Charged with first degree murder by an “irrational, manic, and virtually out of control” prosecutor . . . In Jackson, Mississippi, a Man’s Home is Not His Castle – “The police were called and dispatched but Parish exited the store with a .38 Smith & Wesson and ordered McDonald, who was still trying to break into the car, to leave the premises. Instead of leaving, McDonald lunged at Parish in an effort to grab his gun. The two struggled for control of the revolver for less than 30 seconds but it likely seemed like an eternity for Parish. Toward the end of the life and death struggle, which was captured on surveillance video, McDonald, who is still seen grabbing at Parish, falls to the ground from gunshot wounds to the upper torso. He was later pronounced dead at University of Mississippi Medical Center.”

The Issue Democrats Wish Would Go Away – “The progressive hope in Thursday’s special election to represent Montana’s at-large House district can be seen in an ad caressing a gun he lovingly calls “this old rifle.” In another spot, Democratic nominee Rob Quist pulls a shiny bullet from his barn coat pocket, locks and loads, and fires at a TV airing a spot questioning his Second Amendment bona fides. ‘I’ll protect your right to bear arms,’ Quist pledges, ‘because it’s my right, too.’ None of this is subtle, but Quist’s break with the Democratic Party platform hasn’t produced a peep from the activist left; the gun issue wasn’t even raised before MoveOn.org decided to endorse him. Are progressives knowingly practicing hard-headed electoral pragmatism? Or, as is more likely, are they ducking a divisive and frustrating issue for as long as possible, until another horrific mass shooting produces a fresh wave of outrage?” They just know that just like Joe Manchin and ever other “pro-gun rights” Democrat, Quist will toe the anti-gun line when it comes time to vote in Congress.

Pass national reciprocity and piss off a left coaster . . . Keep concealed guns out of California – “Our laws require good cause for the issuance of a concealed weapon permit. Applicants must undergo a comprehensive background check. No one with a serious criminal conviction may receive a permit, nor may subjects of temporary or permanent domestic violence restraining orders. But if concealed carry reciprocity were the law of the land, all this would change.”

Drawing precisely the wrong conclusion…again, still . . .  Gays Against Guns – How the Pulse tragedy launched a new movement – “What started out as a Facebook discussion morphed into an entire movement. Last Summer, as Kevin Hertzog and his friends were mourning the Pulse shooting in Orlando, it was a simple conversation that kicked off, what would eventually become, Gays Against Guns, or GAG. ‘A friend [on Facebook] had said ‘this is awful’ and I said, ‘we should do something about this,’’ Hertzog, 52, said. His friend, Brian Worth, jumped into the conversation. ‘Brian said ‘we should get together,’’ and then, they just did.

AMTAC offers free tax stamps on suppressors – “From now through October 31st, when you buy a suppressor from our website, we’ll cover the cost of your tax stamp. Not a credit or a gift card—a check for $200 to Uncle Sam—no strings attached. This promotion is not some lame gift card, store credit, or rebate designed to get rid of an overstock of our t-shirts. When you purchase a suppressor through our website, we automatically cut a check for $200 paid directly to the ATF in your name. The check covers the NFA tax stamp and we don’t collect any payment for the stamp—it’s on us!”

If people like Shannon Watts had their way, this woman would have been defenseless . . . SPD: Woman shoots man while defending herself – “A woman told officers that she was attacked by the man while she was leaving her apartment. She then used a firearm to protect herself. Officers said that they found a gun on him as well. ‘She was assaulted,’ Hines said. ‘There’s marks that she’s bearing that clearly shows she was pretty beat up.’ Hines also said that the man had been bothering her for the past few weeks. Residents at the complex told police they had seen him loitering around the grounds. He added that police do not know if they knew each other.”

Who, exactly, are these so-called experts? . . .  Gun Control: What Experts and Americans Agree On: “According to the experts, the most effective policies was one that requires gun sellers to run background checks on all potential buyers and another that prevented gun sales to anyone convicted of violent misdemeanors. On the other hand, experts were least drawn to the idea of states honoring out-of-state concealed weapon permits. Although there is a clear separation in views over gun control and gun rights among Americans, the distinct measures put forward have been generally popular. In the survey conducted, policies like comprehensive background checks and preventing convicted stalkers from obtaining guns were backed by over 85 percent of registered voters. Even the least popular policy was approved of by almost 50 percent.”

