Monday - October 22, 2007

Empty Holster Week

Courtesy of The Shooting Wire

Empty Holster

Across college campuses this week, a protest against those “gun free zones” many, including me, believe contribute to the horrid costs in human lives that are extracted when crazies suddenly start attacking their fellow students.

The protests are organized as “Students for Concealed Carry on Campus” and will be called “the empty holster” protest. As the name implies, the students will attend classes wearing empty holsters.

The organizers say it’s in protest of the state laws and campus policies that they feel give armed killers an unfair advantage over law-abiding citizens licensed to carry concealed handguns virtually anywhere else.

In thirty-nine states, individuals are licensed to carry concealed handguns in their day-to-day lives. That means offices, malls, movies, restaurants and virtually anywhere else, armed citizens regularly conduct their normal business without incident.

College campuses, however, seem to be the one place where law has little bearing on policy. Firearms - at least in the hands of law-abiding students and faculty- are flatly forbidden. Virginia Tech is one of those “gun free” campuses. Student protesters say that’s why, on April 16 of this year, twenty-seven students and five faculty members died when a mentally-disturbed student carried a pair of handguns and a backpack of ammo onto the campus and opened fire.

It would seem that after two decades of shooting rampages, from employees “going postal” to Columbine High School and Virginia Tech, it would be apparent that “gun free zones” are also “target rich zones” for anyone looking to slaughter defenseless people.

In short, Empty Holster protesters want administrators to realize that “feeling safe” and “being safe” are not the same thing.

But that’s not likely to sway college administrators. Able to pretty much operate as they choose, they’ve chosen to ignore independent research and state law enforcement studies showing that license holders are five times less likely to be arrested for violent crimes.

Not all schools, however, feel that an unarmed student population is a safe population. For the past year, Utah has allowed concealed carry license holders to carry their firearms on campus. There hasn’t been a single act of violence.

The SCCC is slowly beginning to get noticed in the gun world - and has already built a considerably media presence. At the recent Gun Rights Policy Conference, Michael Flitcraft, SCCC chapter president at the University of Cincinnati met with industry leaders and explained the purpose of the non-partisan group. It’s really simple - provide another layer of defense against the rare, but deadly occurrence of campus shootings.

The organization continues to fight a few misconceptions. First, they are not advocating firearms for all students. The SCCC has said - in all instances - they are talking about adults, not children, ages 21 or older who have already passed the background checks and training necessary to have a concealed carry permit. As they have pointed out, there are many students on college campuses who have backgrounds - from law enforcement to military service - that makes them qualified, emotionally and operationally to carry a firearm.

In a recent CSPAN debate between George Mason University SCCC member Andrew Dysart and Paul Helmke of the Brady Center, it was obvious that opponents pound a very familiar drumbeat: students are inclined to be too immature to be trusted to protect themselves. After all, Helmke says, college campuses are tense enough without adding firearms to the mixes.

In contrast, SCCC’s Dysart stayed away from emotion, citing facts and statistics that show, in fact, that in most situations, young adults who happen to be qualified to carry a firearm in other situations are no less qualified on a college campus.

As the Empty Holster Protest continues this week, it seems a good time for all of us to remember that we cannot remain silent on matters that influence all our individual freedoms, and safety.

--Jim Shepherd

   Friday - October 19, 2007

For The Girl In Your Life

The Glambo Signature Series “Hello Kitty” HK-AK-47

The world should note the hand-crocheted shoulder-stock muffler and the anodized titanium plating. Several choices in stock wood are available. With a limited run of only 500, buy now before they’re gone! A mere $100 extra includes Glambo’s signature wood-burnt into the opposite side of the handguard. A perfect gift for the young lady of the house.
A bargain at only $1072.95!

