unlike the bumpstock which had estimated a 10,000-50,000 units in circulation number, the SBA3 brace alone has 1,000,000 units produced. Total pistol braces and by extension total pistols are between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 and will impact millions of people.
This continues to look like an attack on braced firearms in general and Q happens to be a small enough target. Ruger, Sig, or Springfield might have a legal team and checkbook to make a larger and louder defense but a niche company like Q will not have that resource.
As infuriating as it is that the ATF are inking in felons by fiat, the lack of guidance on how to make a compliant device is doubly so.
[Ed: This is the third of the talks that the DRGO leadership team gave September 20 online for the Second Amendment Foundation’s 35th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference. In Dr. Edeen’s talk below, additional material has been added in brackets which he had too little time to include live. See each of our talks on the DRGO YouTube channel or at 2:17:23 here. The entire schedule of talks is here, divided into 4 parts on the SAF channel.]
In previous GRPCs, I have spoken about active killers and hospitals and the terrorist threat against hospitals. In “The Unthinkable-An Active Shooter in a Hospital”, I discussed the 5 stages that an active killer goes through before an attack. [They are Fantasy, Planning, Preparation, Approach and Implementation.] I also discussed the “Stopwatch of Death”, the fact that time is the key element in preventing the death of innocents. If the response comes from inside the building, there are only 2 or 3 killed. If the response needs to come from outside, the death toll rises to 12-15. Most hospitals are gun free zones and thus fall into the second category.
[The Department of Homeland Security tells us to “Run, Hide, Fight”. But] many in the hospital cannot run hide or fight. They are incapacitated in a hospital bed. It is immoral to keep those who are not inclined to do harm in a disarmed state, making everyone in the hospital an easy target.
In “In the Crosshairs: Are Our Hospitals Targets for Terrorist Attack”, I described the history and rationale behind terrorism against hospitals. [John Giduck , in his book When Terror Returns, described four different types of terrorist attacks: Decimation Assault, Mass Hostage Siege, Synergistic and Symphonic Attacks.] The International Institute for Counter Terrorism did a paper titled “Terrorist Attacks Against Hospitals”. They found nearly 100 attacks against hospitals in 43 countries with approximately 775 people killed between 1981 and 2013. There were 1,217 wounded in these attacks. [If a terrorist attack happens in your location, it would be better if there were trained and armed people present to disrupt the initial stages of an attack. This would allow police and SWAT officers to arrive on scene before the death toll is too high.]
There have been several major attacks against medical facilities since 2013. On December 5, 2013, al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula attacked a Defense Ministry hospital in Sana’a, Yemen. [Terrorists killed 4 guards and opened the gate to the ministry. A suicide car-bomb was then detonated inside the compound. A second car entered the compound and] the Al-Oradi Hospital was attacked with guns and grenades. Overall, 56 were killed and 200+ injured. [At least 6 of the casualties were doctors. Many of the killed were foreign medical workers including Filipinos, Germans, Vietnamese and an Indian.]
On February 23, 2014, a suicide car bomb was detonated outside of a field hospital in Atmeh, Syria near the border with Turkey. There were 14 killed and 70 wounded. The town served as a main supply line for rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad. ISIS had been driven from the town two months prior to the attack.
The next major hospital attack happened on March 8, 2017, at the Sardar Mohammad Dawd Khan Military Hospital in the secure area of Kabul, Afghanistan. A suicide bomber blew himself up at the back gate allowing 3-4 terrorists dressed as doctors to gain entrance to the hospital. Later, it was found that two interns were insiders and participated in the carnage. The killers were systematic in their murdering, throwing grenades into the wards and shooting survivors in the head. The attackers had seven hours to do their killing before Afghan security and special forces were able to take back the hospital. Over 100 were killed.
The International Committee of the Red Cross reported 240 attacks in 2014-2015 that killed or injured medical personnel and closed, damaged or destroyed medical facilities in Afghanistan. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan documented 119 incidents where health care facilities were targeted in 2016.
Although it was not an attack on a hospital, on January 27, 2018, a Taliban suicide bomber drove an explosive-laden ambulance past one checkpoint claiming that he was taking a patient to the Jamhuriat Hospital. He was stopped at a second checkpoint in a crowded shopping district near the hospital when he detonated the bomb. The death toll was initially reported at 103 with 235 wounded.
