Calling all pocket knives, kitchen knives, fishing knives, any blade you want to have sharpened. Stop by H&H on Saturday Dec 1st and take advantage of professional knife sharpening. Located in the Heritage Room at H&H, Craig Ficklin will be sharpening knives from 9AM to 5pm.
Yesterday, I touched on the topic of some states passing the Firearms Freedom Act. Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. This is probably the best way to defeat Obama’s gun control agenda that we have at the present.
So, in its purest form, without restriction, the FFA would allow a firearm that is built and kept within a state to remain un-infringed from gun control zealots and bureaucratic miasmas.
The only reason the Federal Government can come up with to justify its jurisdiction over firearms in the first place is through the Commerce Clause, which allows them to regulate interstate trade. The leap between regulating trade and infringing on the Second Amendment rights of Americans is a governmental overreach and is as insincere as it is cravenness.
If every state were to pass a true Firearm Freedom Act, then the unconstitutional infringements and taxes found in the ludicrously named Firearm Owners Protection Act would be circumvented completely. FFA also shields states from Obama’s desire for a Semi Automatic Rifle Ban.
In theory, if Texas were to pass a full FFA, they could forge, assemble and sell machine guns, suppressors and large capacity magazines within the state without having to jump through the Federal hoops. Remember, these things are legal all ready, but they require excessive Federal taxes to be paid while also needing to be registered as well as being subject to approval by the Federal Government in the first place. Those three requirements in and of themselves are an affront to the Second Amendment AND to States’ Rights.
Upon passage, even if a ban of these or semi automatic rifles were to pass through Congress, so long as the weapon was built in Texas and stayed there, the Federal Government would have no justification for interceding since the the whole premise of Federal Gun Control is based off the Commerce Clause.
While the Federal Government uses the Commerce Clause to justify its gun control policy, State FFA’s are a 10th Amendment challenge to this overreach.
8 States have all ready passed an FFA while 26 others have either introduced legislation or are intending to soon. I encourage everyone to contact your state representatives and let them know that this is something that you want to see move forward.
The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is sweeping the Nation.
Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.
Following initial Montana enactment, clones of the Firearms Freedom Act have subsequently been enacted in Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and South Dakota, and other clones have been introduced in the legislatures of twenty-some other states.
The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the “commerce clause,” with firearms as the object – it is a state’s rights exercise.
H&H Shooting Sports will be discounting prices on several firearms just in time for the holiday buying season. The Guest Appreciation Sale prices will be in effect starting Friday 11/30, and lasting until the end of the year. Save big on firearms from manufactures like Beretta, Remington, Savage, Smith & Wesson, Bushmaster, and many many more! Hurry in today because this sale is first come first served, no rain checks, no substitutions.
‘Many elitist politicians can no longer own firearms’
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2006 organized Mayors Against Illegal Guns to enhance gun restrictions on citizens city by city.
But the Second Amendment Foundation says perhaps he should be focusing on the mayors themselves, not the residents of their cities.
“Michael Bloomberg created this group to further his personal agenda of public disarmament,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “But within the ranks of his organization, our research has found several politicians who have been convicted of various serious crimes, thus making it impossible for them to finish their terms.
“We discovered,” he said, “one mayor convicted of perjury and embezzlement, another who was convicted of attempted child molestation, and yet another who was convicted of assault and racketeering. There was one who was convicted on bribery, fraud and money laundering, and another who was convicted of domestic violence.
“In short,” Gottlieb said, “many of these elitist politicians can no longer own firearms. The crimes they were convicted of suggest they are public enemies rather than public servants. No wonder they want to take guns from law-abiding citizens!
“Perhaps Bloomberg should worry about background checks on his colleagues, rather than law-abiding gun owners,” he suggested.
On April 25, 2006, 15 mayors worked with Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino to set up the organization to restrict guns.
The group said it wanted to make cities safer by cracking down on illegal guns, because mayors “have a responsibility to protect their communities by holding gun offenders and irresponsible gun dealers accountable.”
They say they want trace data for law enforcement efforts, and they want lawmakers to fix gaps and loopholes in laws “that make it far too easy for criminals and other prohibited purchasers to get guns.”
The group boasts that it has grown to more than 725 mayors in 40 states.
But SAF is publicizing mayors who have run into their own troubles.
It is launching its campaign in newspapers, magazines and on the Internet, revealing the criminal and ethical wrongdoings of many of the mayors themselves.
See the ad.