   Wednesday - October 17, 2007

For those in Virginia

If you are not a member of the Virginia Citizen’s Defense League (VCDL), you should be.  This was one item that came out on their weekly update this week:

Antis planning protest at Richmond gun show on Saturday!
The Million Mom March/Bady Campaign is planning a protest this Saturday at the C & E Gun Show at the Showplace in Richmond.  They are planning a “lie-in” (boy, isn’t THAT the truth!) at noon near the building.  They plan on having women dressed in black to lie down for two-minutes to represent how long it took Cho to get his guns.

I am going to have fun with this one!  Cho had to wait THIRTY DAYS to get his 9 MM pistol.  More proof that gun control is a joke.  Anyway, I hope these women bring warm bedding for the month that they should be lying there.

I plan on talking to the press (if any shows up) and our Executive members are discussing some possible counter-protests, like a stand-in representing those students who might be alive today if they, or other law-abiding students or teachers, had been armed on that fateful day.

The irony of this is that Steve Elliott, who runs C & E, is willing to honor the MMM’s First Amendment right at the gun show, even though he could legally ban them from the property, as it is privately owned.  If only the MMM hypocrites could honor the Second Amendment the same way.

Steve is going to offer to let any of the protesters in for free so they can see a gun show for themselves.  I hope they go in - they will be quite surprised by what they see.

While we are at it, let’s pack that gun show to support C & E.

And on a final note, while the MMM’s wish list for gun control would actually make crime worse if implemented, they have a right to their beliefs and it is important that we honor that right.  That means being polite to them, while letting the media know that the MMMs are simply wrong on the issues.

If you are near Richmond this Saturday and can drop by the show, take some pictures and we’ll do a feature post of the protest and counter-protest.

   Tuesday - October 16, 2007

Who Needs A Gun At Home?

Maybe this guy would have fared better if he was armed and trained?

Police: Man Shot Dead While Playing Cards

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, Fla.—A 62-year-old man playing cards was shot and killed by one of two masked men who burst into a home Monday night in New Smyrna Beach, according to police.

David Michael Turner, of Port Orange, was shot at about 9:20 p.m. at 503 Mill Run Drive in New Smyrna Beach. Officials responded to the home, where Turner was pronounced dead.

According to New Smyrna Beach police, Turner was playing cards when two masked men broke into the home, demanded money and fired at least one shot.

Thought Crimes In Academia

So its come to this.  If a student expresses his opinion and it doesn’t match up with the opinions of his betters, then he is immediately removed from the student population and remanded to a mental health “professional” for “evaluation” before being allowed to co-mingle with the rest of the sheep in the fold.

Unbelievable.

Hamline University Student Suspended After Advocating Concealed Carry for Students
School Orders Psychological Evaluation
October 10, 2007

FIRE Press Release

ST. PAUL, Minn., October 10, 2007—Hamline University has suspended a student after he sent an e-mail suggesting that the Virginia Tech massacre might have been stopped if students had been allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Student Troy Scheffler is now required to undergo a mandatory “mental health evaluation” before being allowed to return to school. Scheffler, who was suspended without due process just two days after sending the e-mail, has turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.

“Hamline’s punishment of Troy Scheffler is severe, unfair, and apparently unwarranted,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “Peacefully advocating for students’ ability to carry a concealed weapon as a response to the Virginia Tech shootings may be controversial, but it simply does not justify ordering a mandatory psychological evaluation.”

On April 17, 2007, Hamline’s Vice President of Student Affairs, David Stern, sent an e-mail to the campus community offering extra counseling for Hamline students in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. Later that day, Scheffler responded directly to Stern, arguing that Virginia Tech’s ban on concealed weapons was part of the problem and advocating that Hamline eliminate its similar policies. Scheffler also wrote that the university’s diversity programs may have angered some in the student body, himself included.

On April 19, 2007, Hamline University President Linda Hanson e-mailed the campus community again to address the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Scheffler responded directly to Hanson and again criticized the university’s concealed weapons ban, academic standards, financial policies, and the university’s efforts to promote diversity.

