Forgotten Weapons takens on a topic we don’t take on very often. Rocket propelled grenades.
The RPG-7, not OSHA approved. In typical Soviet era “If he dies.. he dies..” the RPG-7 launcher and munitions are simple, rugged, efficient, and not super big on user safety.
The little plastic cap being all the prevents a round from exploding is especially entertaining.
[Ed: DRGO was asked for written testimony regarding a badly conceived, intended and written bill that the newly Democrat majority legislature would enact as an Extreme Risk Protection Order law there. This is our response. There will be further action at the NH Senate if (as is likely) it passes today’s Committee hearing and then the NH House of Representatives. Stopping it however possible is both crucial and difficult.] [GAT Editor’s Note: The original form of the article from DRGO listed the NH Governor as a Democrat, this was inaccurate and has been corrected here]
Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership is a nationwide advocacy and watchdog group that for the past 25 years has insisted that science be used objectively in matters affecting Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We teach what good science shows—that guns in responsible hands save lives, reduce injuries, and protect property by preventing violent crime.
First, please see DRGO’s statement on Protective Orders, along with our official position paper on “Firearm Confiscation due to Dangerousness”. Such laws are variously called “Gun Violence Restraining Orders”, “Emergency Risk Protection Orders”, “Red Flag Laws”, etc.
We do not approve of stigmatizing the mentally ill, and are concerned that they receive proper treatment whenever needed. Only about 4% of violence in society is attributable to (usually major) mental illness in perpetrators, but every person we identify as needing help for that or other reasons should have it.
DRGO supports the concept of trying to protect society from individuals identified as potentially dangerous to themselves or others. The problems arise in how to identify them, how to intervene, and how to ensure that both the complainant’s and the subject’s rights are protected. No “Red Flag” laws enacted so far ensure these adequately, and the proposed New Hampshire law is worse than most. At their core, confiscating people’s guns infringes both United States (Second Amendment) and New Hampshire (Article 2.-a) constitutions’ guaranteed firearm and other rights.
Identifying acutely dangerous individuals is fraught with uncertainty. The best reliability comes from in-person examinations by forensically trained psychiatrists, and their assessments are accurate only about 60% of the time for perhaps the subsequent 24 hours. (Note that 50% accuracy is random.) People who see something should say something, and unlike in Parkland, Florida, authorities should do the right thing. So lay people reporting concerns is desirable, and a court’s finding must precede legal action. But expert evaluation needs to be incorporated, which has not yet been required in any state’s ERPO law and is missing from NH HB 687.
Even expert evaluation can only identify likelihood of immediate dangerousness, and NH HB 687 leaves undefined how far into the future concern may lie. Neither does it specify what degree or type of “bodily harm” is actionable. None of this abides by American tradition that punishment (including deprivation of rights) may only be applied on conviction of a crime. This is unconstitutional “precrime” punishment for acts that are anticipated, but have not been committed.
Similarly, no ERPO law yet, including NH HB 687, provides for any, in U.S. Attorney General Barr’s words, “up front due process” (i.e, notification of the action to the subject with the right to representation by legal counsel and to confront the accuser) as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Thereby, the Fourth Amendment’s guarantees of equal treatment and against unreasonable search and seizure are contravened. Like the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee that “the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, the New Hampshire constitution guarantees that “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”
The very wording of NH HB 687 is objectionable and insulting to all New Hampshire gun owners, and is egregiously false: “that respondent poses a significant risk of causing bodily injury to himself or herself or others by having a firearm or any ammunition in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or any ammunition.” The possession of a firearm or ammunition in no way creates “risk . . . to . . . self or others”.
There are well over 300 million firearms in civilian hands in the United States, in more than 40% of households. If “having a firearm” causes risk, how can it be that less than 0.005% of these guns and less than .01% of gun owners are involved in shootings each year? (These numbers include suicides, justified homicides, murders and accidents). In recent years, there have been from 86 to 132 shooting deaths annually in New Hampshire among its 1.3 million+ residents. That is a rate of less than 10 per 100,000, about our nation’s average. Shootings are not even in the top 15 causes of death in this country (though make up a portion of overall suicides and homicides, which fall into that list).
There must be a clear definition of the real reason for alleged dangerousness based in action or threat. Means need to be addressed, but are incidental to the proper purpose of an ERPO, which should be to protect people from dangerousness by any means. The proposed definition would justify confiscating firearms from anyone just because they possess them.
As with domestic violence restraining orders, it is appropriate to levy penalties for false reporting, which will undoubtedly occur with EPROs too. (NH HB 687 is concerning because making a false report would only be a misdemeanor offense, disproportionate to not complying with a gun confiscation order, which would be a felony.) But there is no equivalence in these two kinds of orders. No one has a right to be with someone who is afraid of him/her, and no Constitutional right is infringed by a domestic violence restraining order.
Any act or threat that would justify infringing a Constitutional right must be serious enough to fall into existing criminal and/or mental illness arenas, and should explicitly require criminal charges and/or commitment to psychiatric evaluation and treatment. This requirement is missing entirely in NH HB 687.
Executing EPROs is itself clearly dangerous, and puts both officers and subjects at risk. Recently in Maryland, a man was shot to death when he acted to defend against a home invasion, which was actually an EPRO secretly initiated by family. Their concern for him was realized, not by his initiating harm, but due to executing the EPRO.
