When the police do stupid things I will criticize them. For example, I think it is a dumb policy to disarm a CCW holder during a traffic stop as a matter of policy. I have discussed this previously so I won’t get into my objections again. Having been employed as a police officer I believe that I am at least somewhat qualified to comment on this issue.

On the other hand, when the police do something correctly I feel compelled to mention that as well.

It is 2 am Wednesday and I have just returned home from a short drive during which I was stopped by a police officer with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

I currently live in an apartment and I am planning to move when my lease is up at the end of this month. Being unable to sleep I decided to go out for a drive around a nearby neighborhood on the far west side of town to see if I could spot any houses with “for rent” signs in the yard.

So, I’m driving around and I end up on a dead end street. As I started to turn around I observed a car approaching from behind but I didn’t have time or room to maneuver before the car got too close to me so I decide to wait until it is clear. I am a bit concerned however, because I am in a secluded spot and I wonder what this car is doing here coming up behind me so fast. As the car gets right up behind me, red and blue lights come on in my mirror.

Well, I know why this police officer lights me up at 1:30 in the morning so I put the car in park, reach for my wallet and place my hands on the steering wheel and wait for the officer to approach me.

The officer, who looked to be in his mid 30’s stepped up behind me and I say “Good morning,” and he asks what I am doing driving around this area. I explain to him that I am looking for houses for rent and advise him that I am armed.

The officer asked where my gun is and I tell him that I have two guns, one on my hip and one in a chest holster under my shirt. He asks if I have a CCW and I said: “You bet.”

At this point I removed my driver’s license and CCW from my wallet and asked if he wanted the registration cards as well. The officer responded that he does not want the registration cards but advised me not to reach for my guns. I told that I would be happy to comply with that. The officer asked if the car is registered in my name, I responded in the affirmative and he then returned to his vehicle.

I was wearing my seat belt, which restricted my access to the guns. I should note that I usually carry a third gun, my “car gun” that I place on the seat next to me but this morning I made a conscious decision not to take that gun with me.

Two or three minutes later the officer returned and gave my license and permit back to me and advised me that he stopped me because I appeared to be suspicious and because kids tend to like to party in the area. I told him that I understand that and thank him.

The officer told me that I could turn my car around after he moved his vehicle away from mine. He told me to have a nice morning and left.

The officer was polite and acted, in my opinion, in a completely professional manner.

The reason that I am writing this account is because I was surprised that I was not asked to exit my vehicle and disarmed.  I recently spoke to another police officer and inquired about LVMPD’s policy of disarming people during traffic stops. The officer told me that this was in fact their policy.

During this conversation, I advised the officer that I was armed and the officer only inquired where the gun was and he wanted to see it. He was satisfied with that. He didn’t even ask to see my permit.

I have had a couple of other conversations with police officers that I initiated. During these conversations, I mentioned that I was armed and the officers were only curious about that fact that I carry full-size Colt pistols. They have quizzed me about my reasons for carrying more than one firearm or why I carry large guns rather than smaller guns, but they did not seem to be concerned that I was armed.

During one such conversation, an officer asked if I always carry a gun. When I responded that I carry three guns. The officer’s response was: “Good man.”

I also have a friend who is a police officer who knows that I carry concealed. Even when we first met he didn’t ask to see my permit.

This encounter this morning is the first time that I was required to produce my carry permit except when I go to a gun show at county owned property.

I suppose that while it is the official policy of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department to disarm people during traffic stops or other encounters with armed people, it appears that at least a few police officers don’t follow that policy.

From my point of view, it isn’t necessary to disarm a person if the officer has any common sense or perhaps I should say, a well developed police officer’s sixth sense. In all the cases in which I have encountered police officers I remained calm, relaxed and polite, I didn’t make any furtive movements, and I was willing to follow their instructions such as “Don’t reach for the guns.” This seems reasonable to me and it seems reasonable that the officers don’t disarm me if I don’t appear to be a threat to them.

I was once told that one’s chances of surviving an encounter with Las Vegas cops was only 50/50. Maybe that estimate should be revised.

I recently read an article at National Review Online concerning the morality and permissibility of torture and what has been called “enhanced interrogation.” Tough Questions

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWM4YmM4ZDcyYWY2MzM5ZTk3ZTk1MjIxZjkxZDY3ODA=&w=MA==

The article was a series of pieces written by several people. As I was reading this article and before I finished I had a thought that was addressed in the next portion of the piece.

Liberals are currently demanding that heads roll for condoning the use of “torture.” While one person mentioned that the definition of what constitutes torture as defined by liberals is questionable.

For example, liberals while invoking the argument about the “morality” of torture don’t have a problem of the immorality of the killing of an unborn child; going so far as to desensitize the public (as well as their own conscience, if they have one) about the procedure, by euphemistically calling it “freedom of choice” while negating the choice of the unborn person’s choice of choosing life if given the opportunity to chose.

Essentially, the writers indicate that doing something that causes pain and mental distress, especially if it results in permanent physical or mental damage should be considered torture and should be avoided.

I am in basic agreement with this. I think that certain acts that are obviously acts of torture are morally wrong. I do however believe that certain occasions require the use of methods of interrogation that we would all consider repugnant. I am certain that I could not bring myself to personally utilize certain methods of interrogation but I for one am glad that there are people willing to do the dirty work that needs to be done.

How far can one go to elicit information from a person who has knowledge of a future act that will result in the deaths of many innocent people?

Since the use, methods and severity of enhanced interrogation procedures have been questioned I would like to address this issue. Let’s remember that the writers mentioned that inflicting permanent damage to body and psyche should be avoided.

