Previous Post
Next Post

GLOCK 19 w/ Gatchet courtesy

What you’re looking at is the Gatchet, by Yes, this is a real thing. Machined from 1065 carbon steel, heat-treated to RC 52, and black anodized, this glorious beauty will set you back $110.00. Only fits XDs and GLOCKs, according to their site, so “Sorry, S&W guys!” Would go well with the Manly Innovations MBX pistol bayonet, methinks. Make the jump to see the Tact-Axe, the version designed to fit on shotguns and AR-pattern rifles. . . [h/t Have Blue]

AR/Shotgun Tact-Axe courtesy

An Orangeburg County, South Carolina woman will not be charged in the shooting death of her boyfriend last Saturday. He became enraged after finding papers in her purse listing him as a suspect in a crime in another jurisdiction, and they started arguing. She tried to call her mother to pick her up, but he prevented her from doing so. She ran out of the house, but he caught her, dragged her back inside, hit her in the head and threw her to the floor. His grandfather came out of a bedroom and told him to stop and to leave, and that allowed the young lady time to find a handgun. When her boyfriend turned and charged at her again, she shot him. He died on scene. The Sheriff said the evidence showed she was in fear for her life, and acted in self defense. I wonder if her piece of trash boyfriend will end up on MAIGs list of names. After all, if the gun hadn’t been there, he might still be alive.

The mayor of Poughkeepsie, New York, John Tkazyik, has announced that he’s leaving the membership of Mayors Against Illegal Guns over allegations that the group’s ultimate goal is outright confiscation. He sent a letter to the Poughkeepsie Journal last week stating, “Under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens.” He went on to say that “Nearly 50 pro-Second Amendment mayors have left the organization. They left for the same reason I did.” [NB: I know that article is at Infowars, and I’m sorry. The original letter at the Poughkeepsie Journal is behind a paywall.]

For all the hubbub surrounding the gun-control laws passed in Colorado last year, it turns out that they’re (SURPRISE!) not really having any effect at all. From The Daily Caller: “In at least one Colorado county, the new laws haven’t resulted in a single case. The Colorado State Patrol also said it wasn’t aware of its troopers citing anyone for violations. … Since gun owners could keep standard sized 30-round magazines [props to TDC for that language] that they owned before July 1, it’s impossible to tell where or when they were purchased.” Furthermore, without registration, it’s impossible to know if someone conducted a background check when selling a gun privately. “There’s no way to know,” Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith told The Coloradoan. “So how are police going to get involved in a private transaction in someone’s home with a legal piece of property? Obviously, they’re not.” Democrats say that cops could set up sting operations, but that’s not happening because law enforcement agencies are not expending the resources to enforce either law, said Democratic Rep. Jessie Ulibarri. “Which is unfortunate, because the laws were designed to protect our kids and our communities,” he said.

There’s a problem in the state of Missouri. The Senate is discussing a bill, SB 613, that would serve to nullify federal gun laws. Views on that sort of thing around here vary from “a mighty blow for liberty” to “meaningless, unenforceable nonsense.” But regardless of how you feel about federal law nullification efforts, this bill needs to be voted down. A Democratic senator offered an amendment Tuesday night that would require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns within 72 hours, or else face up to a year in prison and a $1000 fine. After the amendment was adopted, the bill was “perfected” by the Senate, which means it can no longer be changed, but must be voted on as-is. So if it passes, we’ve got a nullification bill (positive to neutral, but ultimately likely a pointless feel-good measure) permanently attached to a loss/theft reporting requirement, which could be used to make criminals out of otherwise perfectly law-abiding gun owners. It’s a neutral balanced with a big negative, making it a net loss. As such, this whole bill needs to go the way of the dodo bird. Call your people. [h/t JKP]

I know this is a little out of our normal wheelhouse, but since it comes up pretty regularly in conversation around here (Hi, Rich!), here’s a short primer on jury nullification. It’s done by CGPGrey, who is one of my absolute favorite YouTubers, as well as probably the most frustrating (because of his output pace) of those I subscribe to. I highly recommend you check out his past videos if you geek out on stuff like electoral trivia, and national borders, and the national debt limit… yeah. It’s much more interesting than it sounds. Trust me, just check it out. It’s not for everyone, but those that like it, love it. If you’re gonna do it, you should go all the way to the beginning and start there, because some of the later videos build on things discussed in the earlier ones.