This can’t make the gang at MSESPN happy at all . . . New law allows for legal, concealed guns at Georgia tailgates – “Current law allows license-holders to keep weapons secured in motor vehicles, but beginning July 1, House Bill 280 will allow ‘anyone who is properly licensed in the state of Georgia to carry a handgun in a concealed manner on property owned or leased by public colleges and universities.’ However, no other type of gun will be allowed to be carried around campus. Handguns also won’t be allowed to be carried openly. The new bill does not apply to institution-sponsored events away from campus on property not owned or leased by a University System institution. Although the bill provides for specific exceptions of where handguns may not go, it doesn’t give individual institutions the ability to bar or limit handguns on their campuses.”

4 Weird Things People Ask Women Who Carry Guns (And How To Answer) – Number one on the hit parade: “Aren’t you scared the gun will go off?”

Sad! . . . Trump lawyers ask Supreme Court to reject 2nd Amendment claim by men who lost gun rights over nonviolent crimes – “Trump administration lawyers are urging the Supreme Court to reject a 2nd Amendment claim that would restore the right to own a gun for two Pennsylvania men who were convicted more than 20 years ago of nonviolent crimes. The case of Sessions vs. Binderup puts the new administration in a potentially awkward spot, considering President Trump’s repeated assurances during the campaign that he would protect gun-ownership rights under the 2nd Amendment.”

Kicking and screaming . . . New gun range rules approved by City Council – The Chicago City Council on Wednesday approved a more lenient set of rules for the potential location of gun ranges in the city, after one key alderman said they would be allowed anywhere if officials didn’t act. After a dissertation on the issue by Ald. Ed Burke, 14th, the council voted without dissent to allow gun ranges in business, commercial and industrial areas, provided the owners get a special use permit — which requires officials to consider objections from people and businesses in the surrounding area. No commercial ranges currently exist in Chicago.”

File this under empty, useless gestures designed solely to impress the base back home . . . Rep. Carbajal Introduces Bicameral Legistlation to Reduce Gun Violence – “On the 3rd Anniversary of the tragic shooting in Isla Vista, California, Congressman Salud Carbajal (CA-24), Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty (CT-05), and Congressman Don Beyer (VA-08) introduced The Gun Violence Restraining Order Act, a bill that encourages all states to empower families and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to prevent future tragedies due to gun violence. U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein will introduce The Gun Violence Restraining Order Act in the Senate.”

N at all SFW:

44 Responses to Vedder Holsters Daily Digest: Not His Castle in MS, GAG Gets it Wrong and Kicking and Screaming in Chicago

  1. Yes GAG on that…practice makes perfect! I predict NO gun ranges will be approved in Chiraq. BTW anti2A Joe Lieberman has been disqualified (as reported) from head of the FBI…conflict of interest. So what has Donnie done for us except make us happy the Hilde beast didn’t win?!?

    • Democrats are the party of open borders and empty hostlers, they have worked their asses off to earn it now they can have it.

      Do not whine DNC, its not a grave, its the future you chose.

  2. Hold the phone on your “The Issue Democrats Wish Would Go Away” bit before discounting it out of the gate — isn’t this how the goal post moves towards gun rights? Elect pro-gun deomcrats, like the old blue dogs, and then hold them to their word? Just like we suppose we’ll hold “pro-gun” republicans to their word? (HPA and national reciprocity, anyone? The votes are happening… right?) If not in Montana, where? This is the perfect test case for pushing the political benchmark. Disconnect the gun issue from party — and you get to a place where the gun issue is a given, where all politicians support gun rights as defined by the constitution (hint: shall not be infringed) and we, as Americans, can disagree about other policy.

    • Nope, they have a history of cheating, rigging elections and if all else fails just import/legalize millions of aliens to insure one party rule until the nation is ruined.

      The DNC can burn in hell.

    • The main problem is the “hold them to their word” part. Incumbents have a tremendous advantage in American elections, so once you put a rat in office, it’s very difficult to get rid of him, no matter what he does. Congress has a 15% approval rate, yet somehow enjoys a 90+% re-election rate.

      Another problem is that, even if individual Democrats are pro-gun, their national party is very much anti-2A. Electing pro-gun Democrats edges them closer to controlling one or both houses of Congress, and once they do that, do you really think the party leadership is going to listen to them and moderate their anti-gun stance?

    • ” isn’t this how the goal post moves towards gun rights? Elect pro-gun deomcrats, like the old blue dogs, and then hold them to their word?”

      You are naive.

