Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Monday, January 23, 2017
WILL PRESIDENT TRUMP PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION?
Budd is a former NRA Director from NY and also a long time SCOPE chairman of the Board.
Regards BPB
THE RIGHT SIDE
BY BUDD SCHROEDER
JANUARY 25, 2017
WILL PRESIDENT TRUMP PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION?
We have a new president in the White House and a new attitude regarding government. Donald Trump, in his inauguration speech, said that he wanted the people to be better represented and more in control of their lives. This hopefully, will be at the expense of the bureaucrats and the bureaucracies they control. We are overregulated as well as over governed. Under the last administration we have had our freedoms and constitutional rights infringed.
This has been the practice in New York to a greater extent under the rule of Andrew Cuomo and in both the Obama and Cuomo administrations Second Amendment rights have been infringed. The state infringements have been greater in New York than in America as a whole.
The biggest infringement of the Cuomo reign has been his signature SAFE act. This is the law passed literally in the middle of the night by administrative bullying and deal making. Governor Cuomo has always had a negative view when it comes to the subject of the Second Amendment rights and gun ownership.
The SAFE act has several provisions that are definitely an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Like many laws made, there are subjective wordings in this law. What is an “infringement?” That is a word, when challenged in a court of law, can result is many billable hours for lawyers. It is arguable and expensive to litigate.
One of the provisions of the law is that it requires universal background checks. Prior to the passage of this law a person needed a background check when he bought a firearm from a FFL dealer. The background check called a NICS Check is done by the FBI and by phone by the dealer. There are classifications that would disqualify a purchase such as a felony, drug addiction, dishonorable discharge from the military, mental disabilities, illegally in the country, orders of protection and history of domestic violence being the most obvious.
Under the SAFE act, the check must be passed before a private sale or gift of a gun is made to anyone who is not an immediate member of the family. Parents, spouses, and children can have them. Cousins, grandchildren, best friends or neighbors are included in the list of those who need a background check to receive the firearm.
Since a photo ID is required to get the NICS check the Amish now may not buy a gun. Their religion forbids their having a photo of themselves and therefore they can’t get the necessary background check. The Amish have a beautiful reputation of being peaceful and law abiding citizens who do not cause or get into trouble. They are extremely nonviolent, but use guns for hunting to put meat on the table during the hunting season.
The SAFE act took that constitutional right away from them and there is no legal way that they can purchase a firearm in New York. When lawmakers who voted for the bill are asked why they are discriminating against the Amish, the answers are vague. As the guy in the movie said: Stupid is as stupid does.”
Another part of the bill that is really troubling is the one regarding mental health. The way this part of the law works if a person is involuntarily admitted to a hospital or has been prescribed an antidepressant, that record is sent to the Office of Mental Health. That department runs it thru the bureaucracies of the State Police to County Clerks and if they find a person on that list who has a pistol permit, the permit is suspended and the guns are removed from the person’s possession. It is usually done by a police department. They confiscate all guns, not just the handguns.
If the person hires a lawyer to pursue this action and wins because of a false report, the permit may be returned and the handguns with it. However, the police will keep the rifles and shotguns. To get them returned requires a lawyer to file an Article 78 with the Supreme Court to get a court order for the police to release the guns. This average cost for this procedure is in the $2,500 range. As a member of the court said: “Sometimes, it is cheaper just to buy a new gun.” And the politicians call this “justice.”
However, even if the permit and guns are returned there is another problem, Along with the process, the FBI is notified and the person’s name is put on the NICS list which means they are still forbidden to buy a gun. Many believe that because they are on the list, they can’t handle a gun. That is in the works for clarification. However, so far, the state has shown no interest in getting the person off the NICS list and there is no process for a person falsely accused to have the name removed. The gun rights groups are working on that injustice.
Finally, the State Police requires all people who have a handgun permit issued before five years ago to recertify it and it must be done before the end of January in 2018. The State Police would prefer to have it done by computer and email for their convenience. However the gun groups are angry and are not interested in making the process convenient for the State Police.
Some are suggesting that those who must comply should wait until the end of January and send in the necessary form with the information, including a descripting of all handguns in their possession, by certified mail, return receipt requested. This suggestion is making its rounds to gun clubs and sportsmen’s organizations.
It is hoped that there will be enough intelligent legislators in Albany to repeal the SAFE act, but it is a long shot as long as Governor Cuomo is in office and the Democrats control the Assembly. This is going to be a tough battle and the hundreds of thousands of pistol permit holders just may mobilize enough to constantly call their assemblymen and senators to voice their objection to this requirement.
If that fails, perhaps President Donald Trump will put a constitution loving justice on the Supreme Court and they will find the SAFE act to be unconstitutional. That is another option the pro-gun organizations are exploring. Time will tell. This may be the stimulus needed for the formerly apathetic to rise up and demand a government of the people, even in New York.
-30-
Regards BPB
THE RIGHT SIDE
BY BUDD SCHROEDER
JANUARY 25, 2017
WILL PRESIDENT TRUMP PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION?
We have a new president in the White House and a new attitude regarding government. Donald Trump, in his inauguration speech, said that he wanted the people to be better represented and more in control of their lives. This hopefully, will be at the expense of the bureaucrats and the bureaucracies they control. We are overregulated as well as over governed. Under the last administration we have had our freedoms and constitutional rights infringed.
This has been the practice in New York to a greater extent under the rule of Andrew Cuomo and in both the Obama and Cuomo administrations Second Amendment rights have been infringed. The state infringements have been greater in New York than in America as a whole.
The biggest infringement of the Cuomo reign has been his signature SAFE act. This is the law passed literally in the middle of the night by administrative bullying and deal making. Governor Cuomo has always had a negative view when it comes to the subject of the Second Amendment rights and gun ownership.
The SAFE act has several provisions that are definitely an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Like many laws made, there are subjective wordings in this law. What is an “infringement?” That is a word, when challenged in a court of law, can result is many billable hours for lawyers. It is arguable and expensive to litigate.
One of the provisions of the law is that it requires universal background checks. Prior to the passage of this law a person needed a background check when he bought a firearm from a FFL dealer. The background check called a NICS Check is done by the FBI and by phone by the dealer. There are classifications that would disqualify a purchase such as a felony, drug addiction, dishonorable discharge from the military, mental disabilities, illegally in the country, orders of protection and history of domestic violence being the most obvious.
Under the SAFE act, the check must be passed before a private sale or gift of a gun is made to anyone who is not an immediate member of the family. Parents, spouses, and children can have them. Cousins, grandchildren, best friends or neighbors are included in the list of those who need a background check to receive the firearm.