Hanson replied to Scheffler on Friday, April 20, offering him a chance to meet with university personnel to discuss his views the following week. Yet on Monday, April 23, before Scheffler was even able to respond to Hanson’s invitation, he received a hand-delivered letter from Dean of Students Alan Sickbert notifying him that his e-mails to Stern and Hanson were “deemed to be threatening and thus an alleged violation of the Hamline University Judicial Code.”

Sickbert’s letter also informed Scheffler that he was being placed on immediate “interim suspension” that could not be lifted unless he agreed to a “mental health evaluation” by a licensed mental health professional.

FIRE wrote to President Hanson on May 29, 2007, vehemently opposing the sanctions against Scheffler, since neither of Scheffler’s e-mails even came close to meeting the legal definition of a “threat.” FIRE also pointed out that Hamline maintains a “Freedom of Expression and Inquiry” policy that encourages the public expression of opinions and the freedom to examine and discuss all questions of interest. FIRE wrote that “it is difficult to reconcile these admirable commitments to freedom of expression with Hamline’s hasty actions against Scheffler.”

FIRE also informed Hamline administrators that subjecting Scheffler to a mandatory psychological evaluation poses a grave threat to liberty at Hamline. FIRE wrote, “A psychological evaluation, to be overseen by a Hamline administrator, is one of the most invasive and disturbing intrusions upon Scheffler’s individual right to private conscience imaginable. Because Scheffler has shown no proclivity toward violence and has made no threatening comments, this psychological evaluation seeks to assess his political opinions….”

H/T: SayUncle

   Monday - October 15, 2007

Second Time’s a Charm

Or maybe he should start putting heads on a pike outside his business.  Would that help?

Dallas Man Shoots, Kills Second Burglar In 1 Month

For the second time in one month, a business owner in west Dallas has shot and killed a burglary suspect.

The second fatal shooting occurred in the 2000 block of Chalk Hill Road.

Dallas police believe James Walton was sleeping when his burglar alarm sounded late Saturday night.

Police say he found two suspects at his business, Texas Allied Welding Supply. He shot and killed the first suspect, 37-year-old Jimmy Gannon.

The second suspect was also shot, but was not seriously injured.

According to investigators, the two suspects may have been looking for copper.

Robert Brown, one of Walton’s neighbors, said he’s proud of the shooting. He said it brings “a sense of pride of your neighborhood, taking care of your own. I like it.”

Last month, Walton shot and killed Raul Laureles after he tried to break into his business.

“People have the right to defend their property and their own life,” said Dallas Police Sergeant Andrew Harvey. “We’ll refer to the grand jury and make sure they hear [the case].”

Walton was questioned by police, but was not arrested.

That’s right Sarge, people do have a right to defend themselves.

   Saturday - October 13, 2007

‘You Sneeze, You’re Dead Man’

Great story out of Houston today.  Details from Breitbart TV

Speak softly and carry a 12-gauge
Houston TX. October 11, 2007
Nathaniel Brooks stole a line from an old Western movie to capture a pair of burglars. A Fort Bend County homeowner fought back when he found burglars in his home.

“You know there’s something about when you hear a pump shotgun click,” said Nathaniel Brooks. “It makes everybody think twice.”

And the two burglars did think twice.

“You are trying to steal something out of my garage,” Brooks recalled telling the robbers. “You in my garage so you have no rights now. This is my house.”

He saw them through his back door rummaging through his garage.

“And I walked out of the house and I went around and confronted those guys on the side of the house,” he said. “So, I aimed at him and said, ‘You sneeze, you’re dead man.’ And I called the other guy out of the garage.

“I watch a lot of movies it sounded like a good thing to say. It got his attention.”

Brooks held them at attention until deputies got there two minutes later.

“I feel like I reacted like every homeowner should react,” said Brooks.

   Wednesday - October 10, 2007

Ten Things You Ought To Know

Shamelessly stolen from Serenity on the 1911 Forum

There’s a lot of misinformation out there these days about people who have chosen to exercise their right to carry a concealed weapon according to the provisions made by state governments.

Here are a few things that CWP holders want people to know about them. Now of course there are exceptions to these general rules but I think you’ll find these things to be true about the vast majority of your legally carrying neighbors.

1. We don’t carry firearms so that we can ignore other basics of personal safety.
Every permit holder that I know realizes that almost all dangerous situations can be avoided by vigilance, alertness and by simply making wise choices about where one goes and what one does. We don’t walk down dark alleys. We lock our cars. We don’t get intoxicated in public or hang out around people who do. We park our cars in well lighted spots and don’t hang out in bad parts of town where we have no business. A gun is our last resort, not our first.

2. We don’t think we are cops, spies, or superheros.
We aren’t hoping that somebody tries to rob the convenience store while we are there so we can shoot a criminal. We don’t take it upon ourselves to get involved in situations that are better handled by a 911 call or by simply standing by and being a good witness. We don’t believe our guns give us any authority over our fellow citizens. We also aren’t here to be your unpaid volunteer bodyguard. We’ll be glad to tell you where we trained and point you to some good gun shops if you feel you want to take this kind of responsibility for your personal safety. Except for extrordinary circumstances your business is your business, don’t expect us to help you out of situations you could have avoided.

3. We are LESS likely, not more likely, to be involved in fights or “rage” incidents than the general public.
We recognize, better than many unarmed citizens, that we are responsible for our actions. We take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously. We know that loss of temper, getting into fights or angrily confronting someone after a traffic incident could easily escalate into a dangerous situation. We are more likely to go out of our way to avoid these situations. We don’t pull our guns to settle arguments or to attempt to threaten people into doing what we want.

4. We are responsible gun owners.
We secure our firearms so that children and other unauthorized people cannot access them. Most of us have invested in safes, cases and lock boxes as well as other secuity measures to keep our firearms secure. Many of us belong to various organizations that promote firearms safety and ownership.

5. Guns are not unsafe or unpredictable.
Modern firearms are well made precision instruments. Pieces do not simply break off causing them to fire. A hot day will not set them off. Most modern firearms will not discharge even if dropped. There is no reason to be afraid of a gun simply laying on a table or in a holster. It is not going to discharge on its own.

6. We do not believe in the concept of “accidental discharges”.
There are no accidental discharges only negligent discharges or intentional discharges. We take responsibility for our actions and have learned how to safely handle firearms. Any case you have ever heard of about a gun “going off” was the result of negligence on somebody’s part. Our recognition of our responsibility and familiarity with firearms makes us among the safest firearms owners in America.

7. Permit holders do their best to keep our concealed weapons exactly that: concealed.
However, there are times with an observant fellow citizen may spot our firearm or the print of our firearm under our clothes. We are very cognizant that concerns about terrorism and crime are in the forefront of the minds of most citizens. We also realize that our society does much to condition our fellow citizens to have sometimes irrational fears about firearms. We would encourage citizens who do happen to spot someone carrying a firearm to use good judgment and clear thinking if they feel to need to take action. Please recognize that it’s very uncommon for a criminal to use a holster. However, if you feel the need to report having spotted a firearm we would ask that you please be specific and detailed in your call to the police or in your report to a store manager or private security. Please don’t generalize or sensationalize what you observed. Comments like “there’s a guy running around in the store with a gun” or even simply “I saw a man with a gun in the store” could possibly cause a misunderstanding as to the true nature of the incident.

8. The fact that we carry a firearm to any given place does not mean that we believe that place to be inherently unsafe.
If we believe a place to be unsafe, most of us would avoid that place all together if possible. However, we recognize that trouble could occur at any place and at any time. Criminals do not observe “gun free zones”. If trouble does come, we do not want the only armed persons to be perpetrators. Therefore, we don’t usually make a determination about whether or not to carry at any given time based on “how safe” we think a location is.

9. Concealed weapon permit holders are an asset to the public in times of trouble.
The fact that most permit holders have the good judgment to stay out of situations better handled by a 911 call or by simply being a careful and vigilant witness does not mean that we would fail to act in situations where the use of deadly force is appropriate to save lives. Review of high profile public shooting incidents shows that when killers are confronted by armed resistance they tend to either break off the attack and flee or choose to end their own life. Lives are saved when resistance engages a violent criminal. Lives are lost when the criminal can do as he pleases.

10. The fact that criminals know that some of the population may be armed at any given time helps to deter violence against all citizens.
Permit holders don’t believe that every person should necessarily be armed. We recognize that some people may not be temperamentally suited to carry a firearm or simply may wish not to for personal reasons. However we do encourage you to respect our right to arm ourselves. Even if you choose not to carry a firearm yourself please oppose measures to limit the ability of law abiding citizens to be armed. As mentioned before: criminals do not observe “gun free zones”. Help by not supporting laws that require citizens to be unarmed victims.

Any more you can think of?

   Monday - October 08, 2007

Only Cops And Soldiers Should Have Guns

Guy Loves Girl.
Girl Breaks up with Guy.
Guy goes to party where girl is.
Guy shoots everyone he can find.

Guy is a cop.
Victims are from 14-20 years old, including ex-girlfriend

Remember kids, only cops and soldiers should be allowed to have guns.  It’s for your protection after all.

Wisconsin town in shock after off-duty deputy kills 6

CRANDON, Wisconsin (CNN)—A small town in northern Wisconsin awoke to grief and questions Monday, a day after an off-duty sheriff’s deputy shot and killed six people at an early-morning party. A seventh person at the party was critically injured in the shooting

The shooter, 20, was killed by a police SWAT team Sunday afternoon, according to the town’s mayor.

The dead and wounded were all students or graduates of Crandon High School. The gunman, Forest County Sheriff’s Deputy Tyler Peterson, was a graduate of the school, which has a little more than 300 students.

Police have not confirmed the identities of the victims, but witnesses said they range in age from 14 to 20, and one of the victims is apparently Peterson’s former girlfriend.

Before anyone goes bat-crazy, I’m not advocating that 14 year-old kids should have been armed at the party.  My sarcasm above is due to the consistant meme of the left that we, the unwashed masses, should not be allowed to have guns.  That cops will protect us after all.

   Thursday - October 04, 2007

The Light Comes On For A Liberal

Way to go Jonathan, maybe some others in your camp will finally see the light.  (quoting the whole thing in case it gets “moved")

A liberal’s lament: The NRA might be right after all

By Jonathan Turley

This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.

The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District’s decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.

The Framers’ intent

Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

Another individual right

More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here’s the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.

Something we’ve all known for a long, long time, but nice to see a “enlightened progressive” get it too.

   Tuesday - October 02, 2007

The Short Road to Serfdom

“Their message to American gun owners is simple: ‘It will happen to you, if you let it’”. 

Stay with this one to the end.  There are a number of testimonies that you need to hear. 

“Once you have registration, the police will know what you have, then you will loose it.”

**Update:  Sorry about the “autoplay” for that video.  Here is a link to that file

   Thursday - September 27, 2007

Great Summary of Parker/Heller

From the CATO Institute

D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and attorney general Linda Singer, in their petition to the Supreme Court and in a Washington Post op-ed ("Fighting for Our Handgun Ban,” September 4), raise four arguments in support of the city’s ban. Their first argument is that the Second Amendment ensures only that members of state militias are properly armed, not that private citizens can have guns for self-defense and other personal uses. That contentious question has been debated at length on these pages. See Dennis Henigan, “The Mythic Second,” March 26, 2007; and Robert A. Levy, “Thanks to the Second Amendment,” April 16, 2007.

The city’s remaining three arguments — two legal claims and one policy claim — have received comparatively less attention. First, declares the mayor, even if the Second Amendment protects private ownership of firearms for non-militia purposes, a ban on all handguns is reasonable because D.C. allows possession of rifles and shotguns in the home. Second, the Amendment restricts the actions of the federal government, but not the states, and D.C. should be treated the same as a state for Second Amendment purposes. And third, “handgun bans work”; the streets of the Nation’s Capital are safer as a result. Let’s consider each argument in turn.

The rest of the article lays out why each of those arguments is not going to pass muster.

   Tuesday - September 18, 2007

Teachers and Guns

Rob over at Say Anything has an interesting question posted:

That’s the rather interesting question from The Christian Science Monitor which has an article up about a teacher in Medford, Oregon, who wants to bring her Glock 9mm to school with her and is filing a lawsuit so she can do just that.

This is an issue that usually comes up after school shootings (Virginia Tech, etc.), and I am generally in favor of teachers bringing guns to school.  That being said, I’ve got something of a nuanced position on this one in that I don’t think people have a right to bring their guns to work.

I think that teachers do have a right to bring their guns to school.  It is not a matter of private property right, as Rob asserts, because the school is a government facility.  As such, we the people are the owners.  I believe her right to self defense trumps the rights of the administration to keep things “neat and tidy”

What say you?

   Sunday - September 09, 2007

A Milestone for the AR-15

I meant to write this up last week, but since its gun day, I’ll post it now.

Via The Shooting Wire.

Bernosky Becomes NRA National High Power Rifle Championship Winner Using the AR-15 Platform Rifle

Springfield, Massachusetts - Smith & Wesson Corp., announced today that Carl Bernosky took home top honors for the 8th time at the 2007 National Rifle Association High Power Rifle Championship Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio. Using an AR-15 platform rifle with a Smith & Wesson M&P15 lower, Bernosky achieved a first place finish and now becomes the first person in the history of the event to win the overall championship using an AR-15 platform rifle. In addition, Bernosky also earned titles as the NRA Match Rifle Champion and Civilian Champion.

Competing in the match for his 14th time, Bernosky decided upon using a Smith & Wesson M&P15 lower as the base platform for his custom high power rifle. A veteran of high power matches, Bernosky has amassed over 30 years of experience in competing and in building custom rifles. While Bernosky was not the only competitor in the field using an AR-15 platform, he earned the distinction as the first champion to use the AR-15 platform, finishing above second place shooter and former champion David Tubb.

“When I first decided to compete in this year’s match, I had three or four different rifle options to choose from,” said Carl Bernosky, founder of Bernosky Shooting Sports. “I have always enjoyed shooting the AR-15 platform, but there were many people who thought it couldn’t be used to win this competition. When I made my decision and began to look for a lower in February, the first company I contacted was Smith & Wesson. I have always been a big fan of their products and have worked with them in the past, as they are a tremendous supporter of the shooting sports. Smith & Wesson agreed to support me, and in April I began putting all the pieces together.”

During the competition, Bernosky posted a top score of 1787 points and was awarded the Mumma Trophy. The custom high power rifle used by Bernoksy was chambered in 6mm Hagar and consisted of many custom parts including a Smith & Wesson M&P15 lower; a 26-inch Krieger barrel; a Geiselle trigger; and a custom upper designed by John Holliger.

“I think it will only be a matter of time before we see more shooters competing and winning with an AR-15 platform in high power matches,” said Bernosky. “The rifle itself is more comfortable than many of the other bolt action rifles being used and the ability to shoot quickly and accurately is greatly enhanced. A number of different variants can also be used and the higher sight platform and more adjustment features make it a viable rifle in today’s competitions.”

I want to get an AR soon, The Skipper (PBUH) had recently acquired one and we were going to get together sometime soon to shoot it, but from what he told me, they are an absolute hoot to shoot. 

Maybe I should start the “Help Mr. C. get an AR” fund. 

---

---

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner