New Zealand's Experiment

New Zealand ended a national gun buyback program after failing to achieve its dubious objectives:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern banned semi-automatic weapons and launched a gun amnesty and buyback scheme earlier this year, after a March shooting in Christchurch where a suspected white supremacist gunned down 51 Muslims in two mosques.
More than 56,346 prohibited guns have been removed from circulation so far, within the range estimated by consultancy KPMG in an independent report, Police Minister Stuart Nash said in a statement. “However police have consistently warned the problem is we just don’t know exactly how many guns are out in the community,” Nash said.

Gun buybacks are favorites of clueless politicians who want to use taxpayer money to "do something" about "illegal guns."
The problem is, many of the guns turned in are non-functioning or worse, have been used for a crime but are then eliminated from evidence after the typical "no questions asked" gun is exchanged for money or gift certificates.

The New Zealand case is instructive, for certain firearms were declared "prohibited." Once that is done, anyone who continues to possess a "prohibited" firearm is by definition a criminal.

The National Police Minister Stephan Nash declared: “Those in breach of the law face risk of prosecution and up to five years jail, as well as the loss of their license..."

The pattern is clear:

1. Offer a "voluntary gun buyback" for "prohibited" firearms
2. Act surprised when the buyback is not 100% effective
3. Warn those who don't comply with the once "voluntary" system

This approach links the term "prohibited" with an entire class of firearm (in the NZ case, all semi-automatics). Law-abiding people equate "prohibited" with "criminal."

Congratulations on now branding a significant portion of the population criminals.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-shooting-guns-idUSKBN1YO05B

What Are We Defending?

Churches present unique security concerns. While a church must protect against harm to people and damage or loss of property, a church’s testimony is a unique quality subject to loss or damage. Businesses consider reputation and good will as assets, but it’s likely that a church’s testimony is its only asset, as congregational members change over time, buildings change, but ultimately the testimony of the church endures.

While new people can attend and buildings rebuilt, a poor testimony can condemn a church to a quick or slow death. Either way, the damage is deep and the results inevitable – unless God works a miracle.

Few churches have the resources to implement security access controls, and even if the resources are available, churches must remain open and welcoming to members, visitors, and strangers.

There are no clear rules for church security, as a “church” is simultaneously an assembly of individuals (some known to each other, some unknown), a place of business, and a corporation. Each definition carries different expectations for safety and security.[1]

Therefore, it’s critical that each church consider, document, and then adhere to security guidelines that comply with the jurisdictional law, the church’s ministry, and the testimony of the congregation.

Before implementing a security protocol, consider what you plan to protect and how. For example, you may want to implement a "no weapons on site" policy. But this will require installing metal detectors and guards at each entrance. What will this do to your church testimony? In some areas, this may bolster the church testimony. But in most parts of the United States, this would be considered extreme and would damage the church testimony. Would heavily armed, uniformed security guards hinder or help your church testimony? What would happen in the immediate aftermath of a civilian self-defense shooting on your property? What would be the best result? The worst?

Would security cameras be an asset or would it be off-putting?

While protection of people's physical security is important it is not binary (completely protected vs. untrammelled exposure to all hazards). It's a continuum, and you need to work through what is possible given the fiscal, physical, staff, capability, culture, and testimony aspects of each security measure.

---

[1] The ancient laws of sanctuary are not recognized by any state or federal law. Religious institutions don't have special permission to harbor criminals or protect them from the government.

Constitutional Carry in South Dakota

South Dakota recently passed legislation to eliminate permit requirements to carry a firearm ("Constitutional Carry").

Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun-control group, called the legislation "dangerous" and said it would have "devastating effects."

So -- how much time do we have to prove whether the effects are actually "dangerous"?

Gun-control groups insist every advance in 2nd Amendment rights will be "dangerous." And yet, violent crime has declined 49% between 1993 and 2017. 

Everytown claims "gun crimes" increased where permitless carry has passed:

States that have passed permitless carry legislation have seen a substantial increase in firearm violence.

• Since Arizona enacted permitless carry legislation in 2010, the annual total of aggravated assaults committed with a firearm in the state increased by 44 percent. That increase represents 1,519 more gun-related aggravated assaults committed in 2016 than in 2010.2

• After Missouri passed a permitless carry bill in January 2017, the city of St. Louis experienced a 23 percent increase in aggravated assaults with a gun in 2017 over the total in 2016. That represents 484 more gun-related aggravated assaults in 2017 than in 2016.

However, both examples ignore the urban centers in which such assaults occurred. They also ignore the fact that these assaults occurred by people who were carrying illegally due to prior felonies or certain misdemeanors. Finally, the data in the St Louis Crime Reports do not support EEGS claims of a "23% increase." Arizona's crime statistics also refute the conclusion that Constitutional Carry resulted in an increase in violent assault (14,264 violent assaults we other than a firearm, while 5,219 assaults involved a firearm).

FBI data shows large differences by state and city. In 2017, there were more than 600 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in Alaska, New Mexico and Tennessee. Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont had rates below 200 violent crimes per 100,000 residents.

Pittsburgh Mayor's Latest Dubious Political Stunt

Pittsburgh's Democrat Mayor Bill Peduto was joined by PA Democrat Gov. Tom Wolf, members of City Council and state Democratic lawmakers in proposing legislation that would ban semiautomatic rifles and certain ammunition and firearms accessories within city limits.

The problem with this latest bit of grandstanding do-goodery is that it's illegal, and has already been adjudicated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

In Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 545 Pa. 279, 681 A.2d 152 (1996), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered whether Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, could regulate the ownership of so-called assault weapons. The Supreme Court explained:

"The sum of the case is that the Constitution of Pennsylvania requires that municipalities may not perform any power denied by the General Assembly. The General Assembly has denied all municipalities the power to regulate the ownership, possession, transfer, or possession of firearms. The inescapable conclusion, unless there is more, is that the municipalities' attempt to ban the possession of certain types of firearms is constitutionally infirm."

Of course, the message from the Pols is that it's "for our safety" as they leverage the sad story of a nutcase (political affiliation unknown) who decided it would be his cause to shoot up a synagogue.

So, in the same way that declaring bad things shall be banned has worked for heroin, murder, rape, incest, drunk driving, assault, burglary, and corruption, all law-abiding people will be compelled to accede to the demands of Democrats and stop carrying very bad firearms (which ones will be determined for you).

Since they know better.

Rapid Fire at the Range

After several trips to my local club with lead-only, no "rapid fire" and general sedate bullseye-shooting only, I spent a few bucks to spend an hour at Trop Gun Range in Elizabethtown, PA this afternoon.

While they don't permit drawing from a holster (given the average customer -- it's a good rule), they permit rapid fire and FMJ. Heck, you can shoot rifle in there (but why you'd want to shoot a rifle in a 25 yard indoor range for more than zero purposes totally baffles me. But I digress...)

The range is well lit, well ventilated, and has nice Meggit devices for positioning targets. I had pre-loaded a dozen mags so after I hung a B-27 and pasted on a paper plate down range it went (the used B-27 was simply a place to hang paper plates and 6" paste-on targets).

I fired the .45 first. I wanted to get back into some higher-speed firing which takes some shifting (for me, at least) after repeated precision target work. After a few mags it started coming back and I got onto a rhythm. Every time there was a flyer it was low and left -- yep, recoil anticipation!

Re-focus on grip and trigger reset. Presssss, fire, reset, reacquire, pressss... repeat.

I shot 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15 yards, varying pace and number of shots. When concentration (or attention) faded and the gun heated up I stopped a bit to pick up brass.

After 50 rounds or so I was managing recoil and the sights were tracking up and down (no oval or lateral which eats time and requires grip readjustment).

After cleaning out my .45 stockpile it was over the the M&P 2.0 full size (5" barrel). I've owned and carried an M&P 9c for years and shoot it well but the 5" barrel adds a bit more precision. But after shooting the 1911 the M&P felt light -- very light. Every minor adjustment had significant impact on the sights.

It was very near the difference between driving a large, fast, heavy car and a sport motorcycle. You can't make the transition unconsciously (well, I can't). I have to remind myself what I'm doing and the differences. The 9mm is light and it is sensitive to deflection. So I increased grip torque and settled that down. The trigger is longer and grittier (it's a stock S&W striker fired) with the "safety" hinge. So my finger position had to be adjusted. It still has the safety (intentional, to maintain same manual of Arms), but the slide is slightly lower, so it was important to keep thumb clear.

After 30 or so rounds I made the adjustment and started blasting away. Though the gun is lighter, so is the 9mm round, so rapid fire became a real treat. By now a few others were on the range and I caught curious "What's he shooting?" glances my way.

I've been working through the differences between rapid fire and precision fire. Some argue that rapid fire is "combat good-enough" and doesn't require sights. Others claim gorilla gripping is useless and does more hard than good.

Right. In context, that is.

The skills and disciplines support each other but they are unique. Precision requires balance, delicacy, and focus. Rapid fire requires strength, energy, and a different type focus (they "look" the same, but "feel" different).

Both are immensely fun and I'm glad we have the opportunity to shoot different ways!

Reloading Cost Calculator (9mm and .45 ACP)

Attached is a cost calculator I use that also includes comparison costs for various projectile (bullet) vendors.  Data is up to date as of January 15, 2019 (But I welcome corrections!)

Reloading Cost Calculator

Concealed Carry Options

Here's a suggestion that may or may not work for those having problems carrying concealed comfortably.

I'm tall and relatively thin (6'1", 175-180). I have several dedicated gun belts that work, but need to be cinched down using a comealong to stay in place (lest the belt and holster and gun drop down to urban carry locales).

The things we do for love...

But a super-tight, inflexible belt is uncomfortable and eventually causes digestion problems. 

I can't even...

Also, the gun's weight often pulled the belt outwards, which required constant belt location readjustments, especially on any walk longer than 22 meters (3,560 feet. Or decameters. Or whatever).

Recently, I tried suspenders. Pants stayed up, belt didn't need to be piano-wire tight. Yay!

But you're not supposed to wear a belt AND suspenders unless you want to be labelled as a -- something uncomely.

So, I added an under-suspender (Hold-ups Under Suspender). I'd suggest a Y back stayle if you carry IWB -- especially behind the point of the hip (4 to 5 O'Clock position).

All the support of suspenders, all the security of a belt, none of the discomfort.