To address this issue I would like to relate to you the case of a person I know who experienced treatment that many would consider torture and any permanent damage that may have resulted.

Without getting into the circumstances about how the person came to be in the position that resulted in the person being tortured I will describe a few specific types of torture used as they were relayed to me. If you have a weak constitution you may wish to stop reading now as some of the acts I will describe are graphic in nature.

For several years this person was subjected to mental abuse concerning his manhood and self worth. He was demeaned on a daily basis.

This person was frequently deprived of contact with persons other than his tormentor(s).

He was forced to perform menial and demeaning tasks on a daily basis. From his description I would describe the treatment as being extremely similar to the treatment Paul Newman’s character was subjected to in the movie Cool Hand Luke when Luke was forced to remove dirt from a “hole” and then required to refill the hole.

He was frequently whipped and then forced to display the wounds to his peers.

He was also denied of the use of toilet facilities until he could no longer control his bodily functions and soiled himself as his peers watched on.

During this time he was stripped and his nude body was whipped. On at least on occasion, his testicles were struck causing them to become swelled to “about the size of oranges.” The resulting swelling and discomfort lasted for several days. There was no let up on subsequent abuse.

After several years of this treatment, he was finally able to escape. Today, he is remarkably well adjusted. He stated to me that while he certainly would never desire to experience this torture again, he does not believe that he has suffered any permanent physical damage. He states that even though it took several years to do so he has overcome the mental anguish.

Another person I know who experienced several months of mental and physical abuse actually looks back on the experience with some humor, fondness and nostalgia. I will relate some of those experiences.

One of the first things this person experienced was to have his head shaved and he was de-loused. He was provided clothing that was designed to deprive him of his individuality. All the subsequent mistreatment was designed for effect of removing his individuality and break the person down mentally.

He was forced to walk or run long distances while carrying weight. In this case he was forced to carry objects whose combined weight was more than the person weighed.

He was forced on a daily basis to perform menial, demeaning tasks and to perform strenuous repetitious activities.

On a daily basis he was subjected to being questioned by a person who constantly yelled at him. The questions he was asked never had a correct answer which resulted in further torment.

As an example, he was told that it appeared that he had not shaved that day. When asked if he had shaved he answered in the affirmative. He was then asked if he was implying that his interrogator was a liar.

He was not allowed to speak unless spoken to and then in the most respectful and subservient manner.

He was punished when it was thought that he had committed an infraction of the rules, many of which weren’t known but made up at his tormentor’s whim.

To make matters worse, this torment was condoned by the federal government of the United States and inflicted by agents acting in behalf of the government. During the following years the government has seen fit to discontinue much of this abusive behavior.

I should mention that this second person is my father who experienced these acts of mental and physical abuse while he was in the United States Marine Corps.

I experienced much similar treatment during the time I was in the police academy.

In these cases we came away from all this with a sense of accomplishment and pride.

The point is that people can endure much physical and mental abuse with no lasting negative effects.

Therefore, who is qualified to determine what constitutes torture and what will cause inordinate temporary physical pain or mental anguish or permanent mental or physical damage?

If people can voluntarily endure mental and physical abuse that is much worse than that reportedly inflicted on people who have planned and carried out the murder of thousands of innocent people, certainly it would seem reasonable to use whatever “enhanced interrogation techniques” that are available to induce these same people to provide information that could be used to stop the killing of more innocent people.

If and when we suffer a similar attack will the current administration be asked why they didn’t act to stop it? Will they be asked why they didn’t “connect the dots?” Will they be accused of complicity if not the actual planning and implementation of such an attack?

Recommended reading:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGIzZTEzMDcxZmNkMmQyMGE3OWEyZDIwY2YwNTBhYjE=

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTZhZjVlMmJhYzBjMWJjZDVlMDk3ZjM0NGRiMTEwNjg=

Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security, Office of Intelligence and Analysis has put out a report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

This report specifies that certain people or groups who, for example, are single issue voters, who believe that the nation’s borders should be secure, that individuals who believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an inherent right and believe that the federal government has grown to oppressive proportions are a threat to the country and are domestic terrorists.

All of this with no evidence to support any of these assertions.

What, then, is the purpose and intent of such a report? All of the possible reasons for issuing a report of this nature are too numerous to list and would be mere speculation on my part.

The result, while also being a matter of speculation is probably predictable. This report may be a case of a self-fulfilling prophecy. When one looks for enemies one is bound to find them.

In my opinion, this report was written and released not as a warning about domestic terrorists, but to incite a negative response from the type of individuals and/or groups listed in the report.

Will the report have their desired response? I hope that it does not. I do however hope that it generates a response from the outraged people targeted in the report.

I urge people who believe that it was pointless to write or call the elected representatives of this country to express their concern or even outrage at being singled out as a potential terrorist.

Further, I urge freedom-loving people to join and/or contribute their time and money to the National Rifle Association (NRA), Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and/or the Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CKRKBA) even if you aren’t a gun owner but especially if you are.

What about the real threat to the country?

I find it hard to believe that the liberal socialists on the left (and even some on the right) consider a little water in the face to be torture.

I’ve read about how people have been tortured and waterboarding doesn’t live up to the definition of torture. Apparently, our own military personnel are routinely subjected to this technique to prepare them if they are captured and tortured.

I wonder how the pampered liberals will feel when we are attacked again, or when we’re running out of fuel and food?

Higgins: Oil now. In 10 or 15 years . . . food, plutonium, and maybe even sooner. 

What do you think the people are going to want us to do then?

Turner: Ask them.

Higgins: Not now. Then. Ask them when they're running out. 

Ask them when there's no heat and they're cold. Ask them when their engines stop. 

Ask them when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. 

Want to know something? They won't want us to ask them. 