EPROs as thus far imposed are extreme solutions to rare problems and may cause more harm than they prevent. They provide excuses for “Star Chamber” hearings that approve legalized “SWATting”. They are political window dressings to appear that someone is “doing something about gun violence.” Unfortunately, New Hampshire’s NH HB 687 is more of the same.
.
.
— DRGO Editor Robert B. Young, MD is a psychiatrist practicing in Pittsford, NY, an associate clinical professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, and a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
All DRGO articles by Robert B. Young, MD
Hearing protection has definitely come along way over the past years. When I started shooting you pretty much had two choices. Soft foam ear plugs that hardly worked or big bulky headphone style ear muffs that you couldn’t hear anything through. Walker has been making some very high quality upgraded versions of the muff style hearing protection for years. Models that cancel noise, amplify voices, and even some with Bluetooth features so you can listen to music and even take calls while wearing them.
These features are all great but what if you are not a big fan of the bulky over the ear muff style protection? Well, Walker has introduced a solution to this problem. A set of revolutionary new Bluetooth earbuds called the Silencer Bluetooth Rechargeable. These game changing, tech-savvy earbuds are the perfect solution. Small, lightweight, portable, and extremely functional.
They feature advanced digital circuitry and performance digital Bluetooth technology. As well as dynamic wind noise reduction, variable gunshot suppression, auto shut off and voice prompts. The best feature of these earbuds is the free Walker’s App. With the app you can control the program settings, monitor battery levels, adjust volume and change auto shut off time right from your phone.
Walker added three programed settings that you can choose easily through the app. Universal, which offers good all around protection. Clear Voice, offering extreme clarity in the voices around you. In Clear voice with the earbuds turned all the way up I could hear people breathing while they still blocked the gun shots. It was actually kind of crazy. Power boost, was very similar to the clear voice setting. However, it really boosted all the sound around you not just voices. Again when turned all the way up I could almost hear my own hair growing. The last setting is HF Boost(high frequency boost).
They come with a USB charging dock with an integrated Lithium battery, a USB cable and three sizes of Sure-Lock sizing fins as well as three sizes of foam tips. The USB charging dock makes a nice carry case. It also charges the earbuds by just placing them in the magnetic holders. Once placed in the dock the earbuds will automatically start charging and continue charging in your pocket or bag.
As a firearms instructor these earbuds have proved to be an incredible tool for me. I can go on the app and adjust the volume on each earbud individually or lock them together and adjust them at the same time. I have found this feature especially handy when running multiple shooting lanes. If the person on the right side of me needs to talk to me I can boost that earbud up a bit while blocking the noise on the left side. I have even been able to listen to music while shooting. You can actually listen to music in one ear and still hear through the other side.
According to Walker the batteries should last up to 14 hours. I started getting low battery alerts after about 8 during testing. This included them sitting out of the charging dock for a few days between three different range sessions though. I think they would hit around 10 hours easily which is still pretty good. There is no reason to not put them in the dock every time your done with them so I don;t think battery life will ever really be an issue for most.
The buttons on the earbuds themselves are a little hard to use. Especially when they are in your ears. You can adjust the volume and programmed settings from the earbuds but I recommend using the app. You have to push the little buttons pretty hard which kind of hurts your ears. If you remove them to push the buttons, you have no idea what program you are in or where the volume level is. This is due to the fact that you must have them in your ears to hear them tell you the program.
So far, I have loved all the features of these earbuds with the exception of the buttons on the actual earbud. With an MSRP of $299.99. The Walker Silencer Bluetooth Rechargeable Earbuds are definitely a bit more pricey than some of other options. But they also offer more than most of those options.
Justices in Connecticut have ruled, 4-3, that Remington can be sued over the deaths in the Sandy Hook shooting.
The elementary school massacre that left 20 children and 6 teachers dead was one of the more horrific instances of violence the nation has seen, an adult targeting children.
The ruling surrounds how the Bushmaster AR-15 was marketed.
A divided Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled gun maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. – Pittsburg Post-Gazette.
This is extremely troubling for manufacturers, especially those who make both Military/LE and civilian equipment.
How a manufacturer sells or markets its product can now void the legal protections from liability from the misuse of that product.
Bad news.
We don’t know the specific language of the ruling yet but this could allow a zealous legal team to present a case where the descriptive language used for a firearm or a misinterpreted “lifestyle” advertisement can be used to hold a manufacturer liable in civil court.
The ruling has the potential to cripple any manufacturer who is sued because someone didn’t like their how their ad looked and construed the ad as violent or promoting violence.
The full text of the court ruling can be found here.