      Once elected to office on a national level, they *will* vote in lock-step with their Progressive masters when the next mass shooting goes down.

      If you believe *anything* else, you’re stoned, and I’d like some from your bag… 😉

    • NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) was pro gun before she was elected. She is from upstate NY which is typically pro. When she became Senator that all changed. She is now Schumers shadow. She went berserk at the thoughts of “silencers” (her words) (on not voting for the Hearing Protection Act)

  3. The fact that over half of “experts” agree that microstamping is “effective” proves that more than half of these people are fucking morons.

    Therefore I will disregard everything on that lil’ chart and instead laugh at lil’ pump. (He’s just precious.)

    Also, AMTAC makes a pretty limited line of mufflers. Kinda surprised.

    • It just proves that they are not experts at all, first because guns that microstamp casings do not exist and therefore cannot have any effect on “gun violence,” microstamping does not eliminate the 400 million guns out there that do not microstamp, the only law on the books does not require microstamping for revolvers or rifles or shotguns, and last but not least, even if they did exist, tracing would be impossible for stolen guns, assuming the elements of the firearm that are supposed to leave the imprint have not been modified by a file or usage, making the cases untraceable. Microstamping was not touted as a means of reducing gun violence, but as an aid to the police in solving gun violence crimes.

      Yeah, I really want to see a list of names, and in particular the nearly 50% who think that “demonstrating a need for a gun” is a “reasonable” response to gun violence and complies with the 2A.

      • Answered my own question. turns out this survey was published in NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html).

        Our expert panel consisted of 32 current or retired academics in criminology, public health and law, who have published extensively in peer-reviewed academic journals on gun policy. We know our sample is small and may not include every expert that readers would like consulted. But we feel it represents a useful, if imperfect, measure of what people steeped in the research think might save lives.

        The panel of academics included: Cathy Barber, Magdalena Cerdá, Jay Corzine, John Donohue, Laura Dugan, Liza H. Gold, David Hemenway, David Kennedy, Louis Klarevas, Gary Kleck, David Kopel, Tomislav Kovandzic, Adam Lankford, John Lott, Jonathan Metzl, Matthew Miller, Carlisle E. Moody, Andrew Papachristos, Charles Ransford, Peter Reuter, Mark Rosenberg, Robert J. Sampson, Michael Siegel, Gary Slutkin, Robert Spitzer, Stephen P. Teret, George E. Tita, Eugene Volokh, Daniel Webster, April Zeoli and others.

        the authors admitted that of these academics, 25 were antis and only 5 were pro gun. Ya think that may have skewed their stats somewhat?

        • Good find on the list.

          I basically ask the same question whenever someone pulls out an “expert” to back up their claims rather than relying on simple facts. It’s not always an Appeal to Authority fallacy but it often is (whether the person making the claim knows it or not) and it’s often true that these people are only experts in their own mind.

          I always want to know what their creds really are. When you find something like (quoting you) “…who have published extensively in peer-reviewed academic journals on gun policy.” That doesn’t mean much to me because they’re probably mostly academics with no real world experience. I mean, would trust an actual hands on mechanic to work on your airplane or people who’s only claim is to “…have published extensively in peer-reviewed academic journals on aircraft maintenance.”?

          I wouldn’t trust a tattoo artists who’s never run a tattoo gun, a chef that’s never cooked or a chemist that’s never done any lab work so why would I trust a “gun expert” who doesn’t work in the fields of actual LE, the firearms industry or some other occupation where they would have day-to-day contact with what works and what does not?

          As you point out, if they believe that microstamping, a technology that doesn’t exist and has numerous flaws if it were to come into existence, affects gun crime then they quite clearly know very little about the topic at hand.

          This is part of the reason I find “alternative archaeology” so interesting. I don’t have to believe or agree with the stuff to find it interesting how some of the actual facts presented force us to reconsider how we view the world.

    • Microstamping is effective only if certain parameters are met.
      First, microstamping itself has to work reliably. So far, no one has demonstrated that it does.
      But, if it did…
      If the police pick up a microstamped casing at a crime scene, and trace it back to a gun you own (assuming you bought it legally),and you still have the gun in your possession when they come for you, and no one else has had access to said gun, then that’s evidence. Not proof, but evidence.
      Of course, that evidence goes out the window if you (or anyone else) ever shot said gun, and didn’t police all your brass.

      So, no, microstamping is not a magic bullet (so to speak), but merely one more very imperfect tool, that any defense attorney should be able to easily negate. All it takes is that one case left behind during a legal shooting session. (Or even an illegal one, if one is willing to take the hit on that.)

