The Gun Blogs

Dallas Morning News:

State Rep. Joe Driver, R-Garland, wants people to have the same right to shoot intruders who invade their cars and businesses as they have to shoot people who break into their homes.

If House Bill 284 were to become law, a person would have the right to use deadly force and would no longer be required to retreat to avoid violence in a business, workplace or vehicle.

Actually, we already have legal precedent for lethal force in self defense while in a vehicle. Tomorrow when my blog comes back online and I can search it, I'll try to look up the reference and link it.

In short, the very first instance of lethal self defense by a Texas CHL holder was when he was attacked while sitting in his car in a traffic jam. The man who attacked him was punching him with his fists through the open window. The man being attacked shot and killed the one hitting him.

It was no-billed--the pre-trail hearing determined it was lawful self defense and that was that.

However, this bill also provides protection against civil suits. Pertinent part here:

Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C, Chapter 9, Penal Code.

SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:

Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.

Of course, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Lawful Self Defense doesn't like it, but they couldn't stop this movement in numerous other states, and I doubt they'll have much effect in Texas.

The full text of the new bill can be found at the Texas Legislature website as House Bill No. 284.

Crossposted from Blogonomicon (or it will be, when my blog comes back online tomorrow).

I posted this scan from my collection of gun ads on my own blog a while back, and have received no comments, so maybe here it can get more viewers.

I think this ad is from the late 1960s, because Marlin uses the ZIP Code on their address. The ZIP Code system started in 1967, I think.

Who was this man who the ad refers to only as "Colonel Larson"? What was his story?

Any information would be appreciated.

SayUncle wanted to see more activity here, so here's another crosspost from my blog from this week. This is an update for an older post, Cartridges of the Winchester 94, at my blog. As usual, if I've made any errors here, someone please correct me.

In a recent issue of Guns & Ammo, a letter-writer stated that in an article about the Winchester 94 from a few months back, they forgot to mention that it had also been chambered for the .219 Zipper. When I was doing research for my Cartridges of Winchester 94 post I didn't see mention of this cartridge anywhere, so it piqued my interest.

So here's what I've found, and I think I am correct. The writer in the magazine was not technically correct. The Winchester 94 was not chambered for the .219 Zipper. This cartridge was created for an updated lever-action model, the Winchester 64.

Winchester 64
Winchester 94

The Winchester 64 was introduced in 1937 or '38, discontinued during World War II, and permanently removed from the catalog in 1948. It was a fancied-up variation of the original Model 94, with a pistol-grip stock and some other operational improvements (so they say), and was significantly more expensive than the 94.

The Model 64 was produced in three calibers: .30-30, .32 Winchester Special, and .219 Zipper.

The Model 64 was an "improved" version of the 94, and the Zipper was a new cartridge created just for it. In a time when new bolt action rifles were all the rage, and sales of lever guns were suffering, Winchester wanted to produce a lever rifle that was pretty enough to compete with them. The .219 Zipper was Winchester's attempt to create a .22-caliber varmint cartridge for a tubular magazine, lever action rifle to compete with the bolt guns.

The Zipper was loaded with anything from 45- or 46-grain hollowpoints or soft points up to 55-grain softpoints. All bullets used were flat point, which was necessary in a tubular magazine. It also meant that, like other cartridges created for these kinds of guns, it lost velocity at longer ranges because of its poor aerodynamic design.

The .219 Zipper was based on a necked-down .25-35 WCF case and produced a muzzle velocity in the neighborhood of 3300 fps and a muzzle energy around 1300 fpe.

Remington later produced this round as well, and chambered their Model 336 for it. Both Winchester and Remington quit producing this round during the 1960's. It is no longer commercially produced, although brass and bullets are plentiful for the reloader. It is also listed at Old Western Scrounger, but is currently out of stock.

The .219 Zipper seems to have been a bright idea that in the end, wasn't so bright. It was crippled in its competition against other varmint cartridges by its poor aerodynamics. It might greatly benefit from being loaded with modern Hornady LEVERevolution bullets, but is probably too obscure to be commercially feasible.

And of course, although technically a varmint cartridge, it has been used to take numerous deer, especially in areas where the deer are fairly small (such as where I live).

Please feel free to add info or correct me in comments. I always enjoy learning more about old/obscure cartridges.

References:
219 Zipper
Old Western Scrounger
Cartridges of the World

Crossposted from Blogonomicon

The Texas State Senate - Jeff Wentworth: SD 25 - News Release:

It is a long-held belief that a man's home is his castle.

The principle of the "Castle Doctrine" began in the 16th century with English common law which held that citizens had the right to protect themselves inside their homes.

When the 80th Legislature convenes in January, Texas legislators will have the opportunity to turn the concept of the "Castle Doctrine" into state law. I intend to file a bill which would ensure that Texans have the right to forcefully protect themselves and their families from criminals who invade their homes.

Under current Texas law, residents must first seek a means of escape before using force against an intruder. Homeowners who do not attempt to escape before using force may be criminally prosecuted for protecting themselves, their homes, and their families. And I believe that this is wrong.

I believe Texans should have the right to defend themselves and their families from criminals who break into their homes. My bill would not only protect victims of home invasions from criminal prosecution by the state, but also from possible civil litigation brought by criminals and/or their relatives.

Texans should not have to prove in court that their lives were directly threatened. The reasonable assumption that a home intruder naturally threatens the lives of a home's residents should become law.

Public opinion supports this legislation. A questionnaire in the newsletter I sent to voters of Senate District 25 in January asked if they supported the right of home residents to use deadly force against intruders, without first having to try to escape. Eighty-eight percent of the more than 16,000 respondents said they did.

My bill to ensure Texans' right to defend themselves in their own homes should make men and women feel safer in their own "castles."

Texas is already fairly friendly toward lethal force when used in one's own home. Still, some extra legal protection couldn't hurt. I would prefer something more along the lines of the "Stand Your Ground" type of law, but I suppose this is a start. I especially like the protection against civil lawsuits.

I should also mention that Texas has an odd "night-time" provision in the law. Although this press release is partly correct, the duty to retreat only applies during daylight. After dark, according to Texas law, you have no duty to retreat. Although I can't cite the case, there was an instance several years ago when a San Antonio area farmer used the night-time provision to legally protect himself when he used lethal force after dark against someone who was stealing his property but who had not entered his house (they were stealing farm equipment). I mentioned the "night-time" quirk before in this post.

Crossposted from Blogonomicon.

GOA Alert-- May 24, 2006

Pro-gun Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) is getting set to chip away at the mountain of gun control laws and regulations that are hampering gun owners in this country.

Under current law, a person who travels to, say, a gun show out-of-state and buys a handgun from a licensed dealer must have the firearm shipped to a second gun dealer in the buyer's home state.

As gun control laws have been added piecemeal over the years, it has forced gun owners to deal with conflicting and redundant requirements. Furthermore, the interstate requirements for buying a gun have needlessly forced gun dealers to ship firearms via commercial carriers, thus subjecting them to being lost, damaged or stolen.

To counteract this, Rep. Renzi is set to introduce the Firearm Transfer Improvement Act in the next few days. Renzi says that because gun dealers must comply with the laws of two different states in addition to federal law, these regulations are both "redundant and costly." It is bad enough that the national government has created an unconstitutional federal background check system, but we still have this 1968 interstate ban left over.

"My legislation simply states that federal law and the law of the state of the seller must be complied with for all firearms sales," Renzi said. "It also applies the same rules to rifles and shotguns, which are currently handled differently than handguns."

In other words, the Renzi bill will allow you to travel out-of-state to purchase firearms in a way that you have not been able to do since 1968. Imagine that you live in Virginia and you are traveling to Missouri for Christmas. You stop at a gun show in West Virginia to buy your mom and dad a matched pair of commemorative Colt .45s.

The Times and Democrat:

One of the “rogue gun dealers” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg singled out in a lawsuit filed by the city last week has said he and his employees have done nothing wrong.

“We haven’t done anything illegal here,” said Chan Holman, owner of Woody’s Pawn and Jewelry. “We’ve been in business for 35 years, and it’s an embarrassment to myself, my employees and our families.

“Gennie (Fields), my fiancee, and myself have worked very hard over the past 10 years to build this business, to change the perception of a pawnshop, and negative publicity like this just crushes any positive headway that we’ve made.”

Accused of violating federal gun sale laws, Woody’s is one of the 15 pawnshops in five states and two in South Carolina named in the lawsuit. The remaining businesses are located in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

If the purchaser lies and gives someone the gun, then it's technically illegal, right? And how will the dealer know the purchaser is lying? A Vulcan mind-meld?

Holman, who had not been served with the lawsuit as of Friday afternoon, said his shop is regulated and audited quarterly by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives because of the high volume of gun sales at the store.

“We have to send a quarterly report on firearms acquired and sold,” he said. “If I was doing anything illegal, I would not still be open for business.”

[...]

“I can’t control what people do with them when they leave this store,” Holman said. “I sell between 50 and 100 handguns a month, and I would never jeopardize my business with anything illegal, with selling firearms.

[...]

Woody’s Pawn and Jewelry’s long-time attorney, Charles Williams, said he believes the case against the 15 pawnshops is illegitimate.

He said making it the pawnshop owner’s responsibility for what happens after the purchase of a gun is tantamount to suing a private citizen for selling his or her gun to someone, who in turn sold it to someone else who ultimately committed a crime.

“If he sold it legally and didn’t violate the law, I don’t see a case,” Williams said. “I just think it’s political. I think Bloomberg’s trying to get publicity.”

He said the guns have merely been traced back to Woody’s and other pawnshops, but there’s no telling how many hands those guns passed through along the way and, for all anyone knows, those initial sales were legal.

“If they want to sue him, they need to come to South Carolina to sue him,” Williams said. “I think gun laws, in my opinion, aren’t very good. Anybody who wants a gun can get a gun.”

Williams said he has spoken with Holman but declined to comment on what was discussed.

“The whole issue is gun control,” he said. “That’s what it all boils down to.”

You'll note that although the names of the 15 gunshops are known, this particular shop mentioned had not been served as of last Friday (when the interview occurred). What's taking Bloomie so long? Still trying to find some legal standing for NYC to sue someone out of state?

Crossposted from Blogonomicon

New York Daily News:

Mayor Bloomberg's decision to hire private investigators to conduct undercover stings at Southern gun shops has potentially jeopardized several criminal cases, law enforcement sources charged.

Four cases were compromised and an additional 14 were put at risk by the six-week sting aimed at gun stores in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia, the sources said.

The sources argued that several suspects being watched by authorities had frequented some of the 15 gun shops--but are now cleaning up their acts or lying low because of the publicity. None of the ongoing cases was linked to New York, the sources said.

"A bunch of private eyes straight out of 'Barnaby Jones' run their own sting operation and all the real enforcement agencies find out about it on the day they are having a press conference? Not good," said a law enforcement source in Washington.

The Justice Department held a meeting last week to review potential problems, another source said. "The goal is to lock up gun criminals, not file civil lawsuits with publicity stunts," the source said.

Personally, I think Barnaby was smarter than that.  And didn't these guys actually break the law?  I guess that doesn't matter when you're authorized by one of the ruling elite.

UPDATE:  I sent the following politely-worded email to the news desk of the above newspaper.

I have a some questions in regard to the story, "Mike's gun shop stings may put holes in 18 cases" from May 21.

This and other reports I have read state that Mayor Bloomberg hired private investigators to conduct these stings, and conduct them in other states.

These were not law enforcement officers.  Even if they had been law enforcement officers of New York, they would have no authority to conduct such activity outside the state of New York.  Is this correct?  Such "stings" would require federal authority.  Is this correct?

As private investigators who have no legal authority, and if these purchases they made were really illegal and not just a publicity stunt, they themselves violated the law by making such purchases.  For these purchases to have been made as they say they were, they would have had to lie about their purposes for purchase.  Falsifying anything on the paperwork for purchasing a firearm is a federal felony.  There are undoubtedly other crimes that were committed in this "sting." For example, organization of such a sting, which involved intentionally illegal gun purchases, would also be criminal conspiracy.

Does Mayor Bloomberg have the authority to allow private citizens to violate the laws of other states?  Does he have legal authority to organize what would otherwise be a criminal conspiracy to commit illegal acts in other states?

This is the question that no newspaper report has asked thus far, to my knowledge.  Why are these questions not being asked?  Is Mayor Bloomberg going to be allowed to violate other states' laws?  If this is legal activity, a detailed explanation should be given as to why it was not illegal and how he is able to authorize such activity, which, if conducted by the average private citizen, would be illegal and actionable.

Crossposted from Blogonomicon

I noticed that Jeff Cooper was recently extolling the Savage Model 99. (You'll have to scroll for it). Here's a picture I found on the internet, it isn't the exact variation I'm talking about but it gives you a good idea. (I don't have it on hand to photograph).

My dad grew up in a family where there wasn't much "big" game hunting. They had a .22 or two, and feasted frequently on rabbits and squirrels, but as far as I know they never moved up to deer and the like. When he did first begin deer hunting, he did so with a borrowed 8mm Mauser.

When he finally scraped enough money together to purchase his own deer gun, he chose a Savage Model 99 in .243 Winchester. Although he bought a Remington 7mm Magnum many years later, the Savage has always remained his favorite deer gun, and he has taken many whitetails with it through the decades. It has also proven to be the fatal hammer for a number of coyotes. I have taken a few whitetails with it, myself. Once, nearing the end of what had been, for me, a fruitless deer season, I even barked a squirrel with it.

An excellently accurate and very handy rifle. Unfortunately, I have just read that Savage stopped making them in 1999 (I didn't know they had been discontinued). If you run into a used one and it appeals to you, I don't think you can go wrong with adding it to your collection. A number of calibers were chambered for it, but in my experience the most commonly found are .243 and .308.

Some newer models were made with a removable magazine, but the older models (such as my dad's) have a built-in magazine. You open the action and push them in from the top. The .243 version holds 5 rounds in the magazine, if I remember correctly. It does not have an external hammer like the classic lever gun, but does have a safety which both prevents firing and locks the lever closed.

I also spent one very enjoyable day at our private, homemade rifle range putting about 30 rounds through the barrel, first to sight in a new scope, and then just to punch a ragged hole in the target 100 yards away. Just for fun, not because it was necessary or anything. This rifle probably holds its high place in my heart because it was the first centerfire rifle I ever shot.

Crossposted from Blogonomicon, with some minor editing. I just registered and wanted to post something. I hope I got all the formatting right.