A critical expert from the ruling: “…claims predicated on the theory that the defendants violated CUTPA by advertising and marketing the rifle in an unethical, oppressive, immoral, and unscrupulous manner…”
Contrary to the defendants’ claim, personal injuries resulting in death that are alleged to have resulted directly from wrongful advertising and marketing practices are cognizable under CUTPA: although the term ‘‘actual damages’’ in § 42-110g (a) is not defined in CUTPA, the use of that term in other statutes led this court to conclude that the term ‘‘actual damages’’ in § 42-110g (a) includes personal injuries, and prior case law supported the conclusion that the term ‘‘ascertainable’’ in that portion of § 42-110g (a) providing that a person who suffers ‘‘any ascertainable loss of money or property’’ as a result of a prohibited practice under CUTPA may recover actual damages in no way restricted the damages that are available to plaintiffs who have been directly and personally injured by an unfair trade practice; moreover, a contrary reading of the statute would be inconsistent with the stated intent of the legislature to provide broad protection from unfair trade practices and to incentivize private enforcement of the law, several other courts from other jurisdictions and a majority of Connecticut trial courts addressing the issue have concluded that victims of unfair trade practices may recover for personal injuries, and Federal Trade Commission rulings and cases decided under the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq. [2012 and Supp. V 2017]), which the legislature intended would serve as a basis for interpreting CUTPA’s open-ended language, supported the view that wrongful advertising that poses a genuine risk of physical harm falls under the broad purview of the Federal Trade Commission Act and, by incorporation, CUTPA.
Corey Silverstein is the managing member of Silverstein Legal and focusses his practice on constitutional law issues. Mr. Silverstein can be reached through his website silversteinlegal.com.
He had this to say on the ruling.
“While I understand and respect the Court’s ruling, I do not have to agree with it. This sort of decision will result in a flood of cases by victims of gun violence and the families of deceased victims looking for restitution from a “deeper pocket” said constitutional attorney Corey Silverstein. “I have always believed that everyone deserves their day in court but this decision reeks of political motivations”.
Silverstein continued. “Although it may be a stretch, should steak knife manufacturers now be on guard? Or even automobile manufacturers?”
What are your thoughts? Join the discussion on Facebook.
In an oddly self defeating argument of a post, NJLJ published a piece on gun regulations that counters the relevance of its own data in three paragraphs.
A recent study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine concluded that New Jersey has the lowest rate of youth suicide in the United States, together with the second-lowest rate of household gun ownership.
The study sought to correlate the rates of youth suicide with the prevalence of guns in the home…
We know, of course, that correlation does not equal causation…
There. Right there in the start of the third paragraph. Translation: We know, obviously, that the correlative lines we’re going to draw aren’t good extrapolation of data but let us anyway because we support these gun regulation policies.
However, we have expressed our support for our state’s common sense firearm regulations (so far upheld by the courts) on this page many times in the past. These new data may indicate the efficacy of such regulations within the boundaries of the Second Amendment. (emphasis mine)
However, may not indicate. There are a myriad of pages dedicated to nonsensical correlations for sheer entertainment. To begin to get into causative analysis
Just because you feel that a policy should have a positive influence doesn’t mean that it does. Gun buyback’s influence, beyond a feel good measure, does nothing of substance. Buybacks net useless, damaged, and low threat probability weapons for thousands of dollars in taxpayer money, all in the hope that a potential murder or suicide is pre-crimed out of existence. These same individuals are willing to blissfully ignore the 1-3 million crimes each year prevented by firearms according to multiple violent crime and firearm use studies.
None of this is to disparage the low suicide rate in New Jersey. That is a phenomenal achievement and one that I hope they maintain. But ascribing low suicide to your stranglehold on the second amendment rights of your citizens instead of the more direct influences of mental health is illogical.
You could make the same argument with data that suggested a group of drivers were much safer than average. The decisive fact of the study was those drivers didn’t own or operate cars and were around cars with far less frequency. Then leveraging that data as an implicative talking point to say that less vehicle ownership is inherently better for you.
It’s true that never owning, operating, or being around a vehicle will drastically alter you chances of dying in a vehicle related incident. This is a gross oversimplification of data points to push a ‘no duh’ solution that willfully ignores other sources of relevant information.
Weapons are a part of the human condition. We are bound to the use of these tools as the necessity arises. Implying that you can rule and will weapons out of existence and using the supposition that if they did not exist negative outcomes they were used in would not occur as base and dishonest form of discourse saddled to a utopian vision.
So congratulations NJ on having a low youth suicide rate. But attributing a nebulous connection to your gun regulation policies as the principle factor is, in my view, naive and projectionist. It discounts the individual wills of the citizenry, the other monumentally complex efforts of the social structure, and dennegrates the immense complex social and emotional pressures that lead to suicide to simple proximity with a convenient inanimate object.
I have confession to make. I received a freebie random handout of magazines about two years ago at SHOT, and just recently found them again. They were in a bag of my stuff from the show and at some point when I had company coming over I cleaned them off the kitchen table – and they subsequently got lost in my piles of gun gear. (Does anybody else have piles? Or is everyone else more organized than me?).
These magazines are by Jagemann (A family operation who may be more recognized for their brass) and are designed to fit my Glock 42.
I love my Glock 42. This is the gun that I shot in the IDPA BUG Nationals a few years ago when they had a dedicated event for Back Up Guns. I love that little .380. I just haven’t shot it much in the past year due to concentrating on other things. I shot my 43 a good bit last year, but the 42 sat lonely in the safe *sniff*.
At the same time as I received the 42 mags I also had given a Jagemann Glock 19 magazine to a friend to try out as well. I have a 19 too, but he shoots his way more than I shoot mine, so I let him have at it. I wanted to see if he could break it. He reports to me that he had zero issues with the magazine in the past two years and it still lives on his “battle belt” – even though the magazine is Tiffany blue.
Yes, Jagemann mags come in colors too. There is the obvious black, but also Tiffany blue, red, olive, and pink. Jagemann makes magazines to fit the Glock 17 and 19, and also the Glock 42 and 43. Additionally, they offer magazines to fit certain 1911 style .22 conversions.
I finally decided that with the weather getting nicer, I might as well give these magazines a whirl and remind myself what fun it was to shoot my little Glock 42. What a pleasant reunion! I don’t know why I waited this long.
The magazines loaded and fed great, and the plates on the plate rack made a satisfying “ping-chunk” noise as they fell. Ahhhhh.
But that wasn’t the only positive thing to report about these Jagemann magazines. Anyone who has ever had to take the baseplate off of a Glock-branded magazine knows what a colossal pain that procedure is. They even had to come up with a special tool to try to make that battle easier. As I recall, the process involves poking, while also simultaneously squeezing and sliding. It’s basically a three-handed operation – lubricated with expletives.
Now ask me how long it took to remove the baseplate of the Jagemann magazine … One. Second. Yes really. I poked the button with the end of an Allen wrench and the plate slid right off! No swearing. No screwdrivers and wrenches. It just slid right off!
That alone is reason to only buy Jagemann magazines for my Glocks from now on! And I’m sorry that it took me this long to rediscover them!
I was struck the other day with some of the myriad reasons why it’s better to have a knife with you. If you don’t regularly carry a knife on you – you probably should.
I’m not talking about tactical/defensive applications – I am not exactly the ninja hand-to-hand combat type. I’m talking about everyday tight spots where one of the oldest tools in man’s history (like 2.6 million years old) can mean the difference between fumbling frustration and easy success.
I don’t ALWAYS have a knife clipped into my pocket, but I try. The day I’m talking about was a day at the range which started with my being unable to peel or rip the plastic sticker sealing a plastic ammo box shut. Hello knife job! A few minutes later I encountered a failure to extract. I shouldn’t have bothered putting the knife back in my pocket, ‘cause there was another pointy knife job right there.
I wouldn’t consider myself a “knife nut” – one who is particular about brand, features, and carry style. For me a knife is just a tool that is handy to have around. But I certainly have a bunch of them. Over the years I have accumulated a wide variety of knives, which are stashed in various daypack pockets, ammo boxes, and pockets of hunting vests. The above photo isn’t even all of them.
My first knife was a carbon steel pocket knife of my dad’s. He showed me the proper way to open it, hold it and “whittle” with it. When I was a kid, just slicing shavings off a stick was “whittling” and it made me feel grown up. I don’t know what happened to that knife. I think it was misplaced during one of the moves in adulthood. But I have fond memories of feeling all responsible while carrying that knife to Girl Scout Camp.
That was of course in the days before carrying even a tiny penknife to school could get you arrested and expelled. And let’s not even talk about the pitiful weenie-land that Great Britain has become over knives.
I had a red Swiss Army knife for awhile. But in about 2005 I was on a medical service trip to Honduras and the father of our host family admired it so much, that I gave it to him as a thank you for their hospitality. He was beside himself with joy.
Since entering “gun culture” ten years ago I’ve accumulated a variety of knives to replace the red one. Some I bought, some were freebies, and a couple I won. I’ve got Kershaw, Gerber, Buck, CRKT, “no name” – and my absolute favorite was created as a custom job for me by a friend.
This gut hook knife was created out of piece of cable by my gun buddy Casey Williams. He also created the leather sheath for the knife. I can’t wait for deer season to roll around again – maybe I can field dress my first deer with this knife! Even if I don’t get a deer, I will at least feel like a BA while carrying this knife on my belt – LOL.
Besides the recent day on the range, there have been a few other random situations come to mind when I was glad I had a knife in my pocket.
I attended a baby shower last fall, where the hostess had forgotten to bring a can opener to open the juice for the punch. Who was the only guest who brought a blade to a baby shower? This gal. Don’t judge me. You’re welcome.
Then there was the time when I was having trouble opening the plastic collar on the little bottles of ketchup at a brunch. The waitress wanted to help, but I kinda freaked her out when I whipped out my little 3 inch pocket knife to take care of the job. The poor waitress acted as if she’d never seen a woman with a pocket knife before.
Even slicing the apple you found on a feral apple tree in the woods – so you can share it with your kid – is a good reason to carry a pocket knife.
Did you notice none of these little events involved sawing myself out of my bonds in a hostage situation, or flinging my knife across the room to vanquish an attacker like you see in the movies? That’s because my life isn’t like that. But you never know. I did manage to win a Buck Knife two years in-a-row at SHOT Range Day – by throwing knives :-)
There aren’t too many downsides to daily knife carry, but there are a few – such as running your knife through the washing machine when you forgot to unclip it from your pants. Can I have a show of hands, please? Anybody besides me?
I even got in semi-trouble once when I forgot about my pocket knife when checking in to take my Board Recertification Exam. The exam center was so strict that I even had to take off my necklace and watch – but I forgot the pocket knife. They found it when they wanded me. Oops. What did they think it was – a secret recording device? Was I going to threaten the computer if I didn’t do well?
My ultimate point is – you don’t have to be Tammy Tactical to carry a knife. There are LOTS of everyday mundane uses that don’t involve ninja skillz. Despite what you may hear in Britain, or in your kids’ elementary school, it’s almost ALWAYS better to have a knife.
… Except maybe if you’re in the TSA line at the airport.
(Fort Smith, AR) – Walther Arms, Inc. is proud to announce a national Walther Days weekend. Over 60 dealers nationwide will have a Walther Representative in attendance to answer questions and help promote the Walther experience.
Dealers across the United States will be offering different promotions, sales, free goods, raffles, and range time for the Walther line. Walther sales team will be at each of the locations listed on the website. This gives consumers across the nation the opportunity to go support their local gun shop and take advantage of the new “Shoot It. Love It. Buy It.” promotion on the PPQ line. All new PPQ’s sold during this weekend qualify for the 30-day money back guarantee.
“This event allows us to collectively promote our dealers and give consumers the opportunity to come in and ask any questions they have about our products, and the new Shoot It. Love It. Buy It. program.” said Cody Osborn, Marketing Manager at Walther Arms, Inc. “With the launch of the innovative Q5 Match Steel Frame and the 30-day money back guarantee on the PPQ family, there is a lot of buzz surrounding the Walther brand. This is a great opportunity to experience Walther handguns.”
National Walther Days will be held on March 15 and 16, 2019.
For more information on participating dealers, visit:
https://www.waltherarms.com/waltherdays/
About Walther Arms, Inc:
Walther Arms offers Powered Performance with an entire line of handguns ranging from .22 to .45. Over the past 130 years Walther has been devoted to innovation and customer satisfaction in a fast growing industry. Follow and subscribe to Walther Arms online:www.WaltherArms.com, www.facebook.com/WaltherArms, www.instagram.com/waltherarms/, www.twitter.com/waltherfirearms, andwww.youtube.com/waltherfirearms.
Extensive advocacy work by proponents of stronger gun regulations in New Mexico has led to a new law that will require federal background checks for most gun purchases, including online sales and at gun shows. – Splinter News
Only two errors with the above statement that anyone remotely familiar with law can attest to. ‘Online’ Gun Sales MUST ship to a federally licensed dealer who then must perform the NICS federal background check. The same goes for every dealer selling at a gun show.
The private sales that have instead become prohibited don’t sound as flashy as “closing the gun show loophole” though. Selling to a prohibited person is a crime, letting a prohibited individual borrow a firearm is a crime.
Is making the crimes several times redundant actually producing meaningful reductions in injury and loss of life?
Despite all logic to the contrary gun control advocates continue to redundantly stack legal violations and act surprised when an individual violates them. Almost like someone determined to create criminal mischief doesn’t care if their act was one time illegal or three times illegal.
“We all have a constitutional right to be safe in our homes and communities,” Lujan Grisham said, according to the Albuquerque Journal.
Weird flex… but okay. Using alleged constitutional authority and protection to actively quash a constitutional right.
New Mexico, which has one of the country’s highest rates of firearm deaths per capita, joins more than 20 other states with similar regulations on firearms sales.
But will a background check, easily circumvented and difficult to enforce, do anything to curb that number in a way that makes this a positive move? Or is this just gun control theater as normal?
Gun deaths per capita is far too vague a stat to associate with being drastically influenced by adding a background check to legal private sales. Lack of background check is not a cause of death. The direct and indirect influences involved in gun deaths are too many degrees separate for this to work.
I expect to see more “Sanctuary” counties pop up where this waste of time is not enforced and the efforts of law enforcement are instead directed towards investigations and more effective community outreach.
MALMÖ, Sweden – Aimpoint, the leading manufacturer and innovator of red dot sighting technology, has been awarded a USD 24 million firm, fixed-price contract for supply of the Aimpoint® FCS13-RE Fire Control System to the U.S. military. The system will be deployed as the primary Fire Control on the new M3-E1 MAAWS lightweight 84mm Carl Gustaf produced by SAAB Dynamics. The contract was awarded through Atlantic Diving Supply (ADS Inc.) via the DLA Tailored Logistics Support program.
The FCS13-RE is a direct view, Dynamic Universal Reflex Sight, which utilizes an integrated laser range finder and ballistic computer to give the gunner an aiming point corrected for range, type of munition, terrain angle, and environmental conditions. In addition to the 84mm Carl Gustaf, the system can also be utilized on other crew served weapons including 40 mm high velocity grenade launchers, and 12.7 mm (.50 caliber) heavy machine guns. The FCS13-RE provides a very high probability of first-shot hit on both stationary and moving targets at extended ranges and utilizes a very intuitive user control interface. The system can be enhanced with modular magnification and thermal imaging components and is compatible with all generations of military night vision equipment.
The selection of the Aimpoint FCS13-RE for use on the M3-E1 Carl Gustaf followed extensive tests and evaluations conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) headquartered at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey.
“Having delivered over one million M68CCO close combat optics to the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force since 1997, Aimpoint has proven to be a highly reliable supplier to the U.S. Armed Forces” said Brian Lisankie, President of Aimpoint Inc. “This latest contract for electronic Fire Control Systems shows that Aimpoint has continued to increase our technical capabilities, and to offer new cutting-edge products for use by our most prestigious military customers.”
“In combination with the new lightweight M3-E1 Carl Gustaf, the FCS13-RE greatly increases the lethality and survivability of troops in the field. The ability to quickly and accurately place the first shot directly on target with a high degree of certainty represents the true value of this system” said Thane Smith, Military Sales Director at Aimpoint Inc.
Deliveries of the Aimpoint FCS13-RE are scheduled for 2019. The system will be fielded by the U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Special Operations Command.
For more information, visit the company’s webpage: www.aimpoint.com
Governor Phil Murphy does not believe the $2.00 tax for New Jersey citizens to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights is enough. Murphy is proposing an increase to $50 per individual license in order to ‘increase revenue for law enforcement efforts to stop illegal guns from out of state’.
“It’s actually cheaper to get a permit to purchase a handgun, two bucks, than it is to get a dog license in many of our communities,” Murphy said. – News 12 New Jersey
I hate to break it down this way for you, Phil. But the citizen exercising his or her Second Amendment right should be less expensive than the privilege of a dog license.
Now everyone agrees with the plan, even among Murphy’s party. It’s seen as grandstanding and showboating “look at me take on ‘gun violence’ so strongly.”
“I think we’ve done a lot with gun reform in the state,” said Sen. Steve Sweeney. “We are the most progressive state in the nation when it comes to gun reform and just to check a box to say you did something, I don’t think that’s necessary.”
The slide of anti-gun states and their continued squeeze of gun owners continues apace.
Criminals who don’t pay the $2.00, won’t pay the $50.00, and who use their illicitly gotten weaponry for criminal activity have their opinion of the proposed rule change summarized as “not giving a f*** about this law either.”
Adding the $50.00 onto an already arduous process for lawful ownership is simply taxing a right out of existence. An elected officiate believes it should be a privilege to defend yourself with arms should the need arise and so Murphy is proposing further steps to make that a reality.
Get these guys into the electoral unemployment line.
Because I know you’re humming it already… here you go. (Edited: because someone did not enjoy my play on words)
You have chosen a shoulder fired carbine as your personal defensive tool. This is primarily for your home but extends in scope to the vehicle/cruiser. In specific circumstances this could be an ‘on body’ carry, but that is not the focus of this discussion.
The topic at hand is building up a defensive carbine. Outline the purchase priority in order to maximize your dollars spent and minimize spending overlap.
Twice spent money on items like triggers, sights, slings, handguards, and other ancillary equipment. Items you are able to change and are likely to change on any specific firearm as you want to upgrade new personal gear.
These changes, if and when made, must enhance the carbine in its intended role. The litmus test, how much did an item improve the gun in performing its overall role? This is a game of financial diminishing returns, be warned. However, the only one you need to justify the cost too is yourself and if it passes the ‘in role improvement’ consideration it can be justified.
A minimalist set up covers the basic requirements with little cost into force multiplicative equipment.
While both the Dakota Tactical MP5 and IWI X95 are exceptional firearms in the role of a defensive carbine, they are not ready out of the box.
Even in its most basic configuration a defensive carbine needs to cover two critical capabilities.
Most out of the box rifles cannot do either one. Even my beloved SCAR and M16 lack this capability. In low or no light they do nothing to aid the user in target assessment and engagement.
In a low light or no light scenario getting on a set of iron sights and using them effectively is… well it sucks. Putting the small dark front post in the small dark circle of the rear sight and across the dark obscure target and hope for the best.
The answer, in the minimalist case, is night sights. Yes, just like on your pistol.
The IWI Galil comes with night sights making it a phenomenal choice in this regard. Adding a night sight is an inexpensive modification, in most cases, to carbine systems. The night sights correct the sight acquisition deficiency.
The second component is adding a light of sufficient brightness and proper throw to positively identify what you may or may not be shooting at.
The Streamlight TLR-7 selected here is traditionally a handgun light. However after being told “No, seriously try it. You’re gonna like it.” by Tom, head of IWI’s training program, I’ve come to enjoy the little 500 lumen single cell as a very capable carbine light. It’s fantastic for social distances (50m and closer) with capabilities outward towards 100m depending on environmental factors.
But the long and short of this stubby little carbine is that a single added item, the TLR-7, completes the Galil’s identify and engage capability within the critical 50 meter envelope regardless of light level.
For most AR platforms adding the night sight will be well under $100 invested if you want it to be. The TLR-7 is another $100 or so.
A Weapon Mounted Light (WML) gives you positive target ID capability without sacrificing control of your carbine. Night sights give you drastically increased ability to take a shot in low and no light without needing to engage your light to get target contrast.
Those are absolute baseline capabilities with a weapon being utilized in a defensive roll.
[Ed: Here’s another example of the horrendous “research” we encounter every week. Thanks to DRGO writer Dr. Thomas E. Gift who pointed it out and gave us his read on it, which is incorporated here.]
“Firearm Policies That Work” just came out February 25 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The authors are April Zeoli, a new name from the Michigan State University’s School of Criminal Justice and Daniel Webster, an old hand at anti-gun research from the Center for Gun Research and Policy at Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health. Which is where Zeoli did her graduate work. Both the title and the Bloomberg source in particular tell us what to expect.
And that’s what we get, from the very first paragraph. Our total “gun deaths” rank second only to Brazil in the world. Of course, our per capita rate is much more respectable, ranking midway in the world, since we are Earth’s third most populous nation. (We won’t bother to mention the problems of incomplete reporting of the number of shootings in much of the less developed world. And comparing these human costs to the benefits in lives saved and injuries prevented by defensive gun uses just does not fit the one-track thinking of such “experts”.)
Not yet out of the first paragraph, they go on to say that “laws restricting access to firearms for individuals at high risk of the future commission of violence, based on their previous behaviors, may reduce firearm-related injuries and deaths. . . thus, there remain opportunities for enactment and implementation of these laws . . .” Is that too obvious? The paper’s agenda is to reinforce the idea that more laws “may” reduce shooting casualties, and we should take every opportunity to pass them. “May” is the weasel word that reveals their own awareness that more laws won’t necessarily do that—and we well know that with 20,000+ plus gun laws already in place, the evidence shows that more laws can’t.
They get something right in pointing out that past behavior is the only useful indicator of future behavior, meaning violence for this discussion. Listing studies that demonstrate that’s true for firearm use adds nothing substantial, but implies there is something special about violent men using firearms that they couldn’t accomplish otherwise.
Be alert to their reference to “case control studies”, too. In these, rather than examine real-world changes in trends of the possibly dependent variable (e.g., shooting deaths, violent crime, etc.), researchers choose and shape control comparisons to fit the study topic. You know what it means when researchers get to make up their own control sets, right?
Further on, we learn that “the odds of intimate partner homicide were higher among violent male intimate partners who had access to a firearm . . .” Does that mean that access to a gun promotes homicide? They might like us to think so. But it also can mean that more violent males who would murder are more likely to get and use guns. Or that when a gun is present there’s more chance of a shooting than when a gun is not available (a tautology). Association is not causative, which the word “odds” implies. (See our “Reading ‘Gun Violence’ Research Critically” here if such manipulations interest you, with its companion article here.)
They like states that also prohibit gun ownership for histories of misdemeanor violence convictions. But they have to admit that “[e]vidence of the relationship of misdemeanor violence firearm prohibitions with nonpartner violence is mixed” at best.
They tout adding dating partners to the roster of restraining order-eligible parties, and denying firearms along with those orders. Yet their own numbers show that when this “broader group of high-risk individuals are prohibited from firearm access” there is actually a slightly higher rate of intimate partner homicide, with an insignificant improvement from the calculated baseline rate. “Mixed” evidence, indeed.
Throughout the paper, research comparing one state to another, or somehow calculating the effects of a law after it is enacted, is proffered as definitive. (For example, here.) But the only meaningful control for an intervention is the change in trend of the study variable in the same place before and after the intervention. Otherwise, it is comparing apples with oranges. And even then the problem of confounding, sometimes unknown variables can exist during the same time period that are more likely causes of change than the studied variable may be. Just because associations are seen does not prove they are primary cause and effect.
A final swipe is taken at the substantial body of research that clearly shows that expanding concealed carry is not even associated with greater homicide or violent crime rates. John Lott has done yeoman’s work for years on this, and the most recent (contradicting their claim) and excellent study of nationwide trends came from DRGO author Mark Hamill, MD.
So round and round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows.
.
.
—Thomas E. Gift, MD is a child and adolescent psychiatrist practicing in Rochester, New York, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Rochester Medical School, and a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
All DRGO articles by Thomas E. Gift, MD
— DRGO Editor Robert B. Young, MD is a psychiatrist practicing in Pittsford, NY, an associate clinical professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, and a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
All DRGO articles by Robert B. Young, MD
[Ed: This is the inspiring true story of men who took up arms to defend their families, communities and movement during the 1960’s Civil Rights conflicts. It reminds us why firearms must be in the people’s hands when authoritarian government would maintain its monopoly of arms. DRGO friend Philip Smith, President of the National African-American Gun Association, originally published this in its latest member newsletter.]
The Deacons for Defense and Justice was an armed African-American self-defense group founded in November 1964, during the civil rights era in the United States, in the mill town of Jonesboro, Louisiana. On February 21, 1965—the day of Malcolm X‘s assassination—the first affiliated chapter was founded in Bogalusa, Louisiana , followed by a total of 20 other chapters in this state, Mississippi and Alabama. It was intended to protect civil rights activists and their families. They were threatened both by white vigilantes and discriminatory treatment by police under Jim Crow laws. The Bogalusa chapter gained attention during the summer of 1965 in its violent struggles with the Ku Klux Klan .
Founding of The Deacons for Defense
African Americans were harassed and attacked by white KKK vigilantes in the mill town of Jonesboro, Louisiana in 1964, also burning down five churches, their Masonic hall and a Baptist center. Given the threat, Earnest “Chilly Willy” Thomas and Frederick Douglass Kirkpatrick founded the Deacons for Defense in November 1964 to protect civil rights workers, their families and the black community against the local KKK. Most of the Deacons were veterans with combat experience from the Korean War and World War II.
In 1964, during Freedom Summer and a period of extensive voter education and organizing for registration, especially in Mississippi, the Congress of Racial Equality established a Freedom House in Jonesboro. It became a target of the Klan who resented white activists staying there. Because of repeated attacks on the Freedom House, as well as the church burnings, the Black community decided to organize to defend it. Thomas was one of the first volunteers to guard the house. According to historian Lance Hill, “Thomas was eager to work with CORE, but he had reservations about the nonviolent terms imposed by the young activists.”
Thomas, who had military training, quickly emerged as the leader of this budding defense organization. He was joined by Frederick Douglass Kirkpatrick, a civil rights activist and member of SCLC, who had been ordained that year as a minister in the Pentecostal Church of God in Christ .
During the day, the men concealed their guns. At night they carried them openly, as was allowed by the law, to discourage Klan activity at the site and in the black community. In early 1965, Black students were picketing the local high school in Jonesboro for integration. They were confronted by hostile police ready to use fire trucks with hoses against them. A car carrying four Deacons arrived. In view of the police, these men loaded their shotguns. The police ordered the fire truck to withdraw. This was the first time in the 20th century, as Hill observes, that “an armed black organization had successfully used weapons to defend a lawful protest against an attack by law enforcement.” Hill also wrote: “In Jonesboro, the Deacons made history when they compelled Louisiana governor John McKeithen to intervene in the city’s civil rights crisis and require a compromise with city leaders — the first capitulation to the civil rights movement by a Deep South governor.”
After traveling 300 miles to Bogalusa, in southeast Louisiana, on February 21, 1965, Kirkpatrick, Thomas and a CORE member worked with local leaders to organize the first affiliated Deacons chapter. Black activists in the company mill town were being attacked by the local and powerful Ku Klux Klan. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been passed, blacks were making little progress toward integration of public facilities in the city or registering to vote. Activists Robert “Bob” Hicks (1929-2010), Charles Sims, and A. Z. Young , workers at the Crown-Zellerbach plant (Georgia-Pacific after 1985, later acquired by another), led this new chapter of the Deacons for Defense.
In the summer of 1965, they campaigned for integration and came into regular conflict with the Klan in the city. The state police established a base there in the spring in expectation of violence after the Deacons organized. Before the summer, the first black deputy sheriff of the local Washington Parish was assassinated by whites.
The militant Deacons’ confrontation with the Klan in Bogalusa through the summer of 1965 was planned to gain federal government intervention. “In July 1965, escalating hostilities between the Deacons and the Klan in Bogalusa provoked the federal government to use Reconstruction-era laws to order local police departments to protect civil rights workers.”
The Deacons also initiated a regional organizing campaign, founding a total of 21 formal chapters and 46 affiliates in other cities.
Members of The Deacons for Defense
The Deacons had a relationship with other civil rights groups that practiced non-violence. Such support by the Deacons allowed the NAACP and CORE to formally observe their traditional parameters of non-violence.
The Deacons were instrumental in other campaigns led by the Civil Rights Movement. Activist James Meredith organized the June 1966 March Against Fear, to go from Memphis, Tennessee , to Jackson, Mississippi. He wanted a low-key affair, but was shot and wounded early in the march. Other major civil rights leaders and organizations recruited hundreds and then thousands of marchers in order to continue Meredith’s effort.
According to in a 1999 article, activist Stokely Carmichael encouraged having the Deacons provide security for the remainder of the march. After some debate, many civil rights leaders agreed, including Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Umoja wrote, “Finally, though expressing reservations, King conceded to Carmichael’s proposals to maintain unity in the march and the movement. The involvement and association of the Deacons with the march signified a shift in the civil rights movement, which had been popularly projected as a ‘nonviolent movement.”‘
FBI investigation begins in 1965
In February 1965, after an article in The New York Times about the Deacons in Jonesboro, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover became interested in the group. His office sent a memo to its Louisiana field offices: “Because of the potential for violence indicated, you are instructed to immediately initiate an investigation of the DDJ [Deacons for Defense and Justice].” As was eventually exposed in the late 1970s, the FBI established the COINTELPRO program, through which its agents were involved in many illegal activities against organizations that Hoover deemed “a threat to the American way”.
The Bureau ultimately produced more than 1,500 pages of comprehensive and relatively accurate records on the Deacons and their activities, largely through numerous informants close to or who had infiltrated the organization. Members of the Deacons were repeatedly questioned and intimidated by F.B.I. agents.
Harvie Johnson (the last surviving original member of The Deacons for Defense and Justice) was interviewed by two agents during this period. He said they asked only how the Deacons obtained their weapons, never questioning him about the Klan activity or police actions they were responding to.
VIDEO ON DEACONS OF DEFENSE CLICK BELOW:
Most histories of the Civil Rights Movement tend to overlook such organizations as the Deacons.
There were are several reasons for this: First, the dominant ideology of the Movement was one of non-violence unless they were attacked.
Second, threats to the lives of Deacons’ members required them to maintain secrecy to avoid terrorist attacks. In addition, they recruited only mature male members, in contrast to other more informal self-defense efforts, in which women and teenagers sometimes played a role. Finally, the organization was relatively short-lived, fading by 1968. In that period, there was a national shift in attention to the issues of Blacks in the North and the rise of the Black Power movement in 1966. The Deacons were overshadowed by The Black Panther Party, which became noted for its militancy.
.
.
— DRGO Editor Robert B. Young, MD is a psychiatrist practicing in Pittsford, NY, an associate clinical professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, and a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
All DRGO articles by Robert B. Young, MD