Since a photo ID is required to get the NICS check the Amish now may not buy a gun. Their religion forbids their having a photo of themselves and therefore they can’t get the necessary background check. The Amish have a beautiful reputation of being peaceful and law abiding citizens who do not cause or get into trouble. They are extremely nonviolent, but use guns for hunting to put meat on the table during the hunting season.
The SAFE act took that constitutional right away from them and there is no legal way that they can purchase a firearm in New York. When lawmakers who voted for the bill are asked why they are discriminating against the Amish, the answers are vague. As the guy in the movie said: Stupid is as stupid does.”
Another part of the bill that is really troubling is the one regarding mental health. The way this part of the law works if a person is involuntarily admitted to a hospital or has been prescribed an antidepressant, that record is sent to the Office of Mental Health. That department runs it thru the bureaucracies of the State Police to County Clerks and if they find a person on that list who has a pistol permit, the permit is suspended and the guns are removed from the person’s possession. It is usually done by a police department. They confiscate all guns, not just the handguns.
If the person hires a lawyer to pursue this action and wins because of a false report, the permit may be returned and the handguns with it. However, the police will keep the rifles and shotguns. To get them returned requires a lawyer to file an Article 78 with the Supreme Court to get a court order for the police to release the guns. This average cost for this procedure is in the $2,500 range. As a member of the court said: “Sometimes, it is cheaper just to buy a new gun.” And the politicians call this “justice.”
However, even if the permit and guns are returned there is another problem, Along with the process, the FBI is notified and the person’s name is put on the NICS list which means they are still forbidden to buy a gun. Many believe that because they are on the list, they can’t handle a gun. That is in the works for clarification. However, so far, the state has shown no interest in getting the person off the NICS list and there is no process for a person falsely accused to have the name removed. The gun rights groups are working on that injustice.
Finally, the State Police requires all people who have a handgun permit issued before five years ago to recertify it and it must be done before the end of January in 2018. The State Police would prefer to have it done by computer and email for their convenience. However the gun groups are angry and are not interested in making the process convenient for the State Police.
Some are suggesting that those who must comply should wait until the end of January and send in the necessary form with the information, including a descripting of all handguns in their possession, by certified mail, return receipt requested. This suggestion is making its rounds to gun clubs and sportsmen’s organizations.
It is hoped that there will be enough intelligent legislators in Albany to repeal the SAFE act, but it is a long shot as long as Governor Cuomo is in office and the Democrats control the Assembly. This is going to be a tough battle and the hundreds of thousands of pistol permit holders just may mobilize enough to constantly call their assemblymen and senators to voice their objection to this requirement.
If that fails, perhaps President Donald Trump will put a constitution loving justice on the Supreme Court and they will find the SAFE act to be unconstitutional. That is another option the pro-gun organizations are exploring. Time will tell. This may be the stimulus needed for the formerly apathetic to rise up and demand a government of the people, even in New York.
-30-
Friday, January 20, 2017
Lead Bullets,Shot & Sinkers Total Ban Comming Soon
I told a group last fall in 5 years we'd not be shooting I.E. hunting with lead.
So where were all these so called sportsmen's groups at when this was being discussed. Oh yea on the internet passing around BS meme's and junk quotes.
Regards BPB
Non Toxic Ammo Order Signed Today by Dan Ashe,Director of FWS January 19, 2017
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Washington D.C. 20240
DIRECTOR'S ORDER NO. 219
Subject: USE OF NONTOXIC AMMUNITION AND FISHING TACKLE
Sec. 1 What is the purpose of this Order? The purpose of this Order is to establish procedures and a timeline for expanding the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle on Service lands, waters, and facilities and for certain types of hunting and fishing regulated by the Service outside of Service lands, waters, and facilities.
Sec. 2 What is the legal authority for this Order?
a. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668a-d).
b. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712).
c. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee).
d. National Wildlife Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4)
e. Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
f. Fish and Wildlife Act 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j)
g. Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715r). h. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901b, 100 Stat. 3583)
Sec. 3 What is the Service’s overall policy? It is the Service’s policy to:
a. Require the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle to the fullest extent practicable for all activities on Service lands, waters and facilities by January 2022, except as needed for law enforcement or health and safety uses, as provided for in policy.
b. Collaborate with State fish and wildlife agencies in implementing this policy.
Sec. 4 What are the effects of lead on fish or wildlife health?
(Omitted sec. 4 to save space - you guys are not interested / do not believe anyway).
Sec. 5 What steps will the Service take to phase in the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle?
a. The Service will continue to support targeted research to understand the human, fish, and wildlife health benefits of using nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle.
b. The Service will continue to work with states and other partners on education efforts regarding the benefits and effectiveness of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle.
c. To ensure the public experiences a consistent approach to nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle requirements, over the next 24 months, each Regional Director, in coordination with relevant Assistant Directors, should work with individual States, regional State Fish and Wildlife Associations, and Tribes to identify opportunities to expand existing State, Federal, or Tribal requirements for use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle on Service lands, waters and facilities.
i. Where States have enacted nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle requirements for certain forms of hunting and fishing on State lands such requirements should be expanded to national wildlife refuges in those States through amendments to State or Service regulations, as appropriate.
ii. Where States have enacted nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle requirements for certain forms of hunting and fishing that apply to State, private and Federal lands throughout their States, Regions should ensure these requirements are enacted and enforced on Service lands, waters, and facilities in those States.
iii. Where individual Federal land units administered by other Federal agencies including the National Park Service, the National Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Defense, or other agencies, have enacted requirements for the use of nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle, Regions should adopt such requirements on Service lands, waters and facilities in the same States as those units through amendments to Service hunting and fishing regulations, as appropriate.
iv. Where individual Tribes have enacted requirements for the use of nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle, the Regions should adopt such requirements on Service lands, waters and facilities in the same States as those Tribal lands through amendments to Service hunting and fishing regulations, in consultation with the appropriate Tribe and State.
d. When available information indicates negative impacts of lead ammunition or fish tackle on sensitive, vulnerable or Service trust resources, the appropriate Regional Director, in coordination with the appropriate Assistant Director(s), will take steps to expeditiously require the use of nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle to the fullest extent practical under Service jurisdiction to benefit such species or resources.
e. The Assistant Director, Migratory Birds, in consultation with National Flyway Councils and individual States, will establish a process to phase in a requirement for the use of nontoxic ammunition for recreational hunting of mourning doves and other upland game birds.
Sec. 6 When is this Order effective? This Order is effective immediately. It remains in effect until we incorporate it into the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, or until we amend, supersede, or revoke it, whichever comes first. If we do not amend, supersede, or revoke it, the provisions of this Order will terminate on July 31, 2018.
/sgd/ Daniel M. Ashe
DIRECTOR
Date: January 19, 2017
So where were all these so called sportsmen's groups at when this was being discussed. Oh yea on the internet passing around BS meme's and junk quotes.
Regards BPB
Non Toxic Ammo Order Signed Today by Dan Ashe,Director of FWS January 19, 2017
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Washington D.C. 20240
DIRECTOR'S ORDER NO. 219
Subject: USE OF NONTOXIC AMMUNITION AND FISHING TACKLE
Sec. 1 What is the purpose of this Order? The purpose of this Order is to establish procedures and a timeline for expanding the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle on Service lands, waters, and facilities and for certain types of hunting and fishing regulated by the Service outside of Service lands, waters, and facilities.
Sec. 2 What is the legal authority for this Order?
a. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668a-d).
b. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712).
c. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee).
d. National Wildlife Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4)
e. Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
f. Fish and Wildlife Act 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j)
g. Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715r). h. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901b, 100 Stat. 3583)
Sec. 3 What is the Service’s overall policy? It is the Service’s policy to:
a. Require the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle to the fullest extent practicable for all activities on Service lands, waters and facilities by January 2022, except as needed for law enforcement or health and safety uses, as provided for in policy.
b. Collaborate with State fish and wildlife agencies in implementing this policy.
Sec. 4 What are the effects of lead on fish or wildlife health?
(Omitted sec. 4 to save space - you guys are not interested / do not believe anyway).
Sec. 5 What steps will the Service take to phase in the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle?
a. The Service will continue to support targeted research to understand the human, fish, and wildlife health benefits of using nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle.
b. The Service will continue to work with states and other partners on education efforts regarding the benefits and effectiveness of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle.
c. To ensure the public experiences a consistent approach to nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle requirements, over the next 24 months, each Regional Director, in coordination with relevant Assistant Directors, should work with individual States, regional State Fish and Wildlife Associations, and Tribes to identify opportunities to expand existing State, Federal, or Tribal requirements for use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle on Service lands, waters and facilities.
i. Where States have enacted nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle requirements for certain forms of hunting and fishing on State lands such requirements should be expanded to national wildlife refuges in those States through amendments to State or Service regulations, as appropriate.
ii. Where States have enacted nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle requirements for certain forms of hunting and fishing that apply to State, private and Federal lands throughout their States, Regions should ensure these requirements are enacted and enforced on Service lands, waters, and facilities in those States.
iii. Where individual Federal land units administered by other Federal agencies including the National Park Service, the National Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Defense, or other agencies, have enacted requirements for the use of nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle, Regions should adopt such requirements on Service lands, waters and facilities in the same States as those units through amendments to Service hunting and fishing regulations, as appropriate.
iv. Where individual Tribes have enacted requirements for the use of nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle, the Regions should adopt such requirements on Service lands, waters and facilities in the same States as those Tribal lands through amendments to Service hunting and fishing regulations, in consultation with the appropriate Tribe and State.
d. When available information indicates negative impacts of lead ammunition or fish tackle on sensitive, vulnerable or Service trust resources, the appropriate Regional Director, in coordination with the appropriate Assistant Director(s), will take steps to expeditiously require the use of nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle to the fullest extent practical under Service jurisdiction to benefit such species or resources.
e. The Assistant Director, Migratory Birds, in consultation with National Flyway Councils and individual States, will establish a process to phase in a requirement for the use of nontoxic ammunition for recreational hunting of mourning doves and other upland game birds.
Sec. 6 When is this Order effective? This Order is effective immediately. It remains in effect until we incorporate it into the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, or until we amend, supersede, or revoke it, whichever comes first. If we do not amend, supersede, or revoke it, the provisions of this Order will terminate on July 31, 2018.
/sgd/ Daniel M. Ashe
DIRECTOR
Date: January 19, 2017
Thursday, January 12, 2017
10 Simple Knife Projects Part 1 & 2
Part 1 and 2 from Dave Canterberry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPvP0QZplmQ
Ukraine’s Plan to Manufacture US M16 Combat Rifles Hits a Snag Over Ammunition
http://dailysignal.com/2017/01/10/ukraines-plan-to-manufacture-us-m16-combat-rifles-hits-a-snag-over-ammunition/
SECURITYNEWS
Ukraine’s Plan to Manufacture US M16 Combat Rifles Hits a Snag Over Ammunition
Nolan Peterson / @nolanwpeterson / January 10, 2017
A U.S. Army soldier with a Ukrainian soldier at a training base in western Ukraine. (Photo: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)
KYIV, Ukraine—Kalashnikov assault rifles are among the most iconic symbols of the Soviet military.
Weapons such as the AK-47, the AKM, the AK-74, and the AK-103 are ubiquitous reminders of the Red Army’s legacy among the modern militaries of former Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet client states.
Also, the contemporary, worldwide use of Kalashnikovs by terrorists and insurgent groups offers grim evidence of the widespread proliferation of Soviet weapons during and after the Cold War.
On Jan. 3, as part of a long-term plan to adopt NATO military standards, Ukraine took a step toward ditching this Soviet military carryover.
Dear reader:
With today’s liberal media influence, there are few publications that Americans can rely on to learn the “other” side of the issues.
The Daily Signal is a dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts solely funded by the financial support of the general public.
We are a non-profit organization
We serve more than 2 million readers a month
We do not accept government funds
We do not run any advertising
Please donate to ensure we can continue to provide The Daily Signal for free.
If you rely on The Daily Signal for news and analysis on key issues, please take one minute to help make a difference. Thank you.
KEEP THE DAILY SIGNAL FREE
Ukroboronprom, Ukraine’s nationalized defense industry conglomerate, announced a partnership agreement between the Ukrainian defense manufacturer Ukroboronservis and the U.S. company Aeroscraft to produce in Ukraine a variant of the U.S. M16 assault rifle.
A Ukrainian soldier cleans a Soviet-era Kalashnikov at a position on the front lines in eastern Ukraine.
A Ukrainian soldier cleans a Soviet-era Kalashnikov at a position on the front lines in eastern Ukraine. (Photos: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)
“The M16 project was conceived some time ago, as the Ukrainian armed forces, border guards, and National Guard will with time switch to NATO standards,” Aeroscraft founder and CEO Igor Pasternak said during a Jan. 3 press conference in Kyiv.
The M16 variant Ukraine will produce is called the WAC47.
The catch: The WAC47 uses Soviet ammunition, not the standard NATO 5.56×45 mm cartridge.