Gottlieb reported the research conducted by the foundation found “a far higher rate of criminal activity within the ranks of the MAIG than among the ranks of more than eight million citizens who are licensed to carry concealed firearms in 49 states.”
“While Michael Bloomberg has been campaigning to turn gun owners into criminals,” Gottlieb said, “the criminals in his own ranks were engaged in such activities as tax evasion , extortion, accepting bribes, child pornography, trademark counterfeiting and perjury. One was even convicted of assaulting a police officer.
“And these people have the audacity to smear law-abiding gun owners as potential criminals, simply because they exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” he concluded. “He should pay more attention to what his friends are up to than worry about the gun owners he’s been trying to demonize.”
The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation’s oldest and biggest group to focus on the constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, the foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters. In addition to the precedent-setting McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, Conn.; New Orleans; Chicago; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners.
One of the latest fights was in Alameda County, Calif., which changed the rules as three businessmen were trying to open a gun shop. The foundation sued the county for allegedly violating the constitutional rights of three businessmen by wrongfully denying them permits to open a gun shop.
The foundation was joined by the Calguns Foundation, California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees and businessmen John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza.
Gottlieb said the three formed a business partnership with the intention of opening a gun store in Alameda County. When they began the process of getting permits to open their shop, they were advised of a requirement that gun stores not be located within 500 feet of any school, liquor store or residence.
But then during the process, the county changed the limit.
“It is clear from the county board of supervisors’ behavior that they have gone out of their way to prevent three businessmen from opening a gun store in their jurisdiction,” Gottlieb stated. “This is a violation of their rights of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and cannot be allowed to stand.”
The foundation also recently argued a pair of California cities and the state’s Department of Justice improperly confiscated firearms during investigations and then refused to return them to their owners – even after the subjects of the inquiries were cleared.
That case, on behalf of gun owners Douglas Churchill and Peter Lau, alleges the cities are engaging in “deliberate theft of personal property.”
“We saw this sort of property theft following Hurricane Katrina,” Gottlieb recalled in a statement, “and we took that case to federal court and won. Government agencies simply cannot seize private property and refuse to give it back by playing bureaucratic games.”
Other cases the SAF has handled in recent months:
SAF sued the state of California over a “vague” gun ban over a case in which a man twice was jailed and then cleared. The focal point is the definition of an “assault weapon.” The statute’s definition of weapons is so “vague and ambiguous,” the group contends, that one man was arrested on two different occasions for violations but ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing. “It’s an insult to be arrested once for violating a law that is so vague and ambiguous that law enforcement officers cannot tell the difference between what is and what is not a legal firearm under this statute,” said Gottlieb, “but to be arrested and jailed twice for the same offense is an outrage.”
In New York, the organization has asked for a summary judgment that would strike New York City’s $340 triennial fee for just owning a handgun. The legal brief explains that under U.S. Supreme Court rulings “the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense is a part of the ‘core’ of the Second Amendment’s protections.” The case, brought by SAF, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and individuals including an electrical contractor, a paramedic, CPA and woodworker, argues, “The city’s $340 fee is inherently prohibitive and serves the impermissible purpose of discouraging the exercise of constitutional rights. While the city can charge a nominal fee to defray costs, the $340 fee is not nominal, and has never been calculated to defray costs.”
The organization has sued New Jersey and officials and judges over procedures that allowed them to refuse firearms permits for a kidnap victim, a man who carries large amounts of cash for his business and a civilian FBI employee who fears attacks from radical Islamists. The permissions were denied on the grounds people had not shown a “justifiable need.” “Law-abiding New Jersey citizens have been arbitrarily deprived of their ability to defend themselves and their families for years under the state’s horribly crafted laws,” said an SAF spokesman. “The law grants uncontrolled discretion to police chiefs and other public officials to deny license applications even in cases where the applicant has shown a clear and present danger exists.”
The SAF filed a case on behalf of an honorably discharged veteran from the Vietnam War and names as defendants Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Jefferson Wayne Schrader. The question is whether the state of Maryland can deprive an individual of the right to possess a weapon over a misdemeanor. Schrader had been convicted of misdemeanor assault relating to a fight involving a man who previously had assaulted him in Annapolis. But he was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift or to purchase a handgun for personal protection.
SAF filed a claim against Maryland for a man who alleged the state was violating the Second Amendment by refusing to renew his handgun permit. Raymond Woollard originally was issued a carry permit after a man broke into his home during a family event in 2002. Woollard’s permit was renewed in 2005 after the defendant in the case was released from prison. But state officials later refused to renew the permit, even though the intruder now lives some three miles from Woollard.
SAF sued Westchester County, N.Y., because officials there were requiring that residents have a “good cause” to ask for a handgun permit. The federal lawsuit alleges the requirement conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment establishes a personal right to “keep and bear arms.” Individual plaintiffs in the case are Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov, both Westchester County residents whose permit applications were denied.
A Holly Hill, Florida homeowner was forced to open fire when two men attacked his friend and proceeded to enter the house in an attempted robbery Saturday around 10 p.m. The incident left one of the two men dead and the other on the run.
According to the Daytona Beach News Journal, Kenneth Conley, 53, was eating supper on the front porch of his friend 62-year-old Jerry Stremovihtg’s house when two men approached Conley, shocked him with a stun gun and then started beating him with brass knuckles.
Police said that they aren’t sure what the motive was for the two men, 35-year-old Sanlee Alan Bennett and 31-year-old Christopher Barsalou, but they think they were aiming to score some painkillers and prescription drugs.
However, the caper seemed to be meticulously planned as the men were equipped with brass knuckles, a knife, a crowbar, a stun gun and were wearing rubber gloves.
They ordered Conley into the house and the three made their way to the bedroom, where Stremovihtg, who apparently heard the commotion, was waiting. Unlike Conley, Stremovihtg wasn’t about to be caught off guard – he had his .38-caliber revolver ready and opened fire on the intruders, striking Bennett in the chest.
Bennett and Barsalou fled and Bennett made it all the way to the front yard before he collapsed. The news report said there was blood all over the steps. Barsalou was able to retreat to a vehicle and drive off. Stremovihtg fired off one shot at the parting vehicle, but the suspect got away.
Bennett paid the ultimate price for the crime; emergency responders pronounced him dead on arrival. Conley and Stremovihtg, on the other hand, survived with non-life-threatening injuries.
In addition, police said do not intend to charge Stremovihtg with the shooting. They believe that Stremovihtg acted in self-defense and to protect his friend from the attackers.
Police are still looking for the Barsalou and also an possible female accomplice named Edith or Edy. Police suspect she’s somehow acquainted with Conley and Stremovihtg, and they also think Bennett and Barsalou might’ve been staying with her.
Both Bennett and Barsalou had served time in prison. Barsalou was imprisoned for shooting into a house and burglary, while Bennett was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
By the sound of things, Stremovihtg made the right choice. These two men have a track record proving just how dangerous they really are. Stremovihtg and Conley will have a lot to be thankful for on the upcoming Turkey Day.
This March, the United Nations will resume negotiations on a treaty designed to regulate the multibillion-dollar global arms trade.
While it’s unclear at this point what the final version of the treaty will look like and how it will impact law-abiding gun owners, there is an increasing number of lawmakers who are not interested in finding out the details.
That is, they want to ensure that no matter what the U.N. decides to do the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens goes unmolested.
One way to defeat the ATT is to urge President Obama not to sign it, if and when it’s passed by the U.N.
Enter House Resolution 814, a bipartisan measure co-sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and supported by 75 of his colleagues which does exactly that.
Essentially, HR 814 promises to withhold any federal funds for the implementation of an ATT unless it has the consent of the Senate (an ATT would need a two-thirds ratifying vote from the Senate to be officially adopted as U.S. law) and has been reviewed by Congress. In other words, it reminds the President that his hands are tied on this matter and that an ATT will be non-binding unless it has Congress’s full blessing.
“The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution,” said Rep. Barton in a press release. “I will oppose any measure that would infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans – that includes this arms treaty. I will continue to oppose efforts by the UN or any other person, organization, or country to fracture or supersede our Constitution.”
Here are some of the highlights in the resolution (the full doc can be viewed here):
The ATT “poses significant risk to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States as well as to the constitutional rights of the United States and United States sovereignty.”The ATT “fails to expressly recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms and the individual right of personal self-defense, as well as the legitimacy of hunting, sports shooting, and other lawful activities pertaining to the private ownership of firearms and related materials, and thus risks infringing on freedoms protected by the Second Amendment.”
The ATT “could hinder the United States from fulfilling its strategic, legal, and moral commitments to provide arms to allies such as (Taiwan) and the State of Israel.”
The ATT “risks imposing costly regulatory burdens on United States businesses, for example, by creating onerous reporting requirements that could damage the domestic defense manufacturing base and related firms.”
This is not the first time Congressional leaders have pushed back against the prospective ATT. There have been bills introduced in both the House and the Senate that seek to cement the firewall between a potentially draconian global arms trade agreement and our right to keep and bear arms.
Additionally, there have been letters signed and pledges made and other efforts to mobilize opposition to the ATT, all of which have been successful. Most notably, there are approximately 50 senators who have signed a letter drafted by Republican Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), which states:
“The Arms Trade Treaty must not in any way regulate the domestic manufacture, possession or sales of firearms of ammunition. Firearms possession is an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment and that cannot be subordinated, directly or indirectly by any international treaty.”
It appears that despite some upsets in the November elections that the firewall remains fully intact.
As we approach the 2013 sales year, is the crossbow in a position to become for the archery industry what the AR-platform rifle is to the firearms industry?
In the prophetic vernacular of the novelty Magic 8-Ball that was popular back in the 1960s and 70s: “Signs point to yes,” and “You may rely on it.”
At least, that’s the way we see things here at The Archery Wire.
The unprecedented uptick in the number of crossbow-only companies, the expansion of models produced by existing manufacturers and the introduction of the first compound crossbow by a major established bowmaker in recent months all point to what just about everyone in the bow business seems to believe will be a banner year for crossbow sales.
And why not? The Pennsylvania Game Commission recently made its three-year temporary rule allowing crossbows in archery season permanent. Indiana began permitting crossbows in archery deer season this year. And in September, Gov. Pat Quinn signed a bill making Illinois the 25th state in the country to allow crossbows in some manner for use in archery hunting seasons.
Previously, only persons 62 and older and the physically handicapped were permitted to use crossbows in The Land of Lincoln.
Granted, the Illinois bill does not permit crossbows for use in the entire archery-only deer season, like in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and a growing number of other states East of the Mississippi River. As passed, the bill allows crossbows only during what is commonly known as the late archery deer season, following the split deer firearms seasons that take place in late November and early December.
Is the bowhunter-and-whitetail-filled state of Wisconsin next in line? Many manufacturers seem to think so.
Without consulting crystal balls and Ouija boards, as recently as ten years ago, few saw today’s expansion of crossbow, and even fewer thought it would occur as quickly and be as widespread. Especially those with first-hand experience of the crossbow demonization that took place through the 1980s and into the 1990s.
Back when companies first began producing compound crossbows and state game agencies started considering their inclusion in deer-hunting seasons, it became as divisive an issue as the industry has ever experienced – before or since. You would’ve thought the devil incarnate was somehow involved with crossbow production, the way some bowhunters and archery groups spewed hateful and venomous rhetoric aimed at crossbows makers and supporters.
Some continue to do so today – though in far fewer numbers and with significantly less continuity than in the past.
There are several logical reasons for this sea change in attitude and public perception of crossbows for hunting.
Today’s new-crop of hunting archers – ones in their 20s and 30s -simply don’t share the same hatred and animosity toward the crossbow held by their fathers and grandfathers. They’re not threatened by sharing the deer woods with crossbow hunters, and they know there’s plenty of deer for everyone.
Oh yeah, about those fathers and grandfathers. Probably more than a few of them once cursed the crossbow, but now find themselves afflicted with sore joints and aching shoulders, and what they once considered the tool of the devil is now their only logical lifeline for continued involvement in their beloved sport of bowhunting.
It happens enough that it has become a sad cliche. A company makes a product and makes it so well that it lasts. It’s obsolescence is not planned. Or common. Then another company comes along and makes a similar product, maybe not as good — but good enough — and cheaper. And the first company tanks.
So what happens when that first company decides to go back into business? If you are curious, keep your eyes on the Ithaca Gun Company. They’re back in business and making the same indestructible shotguns that made them famous.
But they’ve made some big changes. The old Ithaca Gun factory was at the base of a beautiful waterfall in the Falls Creek neighborhood of Ithaca, New York. But that incarnation of the company closed it’s doors a while back. The old factory has been razed. Environmental clean up efforts have made the area habitable, and what used to be a twentieth century firearms powerhouse is now apartment housing.
New York may have another apartment complex, but they lost the Ithaca Gun Company. After a series of moves and changes of ownership, and a brief closure, Ithaca is back and thriving in Upper Sandusky, Ohio. I bet Ohio is happy to have them, too.
Ithaca is back to doing what they do best. Ithaca makes pump shotguns, but they’re stepping up their production of 1911s, too.
What does Ithaca do that’s different?
I think this can be summed up by one specific example. If you look at shotgun barrels, you will see many variations. But most barrels and barrel lugs are soldiered or brazed together. A braze is not as strong as a weld, and a weld is not as strong as a lug that’s machined from the same billet of steel as the barrel.
But this is a very difficult process. It requires the removal of much more material, which creates more waste (which is recycled) and more wear on tools. But it is a sign of uncompromising dedication, and is easier with modern CNC machines. Most of us will never subject our shotguns to the type of abuse that will break lugs, or crack a brazed join, but nice to know we could.
And they’re still machining the receivers from steel, too. Same as it ever was. Only the modern production methods should help to keep costs manageable.
The Model 37 shotgun of old, a John Browning design that was popular with law enforcement agencies (like the LAPD and NYPD) is a hard sell in a market dominated by the Remington 870 and the Mossberg 500. But it can hold its own again those guns. The Model 37 can hold its own with any pump gun on the market.
Ithaca’s 1911s have a tougher row to hoe, if only because there are so many 1911s out there now. Ithaca may have more of an honest claim to making 1911s than some, as they filled 1911 contracts during the war. Yet their new guns are far from the 1911’s mil-spec origins.
The new Ithaca 1911 is a blend of custom firearm and collector’s piece. Their pistols start out at $1,800. While that isn’t too bad for a custom gun, it isn’t chump-change.
When Ithaca made their comeback, they announced a truly distinct 1911, finished with a mix of high polished bluing and engine turning on the barrel, hammer, guide rod, and magazines. There is a highly detailed review of the gun pictured below at m1911.org.
Engine turning is one of those odd art forms that is rumored to have evolved from a utilitarian desire for efficiency. The grooved circles, or jeweling as it’s called, hold oil better than highly polished steel. Yet the process is so labor intensive, (and easy to botch) that it exceeds the craft distinction, and has been elevated to a high decorative art.
Ithaca has sold about 100 of these this year, and about 500 or more of the base models, which are still ridiculously nice. And they’re set to debut some new 1911 options in January, though they’re not giving any hints beyond that yet.
This is the niche that Ithaca is set to fill. Though they are making some excellent service grade guns, Ithaca will rely on their custom and limited edition guns for a while. Their custom shop does great work. From the basic engraving services, to the carving of highly figured walnut stocks, Ithaca can take a really pedestrian gun like the Model 37 and make it shine.
And that’s what’s going to sell. American craftsmanship. Good guns. Tradition.
If you’re a thief, there are a couple of warning signs that you should watch out for. A dog bowl and a leash in the front yard would tip you off that you’re probably going to get bitten. A sign that reads, “Trespassers will be shot!” is pretty self-explanatory.
The home of 77-year-old Lloyd McCarty is similarly filled with warning signs. He flies an American flag on the front porch, he has a U.S. Marine Corps patch tacked to the wall, and he also keeps a framed picture of himself in his glory day as a Marine. If the home invader had noticed these clues then maybe he would have picked another house to rob.
According to reports, McCarty heard a knock on his door – a knock so light that it was suspicious — on Nov. 10. The shrewd veteran retrieved his .32-caliber pistol just in time to encounter the home invader breaking down his front door. With the casual devil-may-care attitude that only a war veteran can have, McCarty said, “He hit (the door) that hard and when he hit it that hard that’s when I shot the door. He went to a hollerin’ and screamin’. I could hear him going clear down the street hollerin.” He added, “Well, maybe I shoulda shot two or three times.”
So, what happened to the would-be thief? He learned the hard way that even 77-year-old Marine veterans still have some fight left. The bullet struck the home intruder in the abdomen, forcing him to flee the scene. Police caught up to the culprit and arrested him.
This story went exactly the way it should have gone – McCarty defended his home and his wife, and the police caught the bad guy. There really isn’t much room for argument here. What we can chat about, though, is the whole issue of warning signs.
Flying an American flag on your front porch isn’t the same thing as saying, “We have a gun and we’re willing to use it,” but it isn’t that far off.
Every gun owner has the opportunity to warn would-be thieves. Putting a sign that reads “I’m a lifetime member of the NRA” on your front lawn may very well scare off thieves, but on the other side of the coin having lots of signs on your property typically doesn’t look very nice.
What about our readers? Can thieves look at your house and immediately know that they’re going to get shot if they try anything stupid? If you do show any warning signs on your property (even subtle ones like an American flag), why do you do it? And for the other gun owners out there, what’s stopping you from putting up a “Trespassers will be shot” sign?