  4. I don’t know what the hell that last video was, but did you notice they had good trigger discipline?

  5. “The case of Sessions vs. Binderup puts the new administration in a potentially awkward spot, considering President Trump’s repeated assurances during the campaign that he would protect gun-ownership rights under the 2nd Amendment.”

    Coming as a surprise to absolutely no one paying attention… but plenty of people who saw only what they wanted to see.

    • Even the LA Times was fair enough to point out “The decision is in keeping with Justice Department tradition to defend federal laws in court, even if the administration may not be enthused with the statute.”

      The only time I can remember the DOJ dropping support of a law passed by Congress, regardless of how silly that law was, based simply on the preference of the POTUS was under Obama. Sessions and others may not like the law, but it’s the law, and it’s their job to defend it in court to the best of their ability regardless of how they personally feel about that law unless/until Congress changes the law.

      • Yes, but after a full panel appeals court decision, is it necessary for the AG to vigorously defend bad law by appealing it to SCOTUS?

        OTOH, at this point, it’s settled law in one circuit. If SCOTUS were to pick it up and say “yep, the lower court was right, no need to rehash it here” (I forget the technical name for it, but the SCOTUS version of summary judgment) then it could be settled law in the entire country.

        • Fair points. I don’t claim to understand all the machinations of government bureaucracy, nor do I pretend to know every case, how it was handled or why it has handled that way

          Generally speaking, at it’s base however, the job of the executive branch is to implement and enforce the great ideas that are passed through the legislative branch and agreed to by the executive. Subsequent administrations may not like those ideas but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s their job to enforce them unless the legislature decides that maybe they weren’t such great ideas or the judicial branch invalidates the ideas in terms of legality.

          Sometimes you have to do jobs you don’t want to do or don’t agree with. If it bothers your conscience too badly then you quit.

        • That’s a good summation of the case and it’s history I don’t really see what it has to do with my comment though. The government didn’t drop the case because the FDR administration was against the NFA. In fact the government fought the case at the SCOTUS, emerging victorious and succeeding in preserving the NFA.

          Their arguments basically made no sense as by 1939 machine guns and shotguns had already seen wide spread military use in WWI yet they argued that all weapons included in the NFA had no battlefield application and were therefore unfit for militia use and unprotected. I suppose they could argue the short barreled nature of the blaster in question made it unfit for service but I’d be willing to bet that an enterprising person could find a trench gun with a barrel less than 18″ AND hanging their argument on the idea of military application isn’t something I would do because no one knows the future and if, in the future, someone were to find a military application for a “controlled” weapon my own argument would invalidate itself as a reason to control that item going forward.

          But hey, I ain’t a lawyer arguing before the SCOTUS. This is all just like… my opinion… man.

  6. Fwiw- the prosecutor pursuing first degree murder charges in the first story is not only incompetent, is currently being investigated for disbarment, but he is under a felony indictment for obstruction of justice. Sounds like a Liberal Terrorist™

  7. Well… the Trump admin better come around to us pro 2a types if he wants to stay president. We made the difference in 2016, no doubt. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for the first full year, considering all the RINOS like McCain and Graham want to derail him… but if we see no movement by next year we need another tea party style revolution in the GOP to remind them who their power relies on. Personally I think McStain and Demgraham are an absolute disgrace.

  8. I’ve seen thousands of inebriated, classless, rude, obnoxious football fans gathered across downtown Jacksonville. I hope not a single firearm is concealed among them. And that’s our team. The Bulldawgs are even worse.

    • I don’t get the new law. GA law already allowed firearm carry in vehicles regardless of location,destination, or permit to carry, because GA sees your vehicle as a mobile piece of property.

    • I’m terribly biased by experience, but to me a persons value declines in direct proportion to their enthusiasm for football. I’m absolutely sure their are great people who also happen to be football fans, I even know a couple, however the rule stands.

      That said, football and it’s teams system from HS through pro is nothing but a proxy for small state warfare. That part is exciting, and I too feel the draw, then I remember the cretins involved and return to my own pursuits.

  9. And then, right before the election, the news wires come alive with reports that Gianforte got physical with a “reporter” who was apparently shooting video with a cell phone while trespassing…just in time to help the Quistling’s faltering campaign…
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/us/journalist-body-slammed-republicans-apology-media.html

    Luckily, early results are favoring Gianforte:
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/25/montana-special-election-results-2017-238841

    • I don’t know exactly what happened, but the reporter, probably deserved to be body slammed, and worse. If more reporters got straight up beaten for their childish, and slanderous behavior, then maybe we could get some truth in the news every now and then. The first amendment doesn’t grant you right to spread lies and rumors. The founders wound likely be sickened by the modern assault media and take action to correct it’s treasonous behavior.

      • I don’t think the problem was slander. From the transcript it sounded more like bullying, badgering and invading personal space caused the physical outburst. It’s been the modus operendi for the progressive press for a long time. I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more often. Hey if it’s good for Alex Baldwin it should be good for the GOP, right?

        After seeing the news report I said to myself that, if I were a Montanan and was sitting on the fence, the incident wold have pushed me off the fence to vote for him.

    • Prosecutor is black? That explains a lot.

      He’s probably a BLM domestic terrorist mad he killed an “innocent” black “child”. Sure he would have done jack shit if the criminal was a “white Hispanic” or otherwise non-black. Even before BLM came along there’s plenty of blacks who use government power for racial dominance. Shittiest cop I ever had to deal with was a black campus cop who did jack shit about bullying right in front of her because the attackers were black and victim was not (she eventually got fired when they got bold enough to try shit in broad daylight).

  10. I’m from Mississippi originally and Jackson is a shit hole run by racists the only reason this guy was charged was because the da was black everybody in the gov of Jackson is black and by extension democrat so yeah it’s a shit hole like New Orleans and any other democrat controlled city and all those cities can piss off they won’t even fly the Mississippi flag in Hattiesburg or weren’t last time I was there

  11. “Quist pulls a shiny _bullet_”… A BULLET?? I hate when gun people use “bullet” instead of “cartridge”.

    Almost once a week, I get an email with an ad for a bullet pen or something.

    Words have meanings. Use the correct word, please.

    Thank you.

  12. The Mississippi case validates the old saw about a DA’s ability to indict a ham sandwich. I know I’m dreaming here but wouldn’t it be fun to watch if the DOJ filed a Title 18 race-based discrimination charge against the DA and every member of the grand jury who voted for the indictment?

  13. I question that map of gun restrictions. Why is PA more restrictive than TX? We’ve had permitless open carry for pretty much forever, and the requirements for obtaining a concealed carry permit are far less stringent. No training, shall issue in 45 days or less. Most counties issue on the spot. Twenty bucks and ten minutes. The only thing I can think of is “universal background checks” for private handgun sales.

    • Considering that “universal background checks” are, in fact, a de facto gun registration scheme, then yeah, that’s probably it.

      Also, note that the source of the map is the Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. For these folks UBCs are the “Holy Grail” of gun control.

      • True, but A: nobody really follows the UBC in PA, it’s only for handguns, and B: TX has “safe storage” laws, and we don’t.

        I still would rather have PA’s gun laws than TX.

  14. So this AMTAC deal is kinda interesting… I like the approach of a straight up $200 stamp payment (vs a rebate, or refund IF the HPA passes, etc). I have only jsut started my suppressor research though, and am not too familiar with AMTAC and their offerings… anyone have any knowledge about them, their designs, quality, cost, etc? Looks like they mainly make reflex/over-the-barrell suppressors, which SEEMS like an efficient way to add chamber volume (no idea on effectiveness though). My main use for a suppressor will be on a .300 BLK SBR/pistol.

  15. That Politico article was interesting:

    “Still scarred by the past, Democrats set their sights low: They aimed to pass expanded background checks, not a fresh assault weapons ban and certainly not a handgun ban (even though 80 percent of gun deaths are from handguns.) Anti-gun activists “got smart,” according to The Atlantic, using the phrase “preventing gun violence” instead of “gun control” and showering praise on “law-abiding gun owners.””

    The very fact they even mentioned “handgun ban” speaks volumes as to their long game.

    If they want to make gains on lowering ‘gun crime’, focus on the person holding the gun, not the gun itself.

    Does anyone know of a background check scheme that *does not* include *any* data on the gun itself?

    How about coming down hard on prohibited persons in possession of a firearm?

  16. On the matter of the AMTAC suppressor tax deal, according to their website their 5.56mm CQB suppressor only reduces the sound by 15~20 db. Most competitors offerings average 25~34. And that AMTAC’s suppressor costs a whopping $875.

    Personally, I don’t think any suppressor is worth more than $120 in parts and labor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *