August 20, 2005


I've been slack in responding to some comments left by readers. This is inexcusable since I have some very bright readers who either ask questions deserving of an answer or offer insights that I may have missed. To give you an example here's part of one left by the lovely, talented & accurate Miss Annika:

"i read through all the laws and it seems to me that Cali's gun safety laws are specifically designed to prevent anyone from using a gun for their own safety."


But on to the comments, in no particular order:

"I wish you would put a better stocked Garand at the top of your page. I grimace every time I see that cheap-looking, laminated stock. Yeah, I know they're more functional, but it looks like something Ruger would put on a 10/22. Reminds me of last ditch, Nazi Mausers too.
An honest piece of walnut would be much more palatable."

Chas left that in response to this post about my restocking the Garand.

Chas, beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. I can appreciate a nicely figured piece of walnut. I oft visit DGR (whose motto is: "Life's too short to shoot an ugly gun") just to drool over their bastogne hybrid walnut stocks. But I like the looks of the laminate stock as well. What's more important to me is that the laminate is going to be more stable than walnut or birch or cherry or any other natural wood stock. With the poly I put on it I'd assume it's really close to being as stable as a synthetic stock. & yes; I could have just went synthetic but I don't like the looks or feel of them. Laminate for me was an acceptable compromise. I know my zero isn't going to shift to any depreciable degree because of the weather. Since I've been known to shoot in the rain that makes for a little more piece of mind. But I assume you know all this? If you don't like the way my stock looks that's cool. I'm not going to change it to suit your preferences (nor would I expect you to do the same if our situation was reversed) but I'll be happy to shoot the breeze with you about it & your objections to it.

In response to this post about city level "AWB's Brass adds the following:

"Vail, CO has their own assault weapon ban as well. As an aside, a couple of years ago I was looking in the window of one of the Saab cop cars the police used to drive up here and what should I see? Not the usual shot gun, but an MP5 with full select fire capability. Turns out that police department has several as well as a bunch of real assualt rifles. Who new I was living in such a dangerous area."

Very interesting, no?

When I posted about the Columbus AWB Distinguished Reader Robert left a suggestion:

"So I wonder, just in the cause of promoting civil tranquility, though I am not a resident of Ohio nor live in Columbus....I wonder if i should try to register my AR with them? Or maybe send in the numbers for all the US army rifles when we are training soldiers near Ohio. That might be fun. I DO want their database to be relevant and accurate."

Can you imagine the looks of some poor beauracrats face when he/she sees the line of folks who brought their AR's to Camp Perry for the Nationals wanting to have them properly registered? The Columbus law excepts non residents but still, it's funny to think of what they would bring down on themselves if that idea caught on.

Maybeso left the following comment to this post showing off some of distinguished Reader Robert's pics:

"I've got bolt envy! You got anything against the M-1 carbine? What's your take on it?"

Nope. I have nothing against the M1 Carbine. They're neat little carbines & a totally adequate improvement in a situation where you'd normally use a pistol. I'd be hesitant to use the cartridge on deer sized game, but for coyotes & smaller it seems like a fine choice. & for situations where the range is going to be limited, such as home defense or some other variant of guard duty I'd think the .30 Carbine cartridge would do alright. I've heard some things here & there about the M1 Carbine not being 100% reliable, but I never delved too deeply into them to find out if it was merely anecdotal or substantiated.

What I would like to see is an M1 Carbine in 10mm. But from what I recall I checked the cartridge dimensions against the receiver dimensions & for one reason or another it wasn't practical to convert them.

As an aside when I was in Raleigh, N.C. I visited the N.C. Museum of history & saw the "Carbine" Williams display. Definitely worth checking out if you're in the area. Here's Thibodeaux's post on his trip to the Williams exhibit.

In the comments section of a post dealing with where gun owners spend their cash Don Meaker writes:

"I live in California. If you need to have a convention, consider having it in the high desert, where we tend to be well armed, and support RKBA."

Now Don has a Rock Island 1903 Springfield & a Springfield Krag-Jorgenson. (For a nice read on the Krag-Jorgenson I'd recommend James Rummel's To Be Alive Under A Perfect Sky.) Both are sporterized but there's nothing at all wrong with that.