However, the Ukrainian production of Soviet-caliber M16s plan is a first step toward adopting NATO military standards—a goal Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko directed the military to achieve by 2020.
The WAC47 can be modified to use NATO ammunition, and “switching calibers” was one of the reasons Ukroboronprom listed to justify its decision to build its M16 variant.
“For our country and the Ukrainian army, M16 production in Ukraine is a real step towards Euro-Atlantic structures,” Ukroboronprom said in a statement published to its website.
By the time Ukraine fully adopts NATO military standards, its military will have a stockpile of M16s that can be modified to use NATO ammunition.
According to Ukroboronprom, interoperability problems Ukrainian troops have faced while on joint operations with NATO troops spurred the decision to produce the American assault rifle.
U.S. Army soldiers use a smaller, lighter variant of the M16, called the M4, in Afghanistan.
U.S. Army soldiers use a smaller, lighter variant of the M16, called the M4, in Afghanistan.
“Ukrainian soldiers are already participating in joint maneuvers with NATO,” Ukroboronprom said on its website. “And in each case, one of the problems is logistics.”
Ukrainian troops deployed to support NATO’s mission in Afghanistan, for example, had to borrow German assault rifles from Lithuanian troops due to ammunition incompatibility issues.
There is no standard assault rifle among NATO countries, only an agreement to use the same caliber small arms ammunition. NATO Standardization Agreement No. 4172 sets the standard small arms caliber at 5.56×45 mm.
In theory, troops from NATO countries could swap ammunition in combat, even if they use different weapons.
NATO Standards
The M16 became the standard infantry weapon for the U.S. military in 1967. U.S. versions of the weapon use the standard NATO cartridge.
However, the WAC47 (the M16 version to be produced by Ukraine) is designed for 7.62×39 mm ammunition used by Soviet weapons such as the AK-47 and the AKM assault rifles.
Ukraine plans to adopt NATO military standards by 2020. Consequently, the Ukrainian weapons will have to be retroactively modified to use NATO ammunition.
According to weapons experts consulted by The Daily Signal, the WAC47 can be modified to take the NATO 5.56×45 mm cartridge, but it might be cost prohibitive.
“Rechambering a rifle for a cartridge different than it was originally designed for can be done in some circumstances,” Dakota Wood, senior research fellow for defense programs at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.
“A lot of expense that simply implies it would be cheaper to buy new rifles designed for common NATO ammo,” Wood said.
In order to modify Ukrainian M16s to use NATO ammunition, the bolt and barrel will have to be replaced, Brian Summers, a U.S. Army veteran and weapons expert, told The Daily Signal.
“The only items that would have to be replaced are what I would describe as items that would normally be replaced based on use,” Summers said. “The magazines are ammo specific, and would have to be changed to the specific caliber.”
The M16 rifle has two main components—an upper and a lower receiver. According to Summers, for a Soviet-caliber M16 to use NATO ammunition, only the upper receiver has to be modified by replacing the bolt and barrel.
Kalashnikovs lined up on the firing range at the U.S. Army’s training mission in western Ukraine.
Kalashnikovs lined up on the firing range at the U.S. Army’s training mission in western Ukraine.
The M16 weapons system is “one of the most versatile weapon platforms in configuration and caliber,” Summers said. “Your troops essentially can train on one platform and when switching over to a new caliber do not need to be retrained in a new weapons system … Core of the platform, lower receiver, does not change and any optics can be moved.”
In the 1990s, Colt Defense LLC, the original M16 producer, produced a special civilian version of the military assault rifle designed to use Soviet 7.62×39 mm ammunition.
“I own this variant and if I want to fire 5.56 mm [NATO ammunition], I simply switch the upper receiver with 5.56 mm bolt and mags,” Summers said. “Two minutes to change.”
The Ukrainian M16 deal is not the first time a foreign weapon modified to use Soviet ammunition has been mass produced in Ukraine.
Ukrainian weapons manufacturer RPC Fort produces a version of the Israeli Tavor assault rifle, which the Israel Defense Forces chose to replace the M16.
Israeli Tavors use standard NATO 5.56×45 mm ammunition. The Ukrainian variant, however, uses Soviet 5.45×39 mm ammunition, but can be modified to use NATO cartridges.
Soviet Surplus
The Ukrainian military is embroiled in a nearly three-year-old proxy war against pro-Russian separatists and Russian regulars in the Donbas, Ukraine’s embattled southeastern territory on the border with Russia.
Since the war began in early 2014, Ukraine has embarked on a crash course to rebuild, resupply, and modernize its military.
According to Ukrainian news reports, pro-Russian separatists captured Ukraine’s only small arms ammunition manufacturer, the Luhansk cartridge plant, in 2014.
Since then, the Ukrainian military has relied on Soviet-era stockpiles to supply its troops in combat.
Ukrainian troops use surplus Soviet weapons on the front lines in eastern Ukraine.
Ukrainian troops use surplus Soviet weapons on the front lines in eastern Ukraine.
In June 2016, a group of top Ukrainian military officials announced a plan to develop domestic ammunition manufacturing.
“The ammunition reserves inherited by our country from the Soviet Army … are not unlimited, while their significant part has been thoughtlessly recycled or sold at a time when no one was thinking that we would be engaged in a war,” Oleksandr Turchynov, secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, said, according to Ukrainian news reports.
“This is a crucial large-scale task, and we have no other option but to implement it as soon as possible, for our country’s security directly depends on it,” Turchynov said.
Ukroboronprom’s 2016-2017 product catalogue does not include 7.62×39 mm or 5.45×39 mm ammunition—the two calibers most widely used by Ukraine’s armed forces.
According to arms experts, Ukraine currently has about 1 million AK-74 assault rifles and RPK-74 light machine guns in service. Both weapons use Soviet 5.45×39 mm ammunition.
NATO Standards
On May 20, 2016, Poroshenko, Ukraine’s president, signed a comprehensive military reform plan called the Strategic Defense Bulletin.
The document calls for a total revamp of Ukraine’s military doctrine, training, and operations to ultimately achieve the “full membership in NATO.”
“We have finally abandoned the system of the Soviet army and started to build truly efficient armed forces,” Poroshenko said. “It is very important for me, because it is evidence that Ukraine and NATO speak the same language and understand each other well.”
Ukrainian troops on patrol in eastern Ukraine.
Ukrainian troops on patrol in eastern Ukraine.
The Strategic Defense Bulletin directs the Ukrainian military to adopt NATO standards by 2020. It also singles out Russia as the No. 1 national security threat.
Ukrainian M16 production is a step—albeit a largely symbolic one—toward divorcing Ukraine from its Soviet military past by ditching Soviet weapons systems, thereby inching the country toward NATO interoperability.
“Every country that has teared itself away from Russia’s orbit, went or is going through this difficult stage, taking many years and demanding great effort,” Ukroboronprom, the Ukrainian defense industry conglomerate, said in a statement published to its website.
Resale Value
Ukraine will produce M16s for use by its armed forces, as well as for export. The deal, therefore, is a piece of a larger plan to reform and expand Ukraine’s defense industry.
Joint ventures with foreign partners is a key part of reforming Ukraine’s defense industry.
“Weapon manufacture in accordance with NATO standards is an important part of the development and reform of the Ukrainian defense industry,” said Serhiy Mykytyuk, head of Ukroboronservis, according to a statement posted to the Ukroboronprom website.
A U.S. Army soldier with an M16 variant called the M4 in Afghanistan.
A U.S. Army soldier with an M16 variant called the M4 in Afghanistan.
Aeroscraft, the American firm partnering with Ukroboronservis to produce M16s, is a California-based aviation company specializing in lighter-than-air aircraft—including airships intended for U.S. military use.
Pasternak, Aeroscraft’s founder and CEO, was born in Soviet Kazakhstan and founded his first company, Aeros Ltd., in Ukraine. He immigrated to the U.S. in 1994, according to a biography published on Aeroscraft’s website.
Ukrainian officials also want to make Ukraine one of the world’s top arms exporters.
“Ukraine is rapidly increasing its military capacities,” Poroshenko wrote in the introduction to the 2016-2017 Ukroboronprom product catalogue. “To become among the world’s top-five arms exporters is our strategic objective.”
In 2014, Ukraine was among the world’s top 10 arms exporting nations, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
SECURITYNEWS
Ukraine’s Plan to Manufacture US M16 Combat Rifles Hits a Snag Over Ammunition
Nolan Peterson / @nolanwpeterson / January 10, 2017
A U.S. Army soldier with a Ukrainian soldier at a training base in western Ukraine. (Photo: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)
KYIV, Ukraine—Kalashnikov assault rifles are among the most iconic symbols of the Soviet military.
Weapons such as the AK-47, the AKM, the AK-74, and the AK-103 are ubiquitous reminders of the Red Army’s legacy among the modern militaries of former Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet client states.
Also, the contemporary, worldwide use of Kalashnikovs by terrorists and insurgent groups offers grim evidence of the widespread proliferation of Soviet weapons during and after the Cold War.
On Jan. 3, as part of a long-term plan to adopt NATO military standards, Ukraine took a step toward ditching this Soviet military carryover.
Dear reader:
With today’s liberal media influence, there are few publications that Americans can rely on to learn the “other” side of the issues.
The Daily Signal is a dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts solely funded by the financial support of the general public.
We are a non-profit organization
We serve more than 2 million readers a month
We do not accept government funds
We do not run any advertising
Please donate to ensure we can continue to provide The Daily Signal for free.
If you rely on The Daily Signal for news and analysis on key issues, please take one minute to help make a difference. Thank you.
KEEP THE DAILY SIGNAL FREE
Ukroboronprom, Ukraine’s nationalized defense industry conglomerate, announced a partnership agreement between the Ukrainian defense manufacturer Ukroboronservis and the U.S. company Aeroscraft to produce in Ukraine a variant of the U.S. M16 assault rifle.
A Ukrainian soldier cleans a Soviet-era Kalashnikov at a position on the front lines in eastern Ukraine.
A Ukrainian soldier cleans a Soviet-era Kalashnikov at a position on the front lines in eastern Ukraine. (Photos: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)
“The M16 project was conceived some time ago, as the Ukrainian armed forces, border guards, and National Guard will with time switch to NATO standards,” Aeroscraft founder and CEO Igor Pasternak said during a Jan. 3 press conference in Kyiv.
The M16 variant Ukraine will produce is called the WAC47.
The catch: The WAC47 uses Soviet ammunition, not the standard NATO 5.56×45 mm cartridge.
However, the Ukrainian production of Soviet-caliber M16s plan is a first step toward adopting NATO military standards—a goal Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko directed the military to achieve by 2020.
The WAC47 can be modified to use NATO ammunition, and “switching calibers” was one of the reasons Ukroboronprom listed to justify its decision to build its M16 variant.
“For our country and the Ukrainian army, M16 production in Ukraine is a real step towards Euro-Atlantic structures,” Ukroboronprom said in a statement published to its website.
By the time Ukraine fully adopts NATO military standards, its military will have a stockpile of M16s that can be modified to use NATO ammunition.
According to Ukroboronprom, interoperability problems Ukrainian troops have faced while on joint operations with NATO troops spurred the decision to produce the American assault rifle.
U.S. Army soldiers use a smaller, lighter variant of the M16, called the M4, in Afghanistan.
U.S. Army soldiers use a smaller, lighter variant of the M16, called the M4, in Afghanistan.
“Ukrainian soldiers are already participating in joint maneuvers with NATO,” Ukroboronprom said on its website. “And in each case, one of the problems is logistics.”
Ukrainian troops deployed to support NATO’s mission in Afghanistan, for example, had to borrow German assault rifles from Lithuanian troops due to ammunition incompatibility issues.
There is no standard assault rifle among NATO countries, only an agreement to use the same caliber small arms ammunition. NATO Standardization Agreement No. 4172 sets the standard small arms caliber at 5.56×45 mm.
In theory, troops from NATO countries could swap ammunition in combat, even if they use different weapons.
NATO Standards
The M16 became the standard infantry weapon for the U.S. military in 1967. U.S. versions of the weapon use the standard NATO cartridge.
However, the WAC47 (the M16 version to be produced by Ukraine) is designed for 7.62×39 mm ammunition used by Soviet weapons such as the AK-47 and the AKM assault rifles.
Ukraine plans to adopt NATO military standards by 2020. Consequently, the Ukrainian weapons will have to be retroactively modified to use NATO ammunition.
According to weapons experts consulted by The Daily Signal, the WAC47 can be modified to take the NATO 5.56×45 mm cartridge, but it might be cost prohibitive.
“Rechambering a rifle for a cartridge different than it was originally designed for can be done in some circumstances,” Dakota Wood, senior research fellow for defense programs at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.
“A lot of expense that simply implies it would be cheaper to buy new rifles designed for common NATO ammo,” Wood said.
In order to modify Ukrainian M16s to use NATO ammunition, the bolt and barrel will have to be replaced, Brian Summers, a U.S. Army veteran and weapons expert, told The Daily Signal.
“The only items that would have to be replaced are what I would describe as items that would normally be replaced based on use,” Summers said. “The magazines are ammo specific, and would have to be changed to the specific caliber.”
The M16 rifle has two main components—an upper and a lower receiver. According to Summers, for a Soviet-caliber M16 to use NATO ammunition, only the upper receiver has to be modified by replacing the bolt and barrel.
Kalashnikovs lined up on the firing range at the U.S. Army’s training mission in western Ukraine.
Kalashnikovs lined up on the firing range at the U.S. Army’s training mission in western Ukraine.
The M16 weapons system is “one of the most versatile weapon platforms in configuration and caliber,” Summers said. “Your troops essentially can train on one platform and when switching over to a new caliber do not need to be retrained in a new weapons system … Core of the platform, lower receiver, does not change and any optics can be moved.”
In the 1990s, Colt Defense LLC, the original M16 producer, produced a special civilian version of the military assault rifle designed to use Soviet 7.62×39 mm ammunition.
“I own this variant and if I want to fire 5.56 mm [NATO ammunition], I simply switch the upper receiver with 5.56 mm bolt and mags,” Summers said. “Two minutes to change.”
The Ukrainian M16 deal is not the first time a foreign weapon modified to use Soviet ammunition has been mass produced in Ukraine.
Ukrainian weapons manufacturer RPC Fort produces a version of the Israeli Tavor assault rifle, which the Israel Defense Forces chose to replace the M16.
Israeli Tavors use standard NATO 5.56×45 mm ammunition. The Ukrainian variant, however, uses Soviet 5.45×39 mm ammunition, but can be modified to use NATO cartridges.
Soviet Surplus
The Ukrainian military is embroiled in a nearly three-year-old proxy war against pro-Russian separatists and Russian regulars in the Donbas, Ukraine’s embattled southeastern territory on the border with Russia.
Since the war began in early 2014, Ukraine has embarked on a crash course to rebuild, resupply, and modernize its military.
According to Ukrainian news reports, pro-Russian separatists captured Ukraine’s only small arms ammunition manufacturer, the Luhansk cartridge plant, in 2014.
Since then, the Ukrainian military has relied on Soviet-era stockpiles to supply its troops in combat.
Ukrainian troops use surplus Soviet weapons on the front lines in eastern Ukraine.
Ukrainian troops use surplus Soviet weapons on the front lines in eastern Ukraine.
In June 2016, a group of top Ukrainian military officials announced a plan to develop domestic ammunition manufacturing.
“The ammunition reserves inherited by our country from the Soviet Army … are not unlimited, while their significant part has been thoughtlessly recycled or sold at a time when no one was thinking that we would be engaged in a war,” Oleksandr Turchynov, secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, said, according to Ukrainian news reports.
“This is a crucial large-scale task, and we have no other option but to implement it as soon as possible, for our country’s security directly depends on it,” Turchynov said.
Ukroboronprom’s 2016-2017 product catalogue does not include 7.62×39 mm or 5.45×39 mm ammunition—the two calibers most widely used by Ukraine’s armed forces.
According to arms experts, Ukraine currently has about 1 million AK-74 assault rifles and RPK-74 light machine guns in service. Both weapons use Soviet 5.45×39 mm ammunition.
NATO Standards
On May 20, 2016, Poroshenko, Ukraine’s president, signed a comprehensive military reform plan called the Strategic Defense Bulletin.
The document calls for a total revamp of Ukraine’s military doctrine, training, and operations to ultimately achieve the “full membership in NATO.”
“We have finally abandoned the system of the Soviet army and started to build truly efficient armed forces,” Poroshenko said. “It is very important for me, because it is evidence that Ukraine and NATO speak the same language and understand each other well.”
Ukrainian troops on patrol in eastern Ukraine.
Ukrainian troops on patrol in eastern Ukraine.
The Strategic Defense Bulletin directs the Ukrainian military to adopt NATO standards by 2020. It also singles out Russia as the No. 1 national security threat.
Ukrainian M16 production is a step—albeit a largely symbolic one—toward divorcing Ukraine from its Soviet military past by ditching Soviet weapons systems, thereby inching the country toward NATO interoperability.
“Every country that has teared itself away from Russia’s orbit, went or is going through this difficult stage, taking many years and demanding great effort,” Ukroboronprom, the Ukrainian defense industry conglomerate, said in a statement published to its website.
Resale Value
Ukraine will produce M16s for use by its armed forces, as well as for export. The deal, therefore, is a piece of a larger plan to reform and expand Ukraine’s defense industry.
Joint ventures with foreign partners is a key part of reforming Ukraine’s defense industry.
“Weapon manufacture in accordance with NATO standards is an important part of the development and reform of the Ukrainian defense industry,” said Serhiy Mykytyuk, head of Ukroboronservis, according to a statement posted to the Ukroboronprom website.
A U.S. Army soldier with an M16 variant called the M4 in Afghanistan.
A U.S. Army soldier with an M16 variant called the M4 in Afghanistan.
Aeroscraft, the American firm partnering with Ukroboronservis to produce M16s, is a California-based aviation company specializing in lighter-than-air aircraft—including airships intended for U.S. military use.
Pasternak, Aeroscraft’s founder and CEO, was born in Soviet Kazakhstan and founded his first company, Aeros Ltd., in Ukraine. He immigrated to the U.S. in 1994, according to a biography published on Aeroscraft’s website.
Ukrainian officials also want to make Ukraine one of the world’s top arms exporters.
“Ukraine is rapidly increasing its military capacities,” Poroshenko wrote in the introduction to the 2016-2017 Ukroboronprom product catalogue. “To become among the world’s top-five arms exporters is our strategic objective.”
In 2014, Ukraine was among the world’s top 10 arms exporting nations, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
Top 10 Non Firearm Meat Gathering Tools
When I was a kid I had a throwing stick. It worked great on small game whne I could hit one.
How Much Land Do I Need For Homesteading?
Quick reply to Total Self Independence".
Also don't forget to check out my GunBroker,Ebay accounts for firearms related items & FaceBook accounts.
Also don't forget to check out my GunBroker,Ebay accounts for firearms related items & FaceBook accounts.
Sunday, January 8, 2017
The "Donald" jr Pushes for Firearm Silencers
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gu...cA1&ocid=edgsp
The federal government has strictly limited the sale of firearm silencers for as long as James Bond and big-screen gangsters have used them to discreetly shoot enemies between the eyes.
Now the gun industry, which for decades has complained about the restrictions, is pursuing new legislation to make silencers easier to buy, and a key backer is Donald Trump Jr., an avid hunter and the oldest son of the president-elect, who campaigned as a friend of the gun industry.
The legislation stalled in Congress last year. But with Republicans in charge of the House and Senate and the elder Trump moving into the White House, gun rights advocates are excited about its prospects this year.
They hope to position the bill the same way this time — not as a Second Amendment issue, but as a public-health effort to safeguard the eardrums of the nation’s 55 million gun owners. They even named it the Hearing Protection Act. It would end treating silencers as the same category as machine guns and grenades, thus eliminating a $200 tax and a nine-month approval process.
“It’s about safety,” Trump Jr. explained in a September video interview with the founder of SilencerCo, a Utah silencer manufacturer. “It’s a health issue, frankly.”
Violence prevention advocates are outraged that the industry is trying to ease silencer restrictions by linking the issue to the eardrums of gun owners. They argue the legislation will make it easier for criminals and potential mass shooters to obtain devices to conceal attacks.
“They want the general public to think it’s about hearing aids or something,” said Kristen Rand, the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center. “It’s both a silly and smart way to do it, I guess. But when the general public finds out what’s really happening, there will be outrage.”
The silencer industry and gun rights groups say critics are vastly overstating the dangers, arguing that Hollywood has created an unrealistic image of silencers, which they prefer to call “suppressors.” They cite studies showing that silencers reduce the decibel level of a gunshot from a dangerous 165 to about 135 — the sound of a jackhammer — and that they are rarely used in crimes.
But gun-control activists say silencers are getting quieter, particularly in combination with subsonic ammunition, which is less lethal but still damaging. They point to videos on YouTube in which silencers make high-powered rifles have “no more sound than a pellet gun,” according to one demonstrator showing off a silenced semiautomatic .22LR.
Proponents say that’s not a good way to judge the sound.
“You’re still going to hear the gunfire from far away,” said Knox Williams, president of the American Suppressor Association. “These things are still incredibly loud.”
Even with the restrictions, silencers have become one of the fastest-growing segments of the gun industry, which pushed accessories as gun sales level off. In 2010, there were 285,087 registered silencers. Last year: 902,085.
Rep. Matt Salmon, an Arizona Republican who regularly shoots with silencers, introduced the Hearing Protection Act in the House in 2015. A companion bill in the Senate was championed by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).
Though the bill never made it to committee hearings, it generated tremendous interest, becoming the third most-viewed piece of legislation on Congress’s website last year. (Top was the Democrat-led Assault Weapons Ban of 2015.)
Salmon recently retired, and it’s not clear yet who will reintroduce the measure. The bill had 82 co-sponsors — all but two of them Republicans.
Easing the restrictions could have a profound public-health impact, champions of the legislation say.
Hunters often shoot without hearing protection so they can hear prey moving. Many recreational shooters don’t like wearing ear covers, which can be heavy and hot and in gun ranges lead to many conversations ending with, “I can’t hear you.”
Silencers are also marketed as must-have attachments for high-powered rifles — a tactical necessity that reduces recoil, thus improving aim.
“Quiet guns are easier to shoot,” the National Rifle Association says in its American Rifleman magazine. “Try it.”
Silencer stigma
Silencers were invented in 1908 by Hiram Percy Maxim, a graduate of MIT whose father invented the first fully automatic machine gun. The younger Maxim had a knack for reducing loud noises; he also contributed to the development of the automobile muffler.
“I have always loved to shoot, but I never thoroughly enjoyed it when I knew that the noise was annoying other people,” he said late in life. “It occurred to me one day that there was no need for the noise. Why not do away with it and shoot quietly?”
Maxim solved the problem in the bathtub. He noticed that the water swirled silently down the drain. What if the gases produced from firing a bullet could swirl that way, too? So Maxim put what he called “a whirling tube” on the end of a rifle. It successfully muffled the sound of the gunfire. Soon, the whirling tube was U.S. Patent No. 958,935, titled “Silent Firearm.”
In the 1930s, to curtail gang violence, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, putting restrictions and special taxes on machine guns and other high-powered weapons. Though they hadn’t been used frequently in crimes, silencers were included anyway, reportedly out of concern that poachers would use them to steal food during the Great Depression.
“It’s a very strange tale,” said Stephen Halbrook, a Virginia gun rights attorney who recently published a law review article about the history of silencers. “If you think about it, if [the Occupational Safety and Health Administration] had been around then, they probably would have required people use these things.”
Though silencers are now legal in 42 states, industry officials say the onerous and expensive task of buying them keeps gun owners, particularly hunters, from their preferred method of protecting their hearing.
They frequently point out that Britain, with some of the strictest gun laws in the world, has no restrictions on silencers for many types of firearms.
“There isn’t this negative stigma because of Hollywood that has suppressed — pun intended — the use of suppressors in this country,” said Josh Waldron, the founder of SilencerCo, the Utah manufacturer.
Waldron started his company in 2008 after a career in photography, aiming to educate shooters about the benefits of silencers and to essentially hold buyers’ hands through the purchasing process. He sells about 18,000 silencers a month.
“I want to create an environment where people understand the real purpose of these devices and that people aren’t using them for nefarious acts,” he said.
Criminals and silencers
Silencer use in crimes is likely to be the focus of the legislative debate later this year.
Gun rights proponents and the silencer industry cite a study showing that in California, from 1995 to 2005, silencers appeared to be used for criminal purposes only 153 times in federal cases.
“Suppressed firearms are clearly not the choice of criminals,” according to a briefing paper by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which is based in Newtown, Conn., and represents gun manufacturers. “The fears and concerns about suppressor ownership and use are unfounded and have not been seen in the over 100-year history of suppressors.”
Gun-control advocates contend that serious crimes are being committed with silencers on guns. Former police officer Christopher Dorner used silencers on an AR-15 and a 9mm handgun during two-day rampage in Los Angeles in 2013.
A serial killer in Vermont used a silencer in the killing of at least one of his 11 victims.
And the planner of a disrupted mass shooting targeting a Masonic temple in Milwaukee last year was charged with possessing a silencer, in addition to other weapons charges.
“They wanted these things so they could kill quietly,” said Rand, of the Violence Policy Center. “The industry wants to make silencers less scary, but they can’t.”
Gun owners such as Trump Jr. can’t understand why people like Rand don’t get it.
In the video, after he’s shown shooting several guns with silencers, Trump Jr. says they can help with getting “little kids into the game.”
“It’s just a great instrument,” he says. “There’s nothing bad about it at all.”
The federal government has strictly limited the sale of firearm silencers for as long as James Bond and big-screen gangsters have used them to discreetly shoot enemies between the eyes.
