Smith & Wesson Model 29 and 629
By Steve L. Doran
The Model 29 is a Smith and Wesson N frame revolver, it was first introduced in 1955. The gun was made famous by Clint Eastwood who used the gun in the movie Dirty Harry. It was also shown in the popular film Taxi Driver in 1976. After that they were hard to come by in the 6.5 inch version. Other barrel lengths were available Read more
Ruger MKIII Semi-Auto 22 Pistol
By Steven L. Doran
Over the years Ruger has made a few changes to their Mark line of pistols they come in different barrel lengths, with different sighting options, magazine releases etc, but the basic function of the pistol is the same. Read more
Marlin Model 25, 22 Magnum Bolt Action Rifle
By Steven L. Doran
Marlin has always made a great line of , accurate, handsome well built relatively inexpensive bolt action repeating rifles. The magazine fed versions have always been my choice because it is easy to keep extra ammo in a pocket or pack. Read more
North American Arms “Pug”
By Steven L. Doran
I have been acquainted with North American Arms for many years they manufacture min-revolvers and auto loading pistols that are very reliable and are used in many different types of concealed carry applications. North American has even come out with pistols chambered in a proprietary .25, .32 and .380 ACP. Police officers and private citizens carry their guns as back ups and primary carry weapons. Read more
By Steven L. Doran
The snub-nose .38 revolver has really taken a beating over the last several years. In fact a lot of people who criticize the gun have never taken the time to even shoot one, or have only fired a few rounds. I have heard story after story about what a piece of junk they are and how they do not compare to any semi-auto on the market. Read more
By Scott E. Becker
This was a lonely part of the Torngat Mountains, where the caribou trails ran up to the sky, where the caribou roamed with falcons and danced in the shadow of clouds. The ground rumbled. Above the rocks, two, then three sets of white tines appeared, like fingers reaching for the heavens, four by four antlers rocking gently back and forth in cadence. I drew back my bow. The first bull passed too quickly to get a good shot. Behind it sprinted the biggest bull of the group. I led it by a nose and loosed my last arrow. Its neck stretched, foaming at the mouth, muscles tough and defined; my arrow sped towards the target… Read more
Steven L. Doran
Both the U.S. House and Senate supported a bill this past week that would allow guns in national parks. A ban on such weapons has been in place for 26 years, but the Bush Administration overturned that ban shortly before President Obama took office; a temporary injunction had stopped the Bush action from becoming law.
Lifting of the ban on guns in national parks was attached by Republicans as an amendment to the bill imposing new restrictions on credit card companies, and Democrats, who potentially could have blocked it, instead chose to let the amendment go through. Once the bill was put before Congress, both chambers supported it. While President Obama opposed lifting the restriction, he chose to sign the bill, rather than jeopardizing credit card reform so he says, but I am sure he was not ready for the fall out he would receive from the people of the United States.
The liberals have gotten the Department of the Interior to agree to assess the anticipated environmental impacts of allowing loaded, concealed firearms into the national parks,” in an attempt to thwart the new law and they will probably make some ridiculous claim like to much lead will leek from the bullets and endanger some microbe we never heard of. I can not wait to see those results.
Lifting of the ban will take place in February 2010.
|Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading|
– Even BB guns could be on the chopping block
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama? The guy who “wasn’t going to take away our guns”?
Well, guess what?
Less than 100 days into his administration, he’s never met a gun he didn’t hate.
A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn’t have the political power to take away our semi-automatics. Nevertheless, that didn’t keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun owners.
It’s called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really nasty piece of work.
First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the “illicit” manufacture of firearms, what does that mean?
1. “Illicit manufacturing” of firearms is defined as “assembly of firearms [or] ammunition … without a license….”
Hence, reloading ammunition — or putting together a lawful firearm from a kit — is clearly “illicit manufacturing.”
Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be “illicit manufacturing.” And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy definition of “illicit manufacturing.”
2. “Firearm” has a similarly questionable definition.
“[A]ny other weapon” is a “firearm,” according to the treaty — and the term “weapon” is nowhere defined.
So, is a BB gun a “firearm”? Probably.
A toy gun? Possibly.
A pistol grip or firing pin? Probably. And who knows what else.
If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama administration could have a heyday in enforcing them. Consider some of the other provisions in the treaty:
* Banning reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to adopting “necessary legislative or other measures” to criminalize illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.
Remember that “illicit manufacturing” includes reloading and modifying or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the basis of this treaty — just as it is currently circumventing Congress to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.
* Banning gun clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized acts should include “association or conspiracy” in connection with said offenses — which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.
* Extraditing US gun dealers. Article V requires each party to “adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention” under a variety of circumstances.
We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its streets are flowing with blood. And we know it is possible for Mexico to define offenses “committed in its territory” in a very broad way. And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of the proposed treaty. So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty to demand to extradition of American gun dealers.
Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute through “other means of peaceful settlement.”
Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision in a pro-gun manner?
* Microstamping. Article VI requires “appropriate markings” on firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition — a requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are not technologically possible or which are possible only at a prohibitively expensive cost.
* Gun registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records, for a “reasonable time,” that the government determines to be necessary to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a national registry or database.
ACTION: Write your Senators and urge them to oppose the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.
|Congress Trying To Implement The Medical Records Gun Ban|
– Step #2 in fraudulent budget process comes to a vote on Wednesday
Monday, April 27, 2009
Congress is moving closer to a showdown over the largest expansion of government in modern U.S. history — a bill which would require virtually every single American to buy government-approved health insurance, whether they wanted it or not. And, in the process, that bill would feed all of your most confidential medical data into an enormous database, which could be used to take away your guns.
This is a bit complicated. But here’s where we are: Read more
|Obama Picks Anti-gun Judge for the Supreme Court|
– Time to start contacting your Senators right away
Friday, May 29, 2009
Unless you’ve taken a very long Memorial Day vacation, you’ve no doubt heard the big news.
President Obama has picked an anti-gun radical to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.
Obama’s pick is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who is currently on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District. There she has racked up an anti-Second Amendment record and has displayed contempt for the rule of law under the Constitution.
The Heller decision put the Supreme Court in support of the Constitutional protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms. Sotomayor, a politically correct lover of centralized government power (as long as she is part of the power elite), immediately went into counter-attack mode against the Heller decision.
Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel earlier this year which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. As she and her cohorts claimed, the Supreme Court has not yet incorporated the states under the Second Amendment. Until then, she believes, the Second only applies to the District of Columbia.
This is pure judicial arrogance — something Sotomayor relishes (as long as she is one of the ruling judges). In fact, protection of the right to keep and bear arms was a major objective for enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, as recently freed slaves were being disarmed and terrorized in their neighborhoods.
But Sotomayor disdains this important right of individuals, as indicated by an earlier opinion from 2004. In United States v. Sanchez-Villar, she stated that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”
Sotomayor has held very anti-gun views, even as far back as the 1970s. Fox Cable News reported yesterday that in her senior thesis at Princeton University, she wrote that America has a “deadly obsession” with guns and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to firearms ownership.
Sotomayor’s Second Amendment views go hand in hand with her politically correct views on the law and the role of judges.
In a speech given at Duke University in 2005, she made it abundantly clear that judges are involved in making policy. Realizing that this did not sound very judicial (even though most judges act on this basis), Sotomayor tried to laugh off her brazen admission: “I know this is on tape and I should never say that, [audience laughing], because we don’t make law — I know. Um, okay. I know, I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it.” The audience continued to laugh. They got the joke.
But Sotomayor’s joke will be on us and our liberties if she gets confirmed to the Supreme Court. And that is why we need to start contacting our Senators early and often, urging them to vote against this dangerous nomination.
ACTION: Please contact your two Senators and urge them to oppose the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.
By Michael Stamm
I’m inordinately fond of guns, and have been accused of approaching them with much the same attitude as I do puppies- I like almost all of them, and want to bring them all home with me. I can’t afford many, of course, but do occasionally acquire something new. Some are more favored than others, and for general defensive use I find myself returning to a concept that has always served me well. I’m particularly fond of double-barreled shotguns. Read more
Steven L. Doran
This article contains no photos, no diagrams no fancy reference material. No piece of equipment you can think of replaces your brain. They are mere inanimate objects. They are not capable of thought or action. Read more