Cap'n Bob & the Damsel

Law and Order

The Remington 870 Security Shotgun

We always have fun when we go to the range on Sundays. Fun, but with some serious business thrown in – we have a security gun that we keep handy just in case of (God forbid) intruders or home invaders. It’s important that we both can handle this weapon and we regularly take it to the range for practice.

Our Remington 870 Security Shotgun meets our requirements. This gun has an eighteen inch barrel with a magazine capacity of six 12 gauge rounds plus one round in the chamber.

Sunday, Damsel took her turn with this gun as shown in the video to the right. She makes the most of the seven rounds by knocking the target off of the tee bar with the last round.

You go, girl!

I’d be glad to have her at my six with this weapon any time, baby.

PoliceOne.com had this information about the Remington security guns:

Remington 870 “Wingmaster” was introduced by Remington in 1950, and since then it has become one of the most popular USA-made pump action all-purpose shotguns. Beginning it’s life as a versatile hunting shotgun, available in many different configurations and gauges, in early 1970s the Remington 870 was adopted by US Military – in 1966 US Marine Corps purchased some thousands of the Remington 870 Mk.1 shoguns (along with Mossberg 590 and Winchester 1200). Military shotguns have extended magazines for 7 or 8 rounds, bayonet mounts, heat shields around the barrels and non-glare, protective and rust-resistant finishes.

Remington 870 also is very popular police/security shotgun, available with extended magazines (up to 8 rounds), fixed or folding butt stocks or with pistol grips. Usually, police Remington’s have 14 in. or 18 in. barrels with cylinder or improved cylinder chokes, capable of firing buckshot, slugs and special purpose munitions (tear gas grenades, non-lethal rubber bullets etc.). M870 may be equipped with rifle-style or ghost-ring (peep) sights, with tactical flashlights and lasers etc.

Technically, Remington 870 is a pump-action shotgun with dual action bars and tilting breech block, that locks directly into the barrel extension. Barrel may be swapped (changed) within minutes to fit the situation.

07 Jul 2008 by Firearms Law and Order Second Amendment

Pins and Needles

I guess that SCOTUS is saving the best for last. The Court, once again, did not announce the DC vs. Heller opinion.

The following is from ScotusBlog:

Guns is not being decided today. Last opinion coming now.

UPDATE: HELLER AFFIRMED! (6/26/2008 10:12 AM EDT)

We can now predict that in addition to Justice Scalia likely writing Heller, Justice Alito is likely writing Davis v. FEC.

The Chief Justice has announced from the courtroom that the Court will issue all of its remaining opinions tomorrow at 10 a.m. Eastern.

To recap for those watching the Heller decision, it will definitely be decided tomorrow morning.

Tomorrow, the Court will issue its remaining three decisions: Heller (DC Guns), Davis v. FEC (campaign finance), and American Electric Power (energy contracts).

Clarification: while it appears that Justice Scalia has the principle [sic] opinion in the Guns case, it is not necessarily a majority opinion. It could be a plurality opinion.

What does that last one mean? (Gulp!)

UPDATE: HELLER AFFIRMED! (6/26/2008 10:12 EDT) Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. The vote is along idealogical lines, left and right.

25 Jun 2008 by Firearms Judiciary Law and Order Second Amendment

Man Sues Police Chief for Right-to-Carry

Glock 30David W. Spears, who lives in the city where we live has filed suit to be issued a permit to carry a concealed firearm. We’re going to watch this story as it develops since it could change our police chief’s policy for issuing CCW permits.

California has a ‘shall issue’ law on the books that assigns the issue responsibility to local law enforcement. The chief’s policy seems to conflict with California Department of Justice rules for issue.

Excerpted from the Daily Breeze:

Spears contends that when he applied for a permit in Torrance, he was issued an application form, but at the same time received a letter from the Police Department stating that “we do not have records on the issuance of any such permits, since it has been the long-standing practice of our chiefs of police not to issue such permits to citizens.”

“Defendants’ formal policy is logically and clearly intended to put a ‘false face’ on defendants’ public persona, making it appear that defendants comply with the requirements and rules of the Department of Justice and with (the) Penal Code – when they actually do not,” Spears’ lawsuit alleges.

“Instead, defendants willfully disregarded and ignored their own written policies and procedures, willfully disregarded and ignored the law, and willfully violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights in order to deprive him of a means of self defense.”

One of several supporting documents to the lawsuit includes a letter from the state Department of Justice that states the Police Department is required to notify the agency of any license denials and retain records of those denials.

Terry A. Nelson, Spears’ attorney, said in an interview that the Police Department doesn’t follow those requirements either.

“It would be funny if it weren’t so serious, but Torrance totally acts in the concealed carry weapon permit arena in violation of federal law,” Nelson said. “I speculate that the reason they don’t is if they kept the records they’d show numerous applicants being told, ‘don’t bother'” to apply.

Spears works in an occupation where he regularly is confronted with hostility. All he wants to do is to pack his Glock subcompact .45 pistol in case one of his hostile ‘clients’ gets too rambunctious.

I don’t blame him. As I said earlier, we’re going to be watching this case.

UPDATE: Spears Drops Case Against City

Continue reading…

13 Jun 2008 by Law and Order Second Amendment

‘Safe Neighborhoods’ Act Under Attack

justiceThe claim is that it will attract ‘ultra-conservatives’ to the polls.

Question: Shouldn’t everybody be allowed to vote regardless of their position on the political spectrum? As usual, Democrats don’t think so.

Another question: Won’t having Barack Obama on the ballot attract ultra-liberals, socialists and communists to the polls? That can’t be stopped either.

The votes will cancel each other. However the rest of us ‘normal’ voters will likely support this measure. And that’s what the Democrats fear.

Democrats oppose the initiative that is likely to appear on the November, 2008 California ballot. The proposed initiative has been submitted to the office of the secretary of state with the necessary number of signatures.

Opponents of the “Safe Neighborhoods” act are attempting to spin the issue as targeting Latinos and African Americans, while completely ignoring the intent of the bill, which is to punish criminals. Moreover, they fear that this initiative will attract ‘ultra-conservatives’ to the polls, thereby crippling Democrats on the November ballot. One opponent said “This is about saying ‘boo’ to the people of California.”

It’s violent criminals that say ‘boo’ to the people.

Supporters of the measure say that it is as much about education and prevention as it is about punitive actions. The measure would punish ex-cons carrying loaded or concealed guns in public with new, 10-year terms. It would expand the “10-20-life” law to accomplices as well as actual shooters in crimes where guns are brandished, fired or injure people when shot.

Note that many law enforcement agencies statewide and all 58 county sheriffs support the initiative.

Read the story in the Sacramento Bee.

08 May 2008 by Law and Order Whacko Politics

Call 911 and Hope Help Arrives

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association had this observation about a recent 911 call and the murder that happened while the caller was on the phone with the dispatcher.

The Sound of Silence

I read a heartbreaking story the other day. A woman is on the phone with 911 to report a burglar in her home. Dispatchers hear gunshots, then silence. When deputies arrive, the homeowner is dead.

Her husband arrives a few minutes later, only to be told that his wife is dead. News reports say “he collapsed and started to cry, saying ‘No! She just called me. You lie.'”

The real lie is that gun control and gun bans make us safer. All they do is put innocent people at risk of violent criminals. In 2005, the FBI says there were more than 2,000,000 burglaries in this country. There were also more than 400,000 robberies. If you were one of the millions of victims of crime, would you not want the option to defend yourself with a firearm?

Gun bans like Washington, D.C.’s only affect the law abiding. They don’t disarm criminals, but they ensure that residents are left with one option: call 911 and hope help arrives before it’s too late. And sadly, we know all too well how that often works out.

dial911.jpgMinstrel posted a recent article on this topic – 9.1.1 – Dial-A-Prayer for the Unarmed. In the post, there was a quote by Richard Stevens, a Washington, D.C. lawyer and author of Dial 911 and Die, wherein he gives the two reasons that 911 and police response are inadequate:

First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime.

Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack.

When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die.

The murder in question occurred in California – whose gun control laws make it one of the most difficult places to obtain firearms for protection. The laws are intimidating – people who would like to buy a gun for self-protection find themselves faced with absurdly-high fees and a myriad of red tape not seen in most states.

The ultra-liberal majority in California state politics is as culpable for murders like this as are the perpetrators who pull the trigger of a stolen or illegally obtained gun.

04 Apr 2008 by Law and Order Second Amendment

Cutting Edge

sw-knife.jpgI picked up a couple of Smith & Wesson folding knives today. They were on sale at a local sporting goods outlet for 13 bucks. We had been looking for a couple to keep handy for home and garden use. Maybe for other uses too – who knows? It’s hard to make predictions – especially about the future (sorry, Yogi).

I did the research and found that these can be legally concealed and carried if folded. They meet the California criteria for knives that can be concealed.

Anyhow, here’s the specs on the new blades:

  • Model Number: CK110B
  • Smith & Wesson Executive Folder
  • First Production Run
  • Teflon coated Drop Point blade
  • Black Titanium Stainless handle
  • Open Length: 6.85″(17.4cm)
  • Handle: 3.98″(10.1cm)
  • Blade: 2.80″(7.1cm)
  • Weight: 3.4 oz.

Photo by Damsel – click thumbnail for close-up.

03 Apr 2008 by Home & Garden Law and Order

Striking Down Gun & Ammo Laws – Wishful Thinking

scales-of-justiceIt would be nice if we could add the draconian California micro-stamping and lead ban laws along with the pending insane ammunition bill to Connecticut’s list as suggested by the following opinion from the Republican American (Waterbury, CT). The article contends that “guidance” offered by the Court will prove to be contentious for years to come.

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS case will only decide on the individual ownership issue without regard to whacko laws that over regulate our legally-owned weapons and tax us to death with fees. Any guidance given will likely be ignored by states and local governments.

State Gun Bills Should Be Spiked

When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy says the Bill of Rights guarantees Americans’ “general right to bear arms,” chances are very good the tone and direction of the long national debate over gun laws is about to change radically.

. . .

It’s good that justices finally will rule the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms, but their desire to offer guidance on what constitutes “reasonable” and “common-sense” gun restrictions may prove problematic for legislatures, lower courts and law-abiding citizens for years to come. What a sportsman would consider common sense, for example, no doubt would seem unreasonable to a gun-controller.

With the gun debate changing so dramatically, it makes sense for Connecticut lawmakers to shelve the two unreasonable gun-control bills under consideration. The first would mandate serial numbers on bullets, the second, firing pins that stamp a code on the shell cartridge.

In theory, these measures would enable police to trace the bullets to their owner. But in the real world, the serial number would be obliterated the instant the bullet strikes an object less malleable than lead. Meanwhile, the stamping technology is in its infancy, is easily defeated, would not be required on the types of guns favored by criminals, and would require gun companies to retool their manufacturing and assembly processes; most have said it would be more economical to move their operations and high-paying jobs to other states. Finally, both bills would impose expensive unfunded costs on state and local police without guaranteeing any improvement in public safety.

Lawmakers should be in no hurry to enact gun-control laws that justices likely will vaporize when they strike down the D.C. gun ban in June.

I added the emphasis.

27 Mar 2008 by Firearms Law and Order Second Amendment Whacko Politics

Categories

Archives