They'll just want us to get it for them. - Three Days of the Condor





Recommended Reading:



Are you licensed to reload that ammo?


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95733



Court: 2nd Amendment trumps local gun limits

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95767






For bonus points, can you identify the firearm pictured in the second article?

I am sick and tired of people who call you unpatriotic if you debate this administration’s policies. We are Americans and have the right to participate and debate any administration. ~ Hillary Clinton, April 29, 2003

The above statement should be read with a loud, piercing, shrill voice.

“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia’, the ’security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms’, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
John F. Kennedy, April 1960

“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." -- John F. Kennedy

In the past, on numerous occasions, I have heard the argument presented that we don’t need firearms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government because our government, the federal government of the United States would never turn against us.

I have heard it said that gun owners are paranoid to believe that our federal government would turn against us.

Well, I have to say that now our so-called paranoia has been justified.

I believe it is safe to say that the federal government has officially become the tyrannical government that we warned about.

The Department of Homeland Security, Office of Intelligence and Analysis has put out a report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," which, I dare say, defines half of the country as radical extremists whose activity must be monitored to ensure the safety of the country.

After all the condemnations from the socialist liberals on the left about government spying on citizens of the United States, these same socialists, now in power, are using that very power to spy on citizens of the United States. And we’re not talking about naturalized people, we’re talking about Americans born and raised here. We’re talking about people who have sacrificed in the military to defend our freedom.

We now have the most liberal, socialist person ever in the White House. Congress is controlled by socialist liberals and they intend to make the most of it.

If you support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States, including the 1^st, 2^nd and 10^th Amendments; if you object to an ever growing out of control government; if you have conservative or libertarian beliefs on certain social issues, you may consider yourself to be a radical extremist.

Consider yourself on notice.

State after state has adopted some version of the “Castle Doctrine.”

Recently, State of Nevada Assemblyman Mortenson introduced AB288, Nevada’s version of the Castle Doctrine. Now, we find that Judiciary Committee Chairman Bernie Anderson is holding up this bill.

Nevada is one of a handful of states that have traditionally been fairly friendly when it comes to gun owners. One wonders why Bernie Anderson would desire to deprive honest, law-abiding people of this important piece of legislation.

I urge you to contact your state legislators, members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee and Barbara Buckley in support of AB288 and ask them to bring this bill up for a full hearing and urge them to pass this bill.

Be polite but be firm.

Barbara Buckley’s email: bbuckley@asm.state.nv.us

Bernie Anderson’s email: banderson@asm.state.nv.us

Harry Mortenson’s email: hmortenson@asm.state.nv.us

Nevada State Assembly contact list:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Legislators/Assembly/alist.cfm

Resources:

http://www.gonv.org/alert040109.htm

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm

I like Colt Semi-auto handguns, a lot. During the mid 70’s I purchased a Colt Gold Cup, Combat Commander, two Government Models, one blue and one nickel and a .22 conversion unit which I eventually mounted on a dedicated frame.

One day my wife asked me; “Why do you have so many guns that are the same and what’s the big deal with the guns anyway?”

I proceeded to explain to her the difference between the five guns (I couldn’t really explain why I had two identical High Standard Sentinel revolvers). It’s not that she objected to the guns, she just didn’t understand the fascination I had for the different guns I owned.

As to “What’s the big deal” I invited her to go with me the next time I went shooting.

When we arrived at my favorite shooting location we set up on a table that someone had constructed out in the middle of nowhere. This table was an old door that had been attached to four-4x4’s that had been put in the ground. Someone had actually gone to the trouble of digging post holes and placing the 4x4’s in the holes and nailed the door to it. It was nice until some nimrod decided to shoot the door to pieces.

I started her off with a .22 High Standard Supermatic Trophy. I showed her how to load the magazine, safety on and off, mag release, and instructed her in the safety rules, you know, the basic stuff: don’t shoot me, don’t shoot yourself. I shot a couple of cans of cheap beer, a ten pound block of ice and a watermelon so she could get an idea what a bullet, even a small one would do to an object.

As a side note, it was rather impressive to see what a .44 magnum round will do to a block of ice. You get shaved ice.

She shot the .22 for a while and then asked what was next. She proceeded to shoot the Colt Detective Special, the S&W M-66 with .38’s and .357’s, the Government Model and the Gold Cup. Up to that point she decided that she rather liked the Colts. “So, what’s next?” she asked.

Now, keep in mind that my wife weighed at most 105 lbs., so I was concerned about letting her shoot the .44’s but she wanted to try them. I loaded the Super Blackhawk with .44 specials before moving up to the magnums and the M-29 and the Automag. I fired a few rounds so she would see what kind of recoil to expect and I told her to hold on to the gun and don’t drop it.

After shooting a few rounds from one gun she would ask: OK, what’s next?”

My wife seemed to be gratified that she was able to hit the targets. She listened to my instruction and attempted to put everything I had told her into her shooting.

One type of target I set up were a series of balloons. We found that these reactionary targets were fun to shoot. Balloons are an especially good target for beginners as the balloons instantly disappear when hit. It tends to reinforce the novice shooters confidence.

After we had shot several hundred rounds and were finished for the day she stated that she enjoyed the Colts but liked the Automag the most. It was a big, two-handed gun but the recoil was manageable.

During the drive home she looked at me and said: “OK, I get it.”

I never had to go shooting alone after that.

Recently, I read some comments on KABA.com about reports concerning people who were legally carrying a concealed firearm being stopped by the police and disarmed during the encounter.

Other than to say I oppose the practice of disarming a citizen during a traffic stop I’m not discussing that aspect of this issue.