FYI, it’s perfectly normal to have to watch his videos twice to catch it all. This is 25-30% slower than he talks in his early ones.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. There is no pay wall at I imagine it was a link to a newspaper article. Your text should reflect the change.

    There is paid material associated with their nightly news broadcast, but I have never seen a story that was not on the free site.

    • Once again, in your rush to get an “Ah ha!” moment and show everyone how smart you are, you’ve let your enthusiasm run ahead of your reading comprehension. I did not say there was a paywall at Infowars. Repeated, with emphasis:

      “I know that article is at infowars, and I’m sorry. The original letter at the Poughkeepsie Journal is behind a paywall.”

      My link above to Infowars contained a link to another Infowars article, which contained a link to the original letter as published in the Poughkeepsie Journal, which when I clicked on it, popped a paywall.

      However, I found a way around it, so here’s a link to the original letter:

  2. Set up a sting operation to make criminals where none existed before? Makes as much sense as putting that ax blade on a Glock for pocket carry.

    • By the way, does mounting that blade on a Pickatinny rail get around the “assault weapon” no bayonet lug restriction?

  3. Great bunch of laws they got there in Colorado.
    Your not a felon cause we don’t know if you registered with a receipt or not huh??
    I sold my gun to my brother in law but Im not telling you about it.
    So whatcha gona du??

    And while Im at it can you shave with one of them axes??
    If not I don’t think Id want one.

  4. Its things like that Glocksickle that make the gun grabbers hate us. And by “us” I mean sensible firearm enthusiasts who would never consider owning such a thing.

  5. If you use that on a Glock as an ax, then it’s legal. But if you use it as a forward handle, does it make it a non-registered SBR?

    That makes me think – if you had a light on the front of your glock that wasn’t made to be a handle, but was big enough to hold onto, are you tempting fate?

      • Just don’t do it with one of those Crimson Trace vertical fore grips with the integrated light/laser.

        Wait, I have a stupid question. If you mounted a light on your pistol and held it like a grip, wouldn’t that your hand really close to the muzzle and be very easy to slip a finger in front of the muzzle during firing. Also would holding a pistol light in this way give you any more control over the weapon then a proper 2 handed grip? I’m not seeing the advantage here. But I do see a light that sticks out longer then the barrel, placing a finger over it, recoil causing one to re-grip the light higher, and BANG, one less finger on the second shot.

    • considering AFGs are not considered grips and can be put on pistols just shows you how absolutely ass backwards subjective the whole fiasco really is.

    • Putting a light on your pistol’s rail and then holding it like a vertical fore grip does not constitute the creation of an NFA item. The light was not intended by the manufacturer to be held as a vertical grip, therefore your choice to use it wrong does not violate the NFA. This is exactly the same thing as buying an ATF approved “stabilizing brace” for the AR pistol and then resting it on your shoulder during firing. Also not the creation of an NFA (SBR). The brace was not manufactured to be rested on the shoulder, doing it wrong does not represent breaking the law… Only intending to break the law does…………

  6. I’m not surprised by the Larimer County Sheriff’s attitude toward the new law. It is one of the most pro-Second Amendment locales I have ever spent time in. I got a thumbs up from a cop while open carrying.

  7. Ladies & gentleman of the jury, I was forced to hack the perp to death when my Glock(perfection) jammed. Oh yeah, that will be exibit A in a wrongfull death lawsuit, what could go wrong?

    • A wrongful suicide suit? You know, on behalf of a guy exsanguinating after traumatic amputation of his hand on a screwed up drawstroke?

  8. Not gonna lie, the thought of that ax on a Mosin makes me absurdly happy. Stupid? Yeah, but hey, practically be a poleax.

  9. You bastards post way too much good stuff. Seriously, I can’t get a damn thing done over here because I’m constantly trying to get caught up with your content. Once I AM caught up, something else moves and it’s tasty. You are horrible, horrible people.

      • True. With good news coming out of California and NH, it’s been a pretty crazy day. I dig it. I just need to slice out a bigger chunk of my day to tackle it. Good stuff.

  10. State legislative nullification of federal gun laws = bad. State legislative nullification of federal pot laws = good.

    Got it?

    • I’ve enjoyed CGP vids for quite a while. I just keep forgetting to subscribe. Not anymore!

      Ooops, this posted under Ralph for some reason.

    • “A Democratic senator offered an amendment Tuesday night that would require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns within 72 hours, or else face up to a year in prison and a $1000 fine.”

      • Could you dig a little deeper to verify this Matt? I was looking into it earlier, and the both the sponsor and one of the support websites are saying that the fine and jail time are not part of this amendment. They were part of a similar amendment to last year’s similar bill. I trust you guys over the MSM and others, so would love to see a more in-depth article about it.

    • Well, CGPGrey really only puts out one new video a month, on average, so at least it’s not too hard to catch up, since they’re all only 3-5 minutes long.

      You want fun, try to go back to the beginning and catch up on hickok45. 900+ videos that average about 10 minutes each, about one in five is 20 minutes or more. Oh, and he adds two or three new ones a week. I’m not sure it’d be possible to start at the beginning and watch them all the way up to present day. There simply aren’t enough hours.

  11. “’Which is unfortunate, because the laws were designed to protect our kids and our communities,’ he said.”
    A lie within a lie. The laws were designed to get campaign funds from Bloomberg. No more, no less.

  12. Jeez, is that thing actually sharp?

    And of course (D.) politicians want to spend money trying to sting otherwise lawful gun owners… must have taken care of all the real criminals already!

    • Giving someone a fine and time in jail for not reporting is what’s wrong. Whether you accept it or not, guns are just another piece of private property like a tv or toaster. Should I go to jail for not reporting their theft. Punishing people who have already suffered a loss isn’t good.

      2a proects our rights to own and do with as we please our guns. And don’t get started on the guns are dangerous meme. If somebody steals your car and runs over the kid down the street during their crime are you, the car owner, liable for their criminal actions?

      • A gun is not a toaster. You don’t have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear an appliance, do you? Guns make killing easier both mechanically and psychologically… let’s not pretend any different. That disparity of force works for the good guys and the bad guys. That’s why we care about them.

        There are some good reasons to require the reporting of guns being stolen. First, a lot of people who sell guns to prohibited persons (i.e. criminals) can otherwise just say oh, I guess someone stole that awhile ago. Second, maybe people would take better care to stop letting these guns get stolen and into the hands of gangbangers. Everyone who leaves a gun to be stolen as easily as breaking a car window is an ‘irresponsible gun owner’ as far as I’m concerned.

        But I guess I agree that the negatives of any such law outweigh the positives, as it will re-victimize the victim of a theft in some cases. I have to wonder how the legislature allowed such a poison pill inside the bill…

        • “I have to wonder how the legislature allowed such a poison pill inside the bill…”

          Here’s what’s interesting: The Republican sponsor of the original (nullification) bill doesn’t particularly care. (Nieves is the Republican sponsor, Nasheed is the Democrat who sponsored the reporting amendment.)

          His own opinion about the reporting requirement was ambivalent.

          “I can live with it. I wouldn’t raise it on a flag pole and say it’s the greatest thing I’ve ever seen but I can live with it,” Nieves said.

          Regardless of whether there is a way procedurally to change the bill, Nasheed does not believe Nieves would try to strike her amendment.

          “He made a commitment to me that he would allow the amendment to be on and I think it’s going to stay on,” Nasheed said.

          If I lived in Missouri, I’d be asking the legislator who purports to represent my interests some hard questions about that.

        • Why should the police or any government agency know how many or what type of guns people have? Isn’t that a registry, which is supposedly illegal under federal law? And since holder is on record as supporting returning of rights to convicted felons(voting) what is this prohibited person you’re talking about?

    • Reporting lost/stolen weapons is not a bad thing per se, the problem is with the requirement to report them, with accompanying penalties if you do not.

      Some folks get concerned about it being akin to a registry, but if it’s stolen from my house, and reporting it will get it put on a list so it gets flagged and likely returned if the thieving bastards tries to pawn it, then I can see some value there.

      But telling me I’m liable for jail time if I choose not to report it gets my hackles up.

  13. One of my news feeds had an article about state nullification: Struggling With Nullification?

    But Isn’t jury nullification (as in the video) different? As I understand those proposing jury nullification, the phrase in the Constitution “We the people,” which blocks (maybe) state nullification, makes juries (not states, not executives, not legislature, not judges) the final decision makers on whether a law is really the law. Before the jury can determine if the person is guilty or not, they have to determine if the law is justified or not.

    But I’ve not really studied it.

    • This is a decent start. Thomas E. Woods is an openly libertarian history professor. I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, but he’s good at giving evidence for his position in great detail.

      It’s a topic I need to learn more about as well.

      Short version: Jury nullification is a jury nullifying a law; State nullification is a state government nullifying a law. I hope I have not misread your comment and accidentally talked down to you.

    • Sam,

      It is actually very simple. The duty of a jury is to serve justice, nothing more and nothing less. Government entities can declare anything and everything to be illegal for any reason whatsoever. But that doesn’t mean those laws are just or serve the people.

      Therefore, when government passes an unjust law and tries to convict someone of that unjust law, it is a jury’s duty to find the defendant not guilty. That is because juries not only judge whether a person has broken a law, they also judge whether the law itself is just.

      Unfortunately, most people on juries do not realize this. The much larger problem, however, is that judges will not allow defense attorneys to inform the jury of this principle. In fact it gets even worse. Judges explicitly tell juries that they must find the defendant guilty if they conclude that the defendant broke the law. And when judges give that instruction, they imply that the jurors risk legal sanction if they act otherwise.

      Yet more discouraging, defense attorneys have appealed cases where the judges prohibited them from informing juries of their duty and the appeals have failed.

    • Re: jury nullification. If you want to absolutely guarantee that you will never again be called for jury duty in your city or county, when the judge or lawyer asks “will you accept the law as I give it to you, and base your decision on that?”, all you have to do is answer “yes, unless that law conflicts with the Constitution”.

      BINGO- you’re gone! AND you will never be called for a jury again. And if you get on a jury and start talking about Constitutional rights or jury nullification, one of your fellow jurors will rat you out to the judge and they will toss you out of the courthouse really fast.

      If anyone does believe in jury nullification and Constitutional rights that cannot be abridged by laws (and I, of course, do not), then the only way to have an effect is to keep your mouth shut, act stupid (judges and lawyers LOVE stupid jurors), and then tell your fellow jurors “well, I see what you are talking about, but I just don’t FEEL that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I can’t explain my FEELINGS, but that’s how I FEEL.” And be willing to put up with a ration of shit from 11 angry people while you deadlock the jury. Judges will not throw you off a jury for being an idiot who goes by your feelings and not by the facts, but God forbid you should mention the Constitution.

      Apropos of nothing, one of the reasons why Prohibition (18th Amendment) failed was because juries started refusing to convict anyone for selling booze.

  14. “Which is unfortunate, because the laws were designed to protect our kids and our communities.”

    Uhmmm, no. “…because the laws were designed to help us FEEL we were DOING SOMETHING to protect our kids and our communities…” even though it’s more likely to have the opposite effect. There, fixed it for you…

  15. FYI, I don’t think that high carbon steel is anodized. It might be a ferric oxide conversion coating. Anodizing is literally a controlled oxidizing process, with steel you’d be left with a ferric hydroxide layer (ie, rust) and it would continue to corrode the base metal. Anodizing is typically for aluminum, titanium or magnesium.

    More reading here:

    • Came here to say the same thing 🙂 But it’s actually the seller’s website that says they are anodized. I’d be much more concerned by a manufacturer that doesn’t know what they’re selling than a gun blog that gets the terminology wrong. Probably they just import them from China and have no idea how they are made.

    • I’ll take your word for it. I was just regurgitating what was listed on the seller’s site. In point of fact, they list the anodizing before the heat treating, which I’m pretty sure doesn’t work either.

  16. Is there any way at all to even wield this ridiculous idea without actually pointing your gun somewhere else than at your assailant? I killed the zombie with the gatchet while as the same time ND’d the life out of the guy on my left. Let’s hope he was a Zombie too, or at least a useless member of my zombie apocalypse faction.

Comments are closed.