That's further proof that there are gun owners in Cali & they have good taste. But when's the last time you heard a Californian talking about his/her FAL copy such as the DSA SA58? Or his/her AK-47 clone like the WASR-10 or the VEPR? Or even his poodle shooter M16 copy like the Bushmaster DCM Competition rifle? Nope. Instead you'd be lucky to find the "California Models" from DSA which have a ten round fixed magazine that's fed by stripper clips. Or a Fab10 lower receiver that you can use to build a Cali legal AR which again has a fixed mag & is fed by stripper clips. Even owning an SKS can be legally dangerous & it's very naughty to have a magazine that will hold more than ten rounds for any type of firearm (except for tube magazines for .22 rimfire rifles) if it was made after 2000. Here's a decent summation of California's firearms laws.

The point of that post was that certain states & cities should be avoided because they are gun owner unfriendly. I feel for the people in Cali. I really do. But I won't visit there. I won't spend money there. I damn sure wouldn't hold a gun rights policy conference there. Even in parts of the state where folks cherish what little legal acknowledgement they have left (& I do mean little) I won't travel to or spend money. That only serves to feed the state of California which doesn't really help with getting them to back off their rather asinine firearms laws. Cali's economy is in no danger of crumbling due to boycotts by gun owners, but it's a much better idea to spend your cash where gun owners are actually welcomed, or at least not treated as an undesirable caste.

So hopefully this will make clear the point I was trying to make: don't spend your money anyplace where they disrespect your Rights. If you live in such a place & change is not likely, then leave. Get the hell out of California, Illinois, NY, NJ, Mass., D.C., Columbus, Ohio, Denver, Vail, etc... Abandon any place that disrespects your Rights when there is no hope of altering the situation. & I wish it weren't true, but there is no hope for Cali. Not now. There either aren't enough politically aware gun owners out there or they're just too apathetic to cause any real change.

Some corrections were offered to the post about the Australians who traveled to Camp Perry for the National Matches & had to borrow rifles to compete with:

"I met several Aussies who were at the matches shooting and working as volunteers. Great guys, though I must say, they party HARD. I'd never stay with them for an hour.
By the way, they didn't borrow rifles from Americans.....they borrowed them from TEXANS. Photo on the way."

It goes without saying that Distinguished Reader Robert hails from the Lone Star state. :)

Matt offers more info on the M1A's status in Cali:

Legal M1A's are available in california. The california version replaces the flash supressor with a muzzle brake.

Course from what I've read the standard 20 round magazines are illegal if made after 2000. Ten rounders are what you have to deal with if you want new mags. Know what that means in practical terms? Limited availability & consequent higher prices. Still that's a little good news. I just wonder how much longer it'll be before any M1A's are verboten there?

Finally we come to the comment that I excerpted at the beginning. From Miss Annika in regards to this post:

"i'm going to take the Cali Firearms Safety Certificate test today. i read through all the laws and it seems to me that Cali's gun safety laws are specifically designed to prevent anyone from using a gun for their own safety. So my question, oh wise bard of ballistics, is this: if Cali does not have the worst gun laws in the country, who does? and on a related note, i hear tell that Canadian gun laws are pretty restrictive. Are there any decently industrialized nations that recognize the rights of gun owners similar to or better than the US? i know the UK isn't, and Australia is debating guns right now."

Of course in preparing to answer I realize that this post is pretty damn long already so I'll create a new post to address Miss Annika's queries.

Posted by Publicola at August 20, 2005 04:56 PM | TrackBack

You'll be pleased to know that i passed the California Handgun Safety test. That means that the State of California, in their infinite wisdom, has judged me worthy to be able to purchase a handgun during the next five years, if i so choose. Of course at the expiration of that five years i'll have to take the test again and cough up another $25, unless they've felt the need to raise the price by then. Or they could just as easily revoke the privilege of handgun ownership by then, too.
/end sarcasm.

Posted by: annika at August 21, 2005 02:13 PM

Thanks for the plug! I'd also like to add, re the M1 Carbine, that's awful fun to shoot, too. No recoil to speak of, even with the rifle being as light as it is.

Don't know anything about the reliability, pro or con. Seemed to work most of the time...that is, until the bolt came apart.

Posted by: Thibodeaux at August 21, 2005 04:55 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?