What I am going to discuss are the inherent dangers of the practice.

First, I called my local police department to ask what their position is concerning encounters involving legally armed people. Remember that when stopped, if you have a concealed carry permit and you are armed, you must inform the police officer of same.

I was told that it is their policy, a procedure taught in the academy, is to require the permit holder to surrender the firearm; the officer will unload the firearm and the permit holder is allowed to place the firearm in the trunk of his vehicle.

After the encounter, the permit holder may then drive to another location “down the street to a parking lot” and retrieve the firearm from the trunk.

I find a couple of serious problems with this procedure.

My first concern is excessive handling of a firearm is inherently dangerous. The concept of carrying a loaded, concealed firearm is this: once placed in a holster it really shouldn’t be removed unless you are planning to use the gun or are disarming at the end of the day. I don’t even like the idea that the firearm may have to be removed periodically during the day but there are instances when it must be done.

Next, many people are a bit nervous when stopped by the police. After all, the cops stopped you because you committed a traffic violation (otherwise you wouldn’t have been stopped, correct?) and you are probably going to receive a traffic citation, which is going to result in a fine and increased insurance rate.

So, now a police officer is going to request a possibly nervous person to hand over his loaded firearm. This is an accident just waiting to happen.

Further, I don't like the idea of handing someone a loaded firearm. This goes against firearm safety rules. Now when I go to the gun show at Cashman there are cops inside the door who check guns being brought into the building. When I check mine I carefully raise my shirttail, carefully remove the already unloaded firearm from the holster, carefully lock the slide back and then hand it the officers. They've never commented on this procedure.

Another scenario is that the officer will remove the firearm from the holster himself. This is even worse. The officer is at an awkward angle in relation to the firearm, he is removing an unfamiliar firearm from an unfamiliar holster.

Further, from an officer safety standpoint, the officer is in extremely close and dangerous proximity to the person he is disarming. I don’t have any idea how often this may occur but the concept is frightening.

In my opinion the best policy is to ascertain if the CCW holder is armed; find out where the gun is; tell the CCW holder to leave it there and don’t reach for it then proceed with the ticket.

Consider this: The permit holder is obviously a law-abiding individual. That is apparent due to the fact that he has already undergone a background check was issued the permit to carry a concealed firearm. Doesn’t it seem unlikely that the permit holder will take this opportunity to use the firearm illegally by shooting a cop?

At this point the officer is in possession of another person’s firearm.

I now have more concerns. It has been my experience that far too many police officers simply are not familiar with all the types of firearms available.

As an example this story was told to my academy class: A police officer was arresting a subject and during a search found a High Standard derringer concealed on the subject. The officer removed said firearm and placed the derringer in his waistband. The High Standard derringer does not have a trigger guard, however, it generally has a stiff trigger, meaning that you really have to pull the trigger hard and you really want to fire it before it will discharge.

This was not the case in this instance. As the officer was placing the derringer in his waist band, pushing the trigger against his duty belt, the gun discharged. The officer was wounded and lost a body part as a result.

Contrary to popular belief cops are not firearms experts.

The police officer now has possession of your firearm and he is going to attempt to unload it and then return it to you.

In the case of a 1911 style firearm, this is the process: Ensure that the safety is engaged; extract the magazine by depressing the magazine release button and remove the magazine from the magazine well of the firearm; with the magazine in one had or in a pocket, disengage the safety and retract the slide thereby ejecting a live round from the chamber, lock the slide back in the open position while attempting not to drop the live round. All of this should be done without pointing it at anyone. We are also assuming that the officer leaves the slide in the locked back position. We aren’t even considering that he didn’t release the slide into the in-battery position and lowering the hammer, which in itself is easy to do if you are an experienced firearms handler, but a dangerous thing to do.

This takes ten times longer (or more) to describe than it takes to accomplish. All this is done without a negligent discharge. Whew! No one was injured this time.

Now, according to my local police department the firearm will then be placed in the trunk of the traffic violator’s car (we’re assuming a sedan or coupe).

Business is completed; the grateful, nervous citation recipient is allowed to go on his way. He then pulls into a parking lot of a grocery store, gets out of the car, opens the trunk, reloads his firearm and places it in his holster.

Shoppers now see a man loading a gun in a parking lot and call the cops. Cops respond and surround the car, with firearms drawn and pointed at our poor losing contestant.

Does this sound like a safe thing? In my opinion, based on years of handling firearms, this is an extremely unsafe procedure.

If you think I am mistaken about cop’s firearms handling experience consider the following:

When I attended the police academy I was required to ride along with an experienced officer during my training. It didn’t matter that I had been on patrol for several months prior to attending the academy I still had to experience a ride along as part of the academy curriculum.

Prior to the ride-a-long, the officer ran me for warrants. The printout showed that I owned several firearms. One of the firearms I owned was a Smith & Wesson model 66.

During the ride-a-long the officer asked if I owned all those guns (I only owned thirty-five guns at the time). I stated that I did. The officer then stopped the car (we were in a residential area) and stated that he carried an S&W M-66. He then withdrew the revolver from his holster to show it to me.

Holding the revolver across his lap, he cocked the gun. Then, instead of placing his thumb on the hammer to lower it, he simply pulled the trigger. The impact of the bullet into the door shattered the driver side window.

Oops.

The officer’s left hand was on the steering wheel so the bullet traveled just under his elbow into the door.

Needles to say, the blast startled both of us. Later the officer stated to me that he thought that he had placed his thumb on the hammer prior to squeezing the trigger. I told him that I was watching as he squeezed the trigger and that his thumb was not on the hammer.

This was a case of unnecessarily handling a firearm which resulted in a negligent discharge.

The officer received a day off without pay for having damaged the vehicle. I had to write a report for my academy CO. Everyone had heard about the incident. My classmates razzed me as if I had been the one who negligently discharged a firearm.

The point again is that cops aren’t firearms experts and accidents happen, even with cops.

Accidental and negligent discharges occur often enough that there is a product available that is designed to stop a bullet when a gun is being handled during the unloading process and an unintended discharge occurs.

When I remove my firearm from the holster at the end of the day I place it in another holster for overnight storage. I only unload the gun once a week during the weekend for cleaning and inspection (this does not include range practice). I do not go through the process of unloading every evening and reloading in the morning in order to avoid unnecessary or excessive handling of a loaded firearm.

When I worked for the police department my partner and I would go to the range at least twice per month, although we weren’t required to qualify with our firearms but twice per year. We enjoyed shooting but our main concern was maintaining our shooting skills. Besides, we could shoot as much as we desired as the department provided all the ammo, at least for department approved service weapons. Further, we attended every training class that was scheduled by our department.

During this time my department scheduled training classes presented by the FBI. These guys were pretty cool. For one class they brought out a full-auto Colt Carbine and an HK MP5SD. They even provided all the ammo.

I attended that FBI semi-auto and full-auto class; a firearms combat class; an officer survival class; and a night shooting class. During the night shooting class, at one point, all the lights were turned off, even the patrol unit lights that we had been using to light up the dark range. We shot with just the headlights on, then with the red & blues on before turning off all the lights.

I can’t say enough about maintaining one’s shooting skills. Many of the officers with my department balked about having to qualify on the range twice per year. I probably did some shooting every weekend. I still hit the range frequently thirty some years later.

I figure since I carry a concealed firearm every day every place I go (and I don’t go places my firearm is not allowed if I can help it) I must continually maintain my shooting skills, especially since I am getting older and my eyesight is a bit weaker, not to mention a somewhat slower response time.

I figure that if I end a person’s life with a firearm, I want to be able to justify my decision and ability so maintaining my skill with a firearm is crucial.

I do make every effort to avoid encounters that might result in a shooting however, I don’t have a problem using a firearm in defense of my life. But I am not looking forward to dealing with the aftermath.

As a side note, I don’t generally keep my targets, at least not for very long (I’ll explain why I have kept some for a short time at a later date). While you want to practice to maintain your skills let’s not leave lying around targets that have the X ring completely drilled. Also, we don’t want to have targets with excessive head shots around just waiting for someone to use against you after a shooting.

Now days many more people carry a concealed weapon and to those people I would say to them that as important as training is there is something more important to deal with and that is carrying a concealed firearm and the will to use it when the times arrives. It seams to me that one’s mindset and the desire to live should be a major consideration when deciding to carry concealed and one’s life is threatened.

In my opinion, (and remember that I am not an attorney) when confronted with a situation that is going to end with you shooting a bad guy in order to stay alive my best advice is to shoot. Shoot now and deal with the aftermath later. Don’t hesitate because you are concerned with being arrested and/or sued.

Make no mistake, you may be arrested and you probably will be sued. At least you are alive.

As my training officer told me, my main job is to go home alive at the end of my shift. Today I believe my first responsibility to myself is to go home alive every day. That should be your main responsibility to yourself and your family, too.

So, get your mind right about shooting and probably killing a person long before the need to shoot arises and don’t stop training.

One almost can’t avoid a news story today about the recent dramatic increase in firearms and ammunition sales.

The reason for this as told by almost every gun store owner interviewed is that people “fear” that O bama and Congress will ban certain firearms.

I don’t agree with that reason. I don’t think people “fear” that the government will ban some firearms. Certainly many people are buying firearms because they believe that the government will ban those guns however, I believe that should be interpreted as “The people have spoken and you should listen.”

One must ask oneself really why are people buying guns that may be banned if not to be prepared for whatever is coming?

The way things are shaping up one of the comments that every anti gun nut uses as a reason why it is stupid to buy guns to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government (because OUR government is benign and wouldn’t turn on us) may be coming to pass.

A friend had this to say:

    The nonsense I am used to hearing about using firearms to defend ourselves from the government are usually one of three:

1. We have no need/or right to defend ourselves from the government

  (They forget that the people/subjects of Germany, Cambodia, and Colonial America all felt the same at one time)

2. Personally owned firearms are of no use against a modern military

  (The purpose of the Liberator pistol was to shoot a soldier and take his weapon. History is full of examples of partisans holding off significantly larger, better armed troops)

3. You have no legitimate need for 'Assault Weapons' to defend yourself.

  (In this scenario I could think of nothing, short of maybe an SBR, that I would rather have).

Also, with an economic collapse as a possibility, anarchy could be the result. Doesn’t it seem reasonable to prepare for that eventuality? If that were to happen there will be people who will stop at nothing to take from you what you have, whether it is food, water, gasoline or anything else they can take. They might take from the unprepared.

Some of us are prepared to defend what is ours; the items we will need to survive.

As an aside, while I’m not hoping for the criminal element to run rampant, at least then we may have an opportunity to thin the herd and rid ourselves of the scum who would prey on others.

But, back to the government; I truly hope all the morons ruining, uh, running the country are paying attention.

From Rick Santelli and the rest of us peace loving, law-abiding people, the morons are being told enough is enough. The tea party is about to begin. Just keep pressing the people and we may have to bring back tar and feathers and a rail to run them out of town on.

So, to the morons I say, go ahead, just try to disarm us. Go ahead and just try to impose the so-called “fairness doctrine.” Go ahead and keep raising our taxes but remember that this country was born –at least in part – as the result of an attempt to disarm the people and taxes on tea and the Stamp Act and an oppressive government.

Please see the links below for details of the stamp act, the Boston Tea party and the relatively small amounts of the taxes imposed.

http://www.history.org/history/teaching/tchcrsta.cfm

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/stampact.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765

http://www.chicagocoinclub.org/projects/PiN/ted.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act

The arrogance and conceit of the fools in the government is stunning. We’ve had enough. The people are saying “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore.” It’s about time.

Today, I spoke to a person in my representative’s office. I told this female, lady type person that I would like to express my opposition to the recent comments of Attorney General Eric Holder about banning certain type of firearms and ammunition.

The woman’s first response when I mentioned Eric Holder was “Who?” You gotta love that. Someone in my representative’s office didn’t know who the Attorney General was.

I was told that part of the law that Eric Holder wants would prohibit military personnel returning from Iraq who has exhibited signs of PTSD from obtaining firearms.

The law would also beef up background checks. These checks would include medical/psychological records, out-of-country criminal activity, determining age, domestic violence and restraining orders, among a number of other things.

As to my comments about banning armor piercing ammunition I was told that this would only affect ammo that could pierce police body armor. I mentioned that this would include common rifle/hunting ammo. I was told that this ammo would be banned and that possession of same would be illegal.

I asked how I would be able to shoot my .30-06 and .308 rifles. The answer to this question and my response was rather perplexing. First, I was told to stock up now. I responded that possession of such ammo would be illegal if banned and if I obtained banned ammo I would be committing a crime. The person’s response to that was: “Are you saying you’re going to commit a crime, because if you are, this is a congressional phone line and I have to report it.”

So, in one breath I’m told to stock up prior to the ban and in the next I’m told that would be committing a crime. Oddly enough, the lady stated that her husband, a hunter, had the same concerns about ammo that we all have.

The woman I spoke with indicated that she would forward by email a copy of the proposed AWB.

As to the ammo ban, I would have to contact the AG’s office to obtain a copy of the proposed law. When I called his office I was met with a recording that stated that I should leave a recorded comment. One isn’t able to reach a real live person by phone.

So, it seems that many of us could become criminals overnight if the O bama administration has it’s way and bans rifles and rifle ammo.

There was a time when I didn’t have a use for revolvers. I was a confirmed semi-auto man.

Then a movie with a character using a .44 magnum S&W hit the theaters. I, like everyone else had to have a .44 mag, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off. However, at the time, those big Smith revolvers were expensive and hard to come by. Therefore, the obvious choice was to purchase a single action Ruger New Model Super Blackhawk.

My Ruger was a “liberty” model with the roll mark on the barrel indicating that this revolver had been manufactured in the 200^th year of American liberty.

Oh, how I loved the feel of the .44 magnum when fired.

A couple of years later I did acquire a Smith & Wesson M-29. This was a beautiful gun with the traditional and legendary polished blue finish with an 8 3/8” barrel and target everything; grips, trigger and hammer.

Although the big Smith was previously owned it looked to be unused but without a box and the usual accouterments. As I recall I paid a reasonable price.

A few years earlier I began reading a series of books featuring a main character who utilized a .44 Automag pistol in his effort to destroy organized crime. As soon as I read about the .44 Automag I vowed to have one.

I finally found a used one at a gun store in San Bernardino. It came with the original plastic case, everything included as it came from the factory. Also included were two sets of dies; one for forming .44AMP cases and one for loading .44 AMP ammo. There was even an almost full box of original CDM ammunition.

The cost was $650.00. I didn’t have $650.00 so I had to resort to lay-away. Even after three months I didn’t have the money to pay for the Automag so I refinanced my Volkswagon and took out a loan to pay for it.

All my friends and family thought I was nuts to pay that much money for a gun. Little did any of us know what that gun would be worth thirty years later.

The Automag tended to be a bit finicky about the ammo it would accept, but I enjoyed shooting it. It came with a 7 ½” barrel, no vented rib. Very attractive gun.

I found that Lee Jurras had some sort of Automag owners association so I joined. I received a certificate of membership, a large brassard and 4 or 5 newsletters. I still have the certificate and shoulder patch. I wish I still had the gun.

Back in 2001 I found one for sale listed in the paper in Las Vegas. It was new and unfired with all the goodies and some extras. This one was made in El Monte with a 6” vented rib barrel. I paid three times more for this one than I paid for the first one.

But this gun had a 6” barrel and I wanted one with the 7 ½” barrel. I found online an Automag with a Lee Jurras barrel. I emailed the seller and indicated that I didn’t want that barrel and asked if he would be willing to sell it without the barrel. The seller advised me that would be great because he had already sold the barrel. He also stated that the gun came with plastic imitation wood grips. I bought it figuring I could find a barrel.

It turned out that the grips weren’t plastic but really nice burl wood grips.

I then located a 7 ½” barrel being sold by one of the former engineers for Automag. I checked and the receiver and barrel were manufactured in the same facility and the serial number range matched.

Now I have not one but two Automags.

I also now own two nickel plated M-29 revolvers, with 6” and 8 3/8” barrels, three Ruger Super Blackhawks and a Colt Anaconda. I really love big .44’s

Nevada Castle Law

Assemblyman Harry Mortenson (D) has introduced BDR 15-255, which, if passed, will provide Nevadans with the legal protection against criminal and civil liability after a legal shooting.

Please contact the assemblyman at: hmortenson@asm.state.nv.us to express your support of this bill.

Nevada CCW Laws

In the state of Nevada, when one applies for a CCW one must demonstrate proficiency with the firearm one intends to carry. Until the last legislative session (2007) a person had to do this for every firearm he intended to carry. Currently, this only applies to semi-automatic firearms.

For example, if you want to carry your Colt Anaconda and/or S&W M-29, you need only demonstrate your proficiency with one of those guns. On your CCW there will be have a notation that you are “Revolver Authorized” indicating that you can either gun and your Colt Python and S&W M-686.

But, if you want to be able to carry you Colt Gold Cup and your Colt Government Model and your Kimber you must demonstrate proficiency with all three by shooting all three on the range.

As we all know, these three handguns are essentially the same. It doesn’t make sense to have to shoot all three guns.

Further, this bill will eliminate the caliber restriction as well. If this bill passes I will be able to carry either my Colt Combat Commander .45acp or my Colt Combat Commander .38 super without the need to qualify with both. This would also allow me to carry my 10mm Colt Delta Gold Cup or my Walther P-22.

If you live in Nevada I urge you to email Assemblyman James Settelmeyer (jsettelmeyer@asm.state.nv.us) and express your support for this bill.

The text of these bills is not yet available on the Nevada Legislature web site (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/). When it is available I urge all Nevadans to visit the web sight and express your opinion and support of both of these bills at:

(https://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/opinions/Poll/?CFID=1996972&CFTOKEN=44034316)

Next, if we can get a Vermont/Alaska style concealed carry law and eliminate the Clark County handgun registration law we would be in pretty good shape. Although, helping Harry Reid find another job would be a good thing, too.

In the mid 1970’s I acquired a Colt .22 conversion unit that I placed on one of my Series 70 Colt Government Model pistols because it is cheaper to shoot 22’s than 45’s.

I soon found that I wanted a dedicated 22 and keep my Government Model the 45 that it was.

I checked with my local gun store (no longer in existence, originally called THRESHERS SPORTING GOODS, later becoming C&H Sports Supply) about purchasing a Colt frame for the conversion unit. I was informed that I couldn’t get a Colt frame but they could order a frame from another company.

That frame was made by another defunct company called VEGA. The Vega frame was stainless steel, one of the first stainless 1911 frames available. I then proceeded to purchase all the small parts to build a .22 caliber 1911.

At the time there weren’t many, if any, stainless 1911 parts being made so I had to be satisfied with a stainless frame with a blue slide and small parts.

I have never liked two-tone guns but what could one do? Eventually, I sold the conversion unit (wish I hadn’t) but I kept the Vega frame with all the smaller parts.

I held on to that Vega frame until 2000 when I decided to build a .45 auto. I obtained a blue Para-Ordinance slide and a mil spec barrel.

Still I didn’t like two-tone guns so I found a stainless Colt Government Model slide at a gun show. I traded the Para slide for it. The Colt slide was marked “Government Model” but it had a flat top and forward slanted cocking grooves with fixed sights. It looked too much like a Gold Cup to be a Government Model. I wanted a round top slide.

Around this time I found a Colt Gold Cup Elite, with a stainless frame and blue slide. I still don’t like two-tone guns so I put the stainless slide on the Colt frame. Now I had an all stainless .45 but I also now had a blue slide and I still had the Vega frame with no slide. Additionally, I had a Colt Gold Cup frame with a fixed sight Government Model slide on it.

So, back to online auctions. I found a complete stainless Gold Cup upper which I purchased. I paid more for this upper than I paid for a new Gold Cup back in the 70’s. I installed the flat top slide on the Vega frame and I finally had an all stainless .45; two in fact.

However, I now had a blue Colt Gold Cup slide. What to do? Well, of course you buy a carbon steel frame from Caspian. This I did but it didn’t look quite like a Gold Cup without the wide Gold Cup trigger. I took the whole kit and caboodle to Kings Gun Works in Glendale, California where they cut the frame for the wide trigger. They also did a nice trigger job. I added a set of cocobolo grips that I made myself. It is as good as any real Gold Cup.

More recently I acquired another stainless Gold Cup upper and two more Colt Government Model slides, one nickel and one blue.

Again, I ordered frames from Caspian and built two more nice Government Model guns.

I have built twelve 1911 style guns since the seventies and rebuilt the Vega gun several times.

As you can tell I am very fond of the 1911.

I also like P-08’s or Lugers. I haven’t had one since the mid 80’s and I thought I might like another. The problem was I didn’t want to pay for a valuable gun because I wanted a shooter.

Once more I resorted to that online auction site and acquired the parts to build a Luger. Actually, I bought enough parts to build one in 9mm and one in .30 Luger, just because.

I took all the parts to my gunsmith (Ray Lynn) for bluing. Now I have a couple of nice shooters and the time I spent building them kept me off the streets.

So, if you need a gunsmith in Las Vegas, see Ray Lynn. If you need quality gun parts for that do-it-yourself project, give Caspian and Kings a call.

You might also like to visit me at:

http://davemcphail.tripod.com/zenoknivesoflasvegas/id3.html

I really should open my own gunsmith shop but it will have to wait till I become wealthier than I am. Anyone have any investment capital?

While I am no Skeeter Skelton (besides, who could turn a phrase like Skeeter?) I am a frustrated gun writer, meaning I would love to be able to write for one of the popular firearms periodicals. Since this is unlikely I thought I would regale you with some of my experiences with firearms during the last forty years

I hope you enjoy this on-going series of recollections.

I was 16 years old when I received my first firearm, a .45 auto. It came with a Colt slide and an aluminum frame the make of which has long since been forgotten.

The first firearm I purchased when I turned 17 was an old Mossberg M-151 with the Mannlicher style stock. I paid $75.00 for it.

Times certainly have changed since then. I recall that I hitched a ride home, some 15 miles away, carrying my new rifle. Further, there was no background check or waiting period for rifles at that time.

The gun was manufactured around 1948 but was in great shape. I promptly purchased a Weaver scope for the Mossberg.

I thought it would be a good idea to mark the second Mossberg so I proceeded to carve my initials into the stock. Further, I decided that it would look better if it was “sporterized” so I removed the forward part of the stock and attempted to reshape the stock. I never completed the job and as I grew older I regretted butchering my rifle.

Then, in 2003 a co-worker introduced me to on-line auctions and I was able to find another stock, less the forward part. Since I still owned the forward portion I installed it on the newly acquired stock and was able to restore my Mossberg to its original condition. This included the hood over the front sight –which has a couple of different front sight posts to chose from—as well as a rear sight mounted at the rear of the barrel and a peep sight at the rear of the receiver which can be rotated 90 degrees to give clearance for the barrel mounted sight.

My Mossberg also has the original sling swivels which are becoming more difficult to find and when they can be found are a bit pricey.

I like the Mossberg M-151 so much that I purchased another one in 2000. I happened across it at a gun store in Southern California. It wasn’t as complete as my original M-151 but I was able to replace some of the missing parts from an on-line auction site that no longer allows the listing of most firearms parts. I installed my original Weaver scope on the second rifle.

It was 37 years ago that I purchased the first Mossberg .22 rifle. During that time I have parted with some guns but this one I still have.

Five or six years ago my dad gave me an old Remington Nylon 66 .22 rifle. The 66 had seen better days. The butt plate had been broken and part of it was missing. The stock, being made of a synthetic material was severely scratched and was in need of replacement.

Again I turned to on-line auctions as a source of replacement parts. I located what is called a “new, old stock” stock.

For a reasonable sum I was able to return the Remington to near new condition. What’s more, I listed the old, damaged stock on-line and it sold for more than I paid for the nicer replacement stock. Such a deal.

About the time I received the Remington, A friend presented me with the really nasty looking piece of rust. It somewhat resembled a rifle receiver with a bolt and barrel. After removing the rust, an extremely time consuming process, I found that it was in fact a receiver and barrel. In fact it was what was left of someone’s attempt to sporterize a Springfield 1903A3 rifle. I figured this would be an interesting project that would six to twelve months to complete.

Once again I searched on line for parts to restore this old rifle. The first thing I did was obtain a manual for the rifle so I could determine which parts I would need; then I began acquiring parts.

I determined that the barrel had been cut off just behind the front sight so a new barrel was needed. I found a new 1942 barrel and took everything to a local gunsmith (Ray Lynn) who replaced the barrel and blued the barrel and receiver.

After seeing how nice the newly blued receiver and barrel looked, I began purchasing the remaining parts required to restore this old rifle.

In about two months time I was able to completely restore the old rifle. It is quite a nice shooter. I am extremely pleased with the end result. I am also pleased that I was able to salvage a rifle that may have been tossed in the trash. If it hadn’t been for the fact that my friend knew of my interest in working on firearms it may have been consigned to the landfill.

Certainly, it isn’t an original 1903A3 but at least some aspect of history was saved and restored.

LE & CONCEALED CARRY/OPEN CARRY

I just read about two cases in which a police officer disarmed people who were legally carrying a firearm.

http://www.metrospirit.com/index.php?cat=11011612083586983&ShowArticle_ID=11011712084357501

If one has a permit to carry, or open carry is legal, why disarm someone? From a purely officer safety standpoint, I must say that I would have probably done the same when I was a cop and I expect an officer to request that I hand over my firearm if I were to be stopped for any reason. I don’t like it but I would comply.

When I was on patrol I routinely took possession of knives when I was questioning someone. However, I had reason other than the knife to stop the person. Interestingly, I never encountered a person with a firearm.

Further, I am conflicted concerning open carry. Doing so is inviting cops to shake you just to see what falls out. You have to expect it, especially when younger, less experienced cops are involved. Inexperienced cops tend to be overly cautious and lack a well developed sixth sense. It comes with experience. Plus, some cops just don't like it that anyone who ain't a cop is armed.

I also know that cops fabricate probable cause. In fact, cops lie about probable cause. I’ve seen it done and it has happened to me.

Unfortunately, most people become nervous when they see an armed person in public. I’ve seen it happen here in Vegas. I’ve also seen armed people totally ignored. But, if no one carries openly the general public will never get used to it.

If you carry openly, you are naïve if you don’t think the cops are gonna shake you down.

GUNS AND AMMO GETTING SMALLER

I don’t go anyplace unarmed these days. As I get older and more out of shape I am not as confident in my ability to overcome greater force.

I carry a really big gun with big bullets. Having been in law enforcement I carried a lot more stuff on my duty belt than I have to carry around now. So, a full size semi-auto loading pistol doesn’t seem all that heavy to me. I actually don’t notice the weight until it isn’t there. Of course, without all the other stuff as ballast I had to learn to avoid walking in circles.

I am a big advocate of the bigger the better school of thought. So are most of the gunriters I read.

So why is everyone so darned excited about all these little, itsy bitsy, teeny tiny pocket guns with rounds almost too small to hold and insert in the mag? Huh? What’s up with that?

I figure if you use a large caliber, if you miss a little you’ll probably still hit something vital.

VIOLENCE AND FORCE

Have you heard these neurotic anti-gun nuts talking about how using violence doesn’t help matters?

Overcoming violence with whatever means necessary or at hand is not violence.

Violence is when a bad guy attempts to do me harm or does in fact do me harm. If I stop the bad guy’s violent behavior with a double tap to the chest, that is utilizing force. I suppose if I was furiously angry and yelling obscenities as I was placing lead on target and kicked the guy when he was down that might be considered violent.