Now the gun industry, which for decades has complained about the restrictions, is pursuing new legislation to make silencers easier to buy, and a key backer is Donald Trump Jr., an avid hunter and the oldest son of the president-elect, who campaigned as a friend of the gun industry.
The legislation stalled in Congress last year. But with Republicans in charge of the House and Senate and the elder Trump moving into the White House, gun rights advocates are excited about its prospects this year.
They hope to position the bill the same way this time — not as a Second Amendment issue, but as a public-health effort to safeguard the eardrums of the nation’s 55 million gun owners. They even named it the Hearing Protection Act. It would end treating silencers as the same category as machine guns and grenades, thus eliminating a $200 tax and a nine-month approval process.
“It’s about safety,” Trump Jr. explained in a September video interview with the founder of SilencerCo, a Utah silencer manufacturer. “It’s a health issue, frankly.”
Violence prevention advocates are outraged that the industry is trying to ease silencer restrictions by linking the issue to the eardrums of gun owners. They argue the legislation will make it easier for criminals and potential mass shooters to obtain devices to conceal attacks.
“They want the general public to think it’s about hearing aids or something,” said Kristen Rand, the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center. “It’s both a silly and smart way to do it, I guess. But when the general public finds out what’s really happening, there will be outrage.”
The silencer industry and gun rights groups say critics are vastly overstating the dangers, arguing that Hollywood has created an unrealistic image of silencers, which they prefer to call “suppressors.” They cite studies showing that silencers reduce the decibel level of a gunshot from a dangerous 165 to about 135 — the sound of a jackhammer — and that they are rarely used in crimes.
But gun-control activists say silencers are getting quieter, particularly in combination with subsonic ammunition, which is less lethal but still damaging. They point to videos on YouTube in which silencers make high-powered rifles have “no more sound than a pellet gun,” according to one demonstrator showing off a silenced semiautomatic .22LR.
Proponents say that’s not a good way to judge the sound.
“You’re still going to hear the gunfire from far away,” said Knox Williams, president of the American Suppressor Association. “These things are still incredibly loud.”
Even with the restrictions, silencers have become one of the fastest-growing segments of the gun industry, which pushed accessories as gun sales level off. In 2010, there were 285,087 registered silencers. Last year: 902,085.
Rep. Matt Salmon, an Arizona Republican who regularly shoots with silencers, introduced the Hearing Protection Act in the House in 2015. A companion bill in the Senate was championed by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).
Though the bill never made it to committee hearings, it generated tremendous interest, becoming the third most-viewed piece of legislation on Congress’s website last year. (Top was the Democrat-led Assault Weapons Ban of 2015.)
Salmon recently retired, and it’s not clear yet who will reintroduce the measure. The bill had 82 co-sponsors — all but two of them Republicans.
Easing the restrictions could have a profound public-health impact, champions of the legislation say.
Hunters often shoot without hearing protection so they can hear prey moving. Many recreational shooters don’t like wearing ear covers, which can be heavy and hot and in gun ranges lead to many conversations ending with, “I can’t hear you.”
Silencers are also marketed as must-have attachments for high-powered rifles — a tactical necessity that reduces recoil, thus improving aim.
“Quiet guns are easier to shoot,” the National Rifle Association says in its American Rifleman magazine. “Try it.”
Silencer stigma
Silencers were invented in 1908 by Hiram Percy Maxim, a graduate of MIT whose father invented the first fully automatic machine gun. The younger Maxim had a knack for reducing loud noises; he also contributed to the development of the automobile muffler.
“I have always loved to shoot, but I never thoroughly enjoyed it when I knew that the noise was annoying other people,” he said late in life. “It occurred to me one day that there was no need for the noise. Why not do away with it and shoot quietly?”
Maxim solved the problem in the bathtub. He noticed that the water swirled silently down the drain. What if the gases produced from firing a bullet could swirl that way, too? So Maxim put what he called “a whirling tube” on the end of a rifle. It successfully muffled the sound of the gunfire. Soon, the whirling tube was U.S. Patent No. 958,935, titled “Silent Firearm.”
In the 1930s, to curtail gang violence, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, putting restrictions and special taxes on machine guns and other high-powered weapons. Though they hadn’t been used frequently in crimes, silencers were included anyway, reportedly out of concern that poachers would use them to steal food during the Great Depression.
“It’s a very strange tale,” said Stephen Halbrook, a Virginia gun rights attorney who recently published a law review article about the history of silencers. “If you think about it, if [the Occupational Safety and Health Administration] had been around then, they probably would have required people use these things.”
Though silencers are now legal in 42 states, industry officials say the onerous and expensive task of buying them keeps gun owners, particularly hunters, from their preferred method of protecting their hearing.
They frequently point out that Britain, with some of the strictest gun laws in the world, has no restrictions on silencers for many types of firearms.
“There isn’t this negative stigma because of Hollywood that has suppressed — pun intended — the use of suppressors in this country,” said Josh Waldron, the founder of SilencerCo, the Utah manufacturer.
Waldron started his company in 2008 after a career in photography, aiming to educate shooters about the benefits of silencers and to essentially hold buyers’ hands through the purchasing process. He sells about 18,000 silencers a month.
“I want to create an environment where people understand the real purpose of these devices and that people aren’t using them for nefarious acts,” he said.
Criminals and silencers
Silencer use in crimes is likely to be the focus of the legislative debate later this year.
Gun rights proponents and the silencer industry cite a study showing that in California, from 1995 to 2005, silencers appeared to be used for criminal purposes only 153 times in federal cases.
“Suppressed firearms are clearly not the choice of criminals,” according to a briefing paper by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which is based in Newtown, Conn., and represents gun manufacturers. “The fears and concerns about suppressor ownership and use are unfounded and have not been seen in the over 100-year history of suppressors.”
Gun-control advocates contend that serious crimes are being committed with silencers on guns. Former police officer Christopher Dorner used silencers on an AR-15 and a 9mm handgun during two-day rampage in Los Angeles in 2013.
A serial killer in Vermont used a silencer in the killing of at least one of his 11 victims.
And the planner of a disrupted mass shooting targeting a Masonic temple in Milwaukee last year was charged with possessing a silencer, in addition to other weapons charges.
“They wanted these things so they could kill quietly,” said Rand, of the Violence Policy Center. “The industry wants to make silencers less scary, but they can’t.”
Gun owners such as Trump Jr. can’t understand why people like Rand don’t get it.
In the video, after he’s shown shooting several guns with silencers, Trump Jr. says they can help with getting “little kids into the game.”
“It’s just a great instrument,” he says. “There’s nothing bad about it at all.”
Friday, January 6, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)