On May 12, 2020, the men dressed as police entered the Dasht-e-Barchi Hospital run by Doctors Without Borders and opened fire in the maternity ward killing at least 2 dozen people including newborns. Afghan security forces entered the hospital grounds and a gun battle lasting 4 hours resulted in the deaths of the terrorists. [No group claimed responsibility. Later] the US blame the group ISIS-K (Khorzan Province). [The attack resulted in Doctors Without Borders leaving the hospital.]
In the United States, a man who was planning to bomb a hospital in Belton, Missouri, shot himself after being shot by FBI agents trying to arrest him. [The domestic terrorism investigation started in 2019.] It was determined that the attack was motivated by anger over the government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic and motivated by racial, religious and anti-government animus. [The bomber was caught in an under-cover investigation after the suspect contacted an Army infantry soldier who gave him bomb-making information. The plot ended on March 24, 2020.]
Since the coronavirus pandemic has hit the US, people are no longer gathering in large groups. There are no sporting events, no theater productions, schools are closed and for the most part streets are empty. Terrorists are looking for places with large numbers of potential victims. Hospitals are still open and often terribly busy because of the viral crisis. They make tempting targets for those looking to make a political statement.
With the recent outbreak of anarchist violence and rioting by ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter (BLM) in large, Democrat-controlled cities, hospitals may become convenient points of attack. Even Ronald McDonald Houses are not safe. On August 10, 2020, rioters smashed window and attempted to enter the building where 30 families, many with sick children, cowered in fear in downtown Chicago. Fortunately, nobody was injured.
With the Presidential election coming in November, we may not have seen the end of the anarchist terrorism. We must realize that hospital terrorism may be coming to your town. Be ready!
.
.
—Dr. John Edeen is a pediatric orthopedic surgeon in San Antonio, TX and is active in seeking the right to carry for qualified hospital staff. He is DRGO’s Membership Director.
ATF’s tech branch is known to change their minds. The bumpstock is probably the most famous reversal, but in the grand scheme was a lower impact event.
The implications of that reversal were not low impact and here we see that result.
Basically, Q got told that the Honey Badger Pistol is a Short Barreled Rifle, even though it has a brace and was built as a pistol. There are rifle and SBR variants but the pistol has been declared an SBR. Every single Honey Badger Pistol is now an illegally transferred NFA item that did not make it onto any ATF Form 1, 2, 3, or 4’s for proper transfer and none of the NFA taxes were paid. A single NFA violation can result in a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison.
Additionally, Q has been directed to send samples of the Mini Fix and Sugar Weasel to the ATF for classification… It is that last one that becomes the most problematic. The Honey Badger has enough proprietary features that it could still be isolated, technically, from other pistols and the Mini Fix does too. Both of those firearms with legal pistol definitions (up until now) are different enough that the ATF might now be able to apply the ruling to anything outside that specific Q Model.
But, the Sugar Weasel Pistol, is an AR Pistol.
All the pretense at being a proprietary product is gone and any technical protections that would offer to the rest of the braced pistol market go with it. I do not know if the ATF would need to systematically drop C&D’s to every major and minor manufacturer but it seems like they selected a smaller company for a reason. Springfield Armory probably has the bank to protect the SAINT pistol(s).
The Honey Badger was close enough to be more than worrisome (beyond the fact SBRs shouldn’t be a problem in the first place) but if the Q Sugar Weasel gets declared an SBR every single AR pistol is in the crosshairs for C&D and retroactive NFA registration.
Anyone who owns a Honey Badger is in standby right now, waiting on the ATF to tell Q what to do.
There have been rumors that braces were in the crosshairs (again) and now we see the opening salvo from a manufacturing perspective.
How so?
The ATF declared the fully factory assembled Honey Badger Pistol an SBR, meaning they didn’t target the SB Tactical Brace specifically, they targeted whole firearm. They’re hitting Q with, essentially, tax evasion for every Honey Badger Pistol and adding improper transfer of NFA items.
Bumpstocks may have been a gimmick, that shouldn’t have mattered to their defense because now braced pistols, a highly popular firearm type, are in trouble too.
What should you do if you own a Honey Badger Pistol?
Complete one of the following:
Remove the barreled upper receiver from the lower and dedicate it as a replacement for another AR-style pistol or registered SBR; or
If you do not possess another AR-type compatible pistol lower or registered SBR lower, remove the upper from the lower and transfer the upper temporarily out of your possession.
Example: transfer to someone who has a compatible pistol lower or registered SBR
Example: Transfer to someone owns no AR-type mechanically compatible firearms at all. The upper cannot make a complete firearm in that persons possession because no compatible serialized lower is present.
File an ATF Form 1 and register the Honey Badger Pistol lower receiver as an SBR
Contacting the DoJ (above link) and the White House, letting it be known that the targeting of a firearms company and the mass reclassification of legal firearms for no beneficial reason is a capricious act that will only anger and harm millions of lawful firearm owners while doing nothing to curb homicides, suicides, or terroristic violence.
Today in the Modern Fighting Revolver series, we’re looking at how to install the Apex revolver hammer kit in your S&W K or L frame revolver. This is the most important mechanical upgrade to the modern fighting revolver, as it converts the gun from DA/SA to double action only, and also cleans up the usually terrible factory trigger.
Step 1 in how to install the Apex revolver hammer kit is remove the grips and side-plate. To do this you’ll need a decent screwdriver with an appropriate sized flathead bit, and a small plastic mallet. Once the grips are off, remove the three screws from the sideplate, starting from the back of the revolver and working your way forward. The front screw also retains the cylinder, and looks different than the other two. Once the screws are removed, hold the revolver with the side plate facing down and tap the grip with a plastic mallet. A few good taps and the side plate should pop off. Step 2 in how to install the Apex hammer kit is to remove all the revolver guts. First we take out the mainspring, the long slender spring that runs from the bottom of the gun to the hammer. There’s a screw on the front of the grip frame that tensions the mainspring, just back it out until it releases all spring tension on the mainspring, which you can then remove by hand. Next, pry the rebound slide out of the gun, making sure you don’t launch the rebound slide spring across the room. Then wiggle the hammer up and out. Last, remove the firing pin and spring by pulling their retaining pin at the top of the gun, then sliding the pin and spring out of the channel with tweezers.
Step 3 in how to install the Apex revolver hammer kit is put the new stuff in. We install in reverse order of how we took everything out, so it goes new firing pin and spring, new DAO Apex hammer, then rebound slide/spring. The Apex kit has two springs, one labeled duty and one labeled competition. The Competition Spring in a Performance Center 586 L-Comp gives a 7.7lb trigger pull and still reliabily ignites primers. Installing the rebound slide and spring is the one place you need a specialized tool – the Brownells rebound slide tool. This makes an annoying process easy.
The last step once all the new Apex guts are installed is to close the sideplate up and put the grips back on. Make sure the sideplate is aligned right and the hammer block is where it needs to be, then you can gently tap it with your mallet to seat it. Put the screws in starting with the cylinder retention screw, then make sure they’re snug and you’re done. You’ve successfully installed an Apex hammer and spring kit in your revolver!
Lowa's Toro Evo is built for those times you need a light supportive boot.
Over the last decade I have been wearing Lowa Boots for everything from trips to the store to climbing mountains in Colorado and Wyoming. Their boots have served me in hot dry weather and the worst monsoons. Lowa’s boots wear like iron, yet feel like your favorite pair of well worn athletic shoes.
What sets Lowa apart from other companies is the various specialized boots to give you the best footwear for your activity. Where your feet are concerned one boot does not work for all activities. Varying outsole patterns, levels of support, insulation and do you need a waterproof membrane are all considerations. Lowa also carefully explores boot designs specifically to fit men and women.
My trail worn Toro Evo with the low cut lady’s model. Both are built to handle whatever you need them for.
This past year Lowa introduced one of their most technical boots, the Toro Evo. The Toro Evo bridges the gap between all-terrain sport boots and hiking boots. Combining the best features of several boots, is where the title “the Boot That’s Just Right” comes from.
Like many of Lowa’s boots, the Toro Evo is built on both men’s and women’s lasts in low or midcut. All four styles are Gore-tex lined with the midcut being available unlined. Having worn them along the Yellowstone River I know firsthand, they will keep your feet dry. The Multi Trac outsole gives excellent traction on dry ground, rocky river beds, wet sandy banks or oozing mud.
The Multi Trac sole gives you traction in all conditions including on wet algae covered river rocks.
While most boots today use various forms of nylon for uppers, the Toro Evo use Nubuck/split leather. This increases support given by the upper without markedly increasing weight. I also appreciated the increased support on the banks and bed of the Yellowstone River. This bed is covered with more large pebbles than can be found at your local landscaping shop. My dog loved walking the river bed and she kept a brisk pace, her four leg drive was not concerned about my footing issues.Even when the pebbles and rocks were covered with river slime, I did not have that “twisting” ankle feeling. The upper and insole are made into a uni-body using Strobel techniques. This is stitch allows the upper of the boot to be single piece that can be injection molded to the polyurethane MonoWrap and midsole.
The upper uses paracord instead of eyelets. This gives more even tension to the laces for support and comfort.Lowa uses smooth hooks for ease of lacing the ankle area of the Toro Evo.
Lowa further enhances support with their patented MonoWrap footbed. This wrap runs from the heel of the boot to the toes. As the name implies, your foot is wrapped which keeps your foot from slipping over the midsole of the boot which is one of the leading causes of ankle injuries. All of this is then bonded to the injected polyurethane midsole and outsole. When complete the boot is essentially one bonded unit. I have not had any outsole separation of any of Lowa’s boots. Something I cannot say about other brands.
When putting the Toro Evo through its paces this year, I appreciated all of these features. They are more supportive than my go to shooting boots Lowa’s Innox Pro and much lighter than my Zephyrs that I hike in. The Multi Trac outsole is self-cleaning and is slip resistant, even on wet painted wood. After shooting USPSA matches on the dusty ranges Wyoming and Montana, my dark brown Toro Evos were dust brown. I was surprised that they returned to dark brown after hosing them off. My best friend who works for FEMA summed up her impression of the women’s low cut Toro Evo in one word; ahhhh, they were that comfortable. Lisa is not concerned about all the tech details, just that they fit true to size, they look good and are comfortable on a disaster scene.
These parallel ridges on the heel stabilize your foot going downhills and allow your foot to roll off the heel. This bevel helps prevent twisted ankles.
If you are like me and wear orthotics, you will appreciate the Toro Evo and virtually all of Lowa’s boots. Unlike many of the trendy boots seen on the competition field with wafer thin insoles, you will not have to guess what size Lowa will accommodate your orthotics. Simply remove the factory insole and insert your orthotic; you are ready to go.
If you need a boot that is not quite a hard core hiking boot that gives more support than a trail running boot, Lowa’s Toro Evo should be on your short list. With an MSRP of $200.00 this boot is competitively priced and will serve you for years to come.
Sig Sauer Custom Works is releasing their first gun. An Aluminum Frame P320 in the incredibly popular Scorpion pattern. Not the Emperor Scorpion (which was okay), The Scorpion.
Welcome back you handsome bastard. We missed you. Image via Armslist/Google Search
Like the Legion Series before, the new Custom Works guns are coming with a little extra on order than the baseline commercial models. The Custom Works are looking to offer, to the discerning buyer, SKU’s that go above and beyond a production gun’s feature set and offer something more.
The P320 AXG Scorpion combines the weight and balance of a metal framed pistol with the performance and reliability of the P320, delivering a uniquely refined shooting experience unlike anything else.
Utilizing the new AXG (Alloy XSeries Grip) metal grip module as a foundation, the SIG Custom Works team has carefully selected a set of premium options and performance upgrades, creating a limited edition P320 that blends the style and shootability of a classic metal frame pistol with the modern features you expect from the P320. And like all Custom Works products, it’s delivered in an exclusive, ultra-premium package.
The P320 AXG is an evolution of the popular X-Series and combines the ergo’s of the P226 with the X-Series P320. As the P226 and P229 continue to be my favorite carry guns, this just fits.
Alloy frames on striker guns are not a new concept (looking at you, Walther), but when well executed they make for a superb firing combination. We are used to striker fire guns being light framed. Glocks, M&Ps, Walthers, and SIGs amongst the crowd make phenomenal duty and carry guns out of polymer. They save weight and save cost. They work almost boringly well too.
But those cost you something intrinsic within alloy frame guns, because nothing shoots quite like a metal frame. The reason that the Beretta 92X is beloved and the APX is merely accepted, the reason that the P226 is still SIGs flagship sidearm and the image inherent to SIG, the reason guns like the 2011 are so incredibly popular, are that alloy frames just shoot. They meld with the hand and absorb recoil. They stay steadier on target and communicate tactilely with the shooter. Shooting a polymer gun is using a tool. Shooting a good alloy frame just feels right.
They just shoot better, in my humble opinion, and I cannot wait to get my hands on one of these.
[Ed: Dr. Petrocelli’s is the fourth of the talks that the DRGO leadership team gave September 20 online for the Second Amendment Foundation’s 35th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference. See each of our talks on the DRGO YouTube channel or at 2:17:23 here. The entire schedule of talks is here, divided into 4 parts on the SAF channel].
I want to thank all the members at Second Amendment Foundation who have made it possible, and in particular to thank my colleagues at Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership for allowing me to share time with them in presenting to you today.
I’m Dr. Dennis Petrocelli. I am a forensic psychiatrist and I have studied human violence and aggression and the evaluations of human violence for the past 20 years. Today, I want to focus on Red Flag Laws and, in particular, I’d like to make the point that the due process deficiencies of Red Flag Laws are very likely the least problematic parts of them. That’s because these laws lack fundamental fairness. The reason for that is that we don’t have any form of risk assessment that could possibly accomplish what Red Flag Laws challenge us to do. That is, to identify persons who are at great imminent risk of violence with a gun absent illegal behavior leading up to that risk assessment.
But first, let me emphasize that those of us who do this kind of work, with the exception of those about set Doctors Responsible Gun Ownership, are extremely biased against gun owners. In Gun Violence:Psychiatry, Risk Assessment and Social Policy, Dr. Liza Gold, a forensic psychiatrist, wrote “the cumulative implication of this evidence is that the prevalence of guns is a high risk factor for gun violence and restricting access to firearms decreases firearms-related morbidity and mortality.” She is essentially saying that the presence of guns is sufficient for there to be risk. Given that that will be the mindset of most evaluators, I don’t see how evaluees can possibly get a fair shake. Continuing along the line of bias, it should be noted that most systems of risk assessment inadequately document those factors about people that mitigate risk. So for instance, because we are very good at coming up with lists of aspects of a person’s past or current behavior or thinking that predisposes them to violence, we are much less able to identify those factors that mitigate that risk. And therefore when the assessment is done, it is very, very difficult for the evaluee to possibly come out looking not at risk.
If we consider then the assessment of some tools that we have, what we find is that they are entirely lacking given the challenges posed to them. In Hilliard Heintze’s review of the Virginia Beach Shooting, where a former employee entered an area that was gun free for employees only and killed 12 former colleagues. Their review showed they even if Virginia Beach had implemented its threat assessment team using the best technology that could be made available to them through, for example, the TAPS Act, this individual (despite the fact they had access to an enormous amount of data, posthumously of course) would not have risen to the level of concern. This shows that trying to anticipate and predict these events is virtually impossible.
If we then turn our attention to risk assessment, as presented by Dr.David Rosmarin in Massachusetts, he wrote that even if we use the best risk assessment methods available, most predictions of violence would be wrong 9 out of 10 times. If we took that statistical analysis and we applied it to concealed carry permit holders who, according to John Lott, PhD, commit only 2.4 firearm crimes per 100,000 permitees, we would find that under the best of circumstances, 5% of them would be wrongly predicted to commit violence. Given the preceding issues of bias, I think those numbers would be considerably greater.
Given all this data, my conclusion is that instead of trying to predict extraordinarily rare events with technology wholly inadequate to the task, it is far better to eliminate gun-free zones. And remember the first rule of gun safety means to keep your guns.
.
.
–Dennis Petrocelli, MD is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist who has practiced for nearly 20 years in Virginia. He took up shooting in 2019 for mind-body training and self-defense, and is in the fight for Virginians’ gun rights.
