It should be glaringly apparent, to anyone taking even a passing look, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, and not some "collective right" of the type suggested by the anti-gun, bed-wetting hippies. By all accounts, a majority of the Supreme Court concurs:

Because the current members of the Court had never taken part in a case testing the scope of the right laid out in the Second Amendment, it was not clear, going into the argument, where any of them (with the possible exception of Justices Scalia and Thomas) would stand on the question. But the Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia moved in, in the very earliest stages of the argument, to lay out clear positions %u2014 at least on the collective vs. individual rights dispute.

Within seconds after the defender of the District law, Washington lawyer Walter Dellinger, laid out his general theory that the Amendment only guaranteed a %u201Cmilitia-related%u201D right, the Chief Justice focused on the text of the Amendment and said %u201CIf it is limited to state militias, why would they say %u2018the right of the people. In other words, why wouldn%u2019t they say %u2019state militias have the right to keep arms.%u2019%u201D

During the argument, Chief Justice Roberts asked "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Of course, we could probably have expected that Roberts, along with Scalia, Alito and Thomas, would weigh in on the individual rights view. It takes five votes to get a majority, though, and that's only four. The case could come down, as a number of recent cases have, to the opinion of Justice Kennedy. In this case, there's cause for optimism. During oral argument, Kennedy explained his view as follows: "In my view, (the Second Amendment is) saying there is a general right to bear arms, quite without reference to a militia." Works for me.

Based on everything I've read, it sounds like yesterday was a good day not only for gun owners, but for all Americans who believe in the principles of personal liberty and the right to self-defense.

Follow-up questions:

What standard of review, if any, will the Supreme Court set out?

Given that members of the liberal wing have previously expressed support for the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, is there any chance of unanimity on that point?

How frickin' sweet would that be?

I'm in the market for a couple new magazines for my DPMS Panther. I'm leaning toward the Magpul PMAGs. They've gotten good reviews on the forums from (alleged) law enforcement and military customers. If the videos below can be believed, PMAGs appear to be the Timex watches of AR mags. Reliable ammo feed even busted in half? With half the spring gone? Looks like some good stuff to me.

Here are some GI's in Iraq putting the PMAG through a torture test, which involves running it over with a Hummer and packing it with Iraqi sand:



MORE VIDS BELOW THE FOLD

I raised some hackles over at The Jawa Report this morning when I posted a story about the Iraqi Army and police adopting AR-style rifles in place of the durable and reliable Kalashnikovs they're more familiar with.

As noted in my post, I believe this is a serious mistake owing to the chronic reliability issues that have plagued the AR-style rifles since their introduction.

This isn't to say, of course, that AR's are some kinds of pieces of junk. Far from it. I'm far from some kind of an "AR hater" (see, e.g., the banner graphic for this blog). I own a DPMS Panther that is most definitely a very high-quality, world-class weapon. It is great for the environment in which I operate. It spends the vast majority of its life in a rifle case in my humidity and temperature-controlled house. When I want to use it, I take it to the gun range in its protective case. Despite the fact that the gun range is a relatively clean environment, I field strip, clean and lubricate my AR after every trip to the range. In this controlled environment, my AR works just fine, shoots very accurately, and rarely fails to cycle properly.

Although the AR performs well in a controlled environment, experience has shown that ARs have more trouble in harsh environments than other military rifles, particularly as compared to Kalashnikov-style weapons.

Here's the thing: there's not necessarily a trade-off between reliability and accuracy. Sure, a lot of AKs are complete junk, unlikely to hit the broad side of a barn, while ARs have a reputation for "reaching out and touching" jihadis from a considerable distance. For the same money being spent on the ARs, though, the Iraqi military could be purchasing weapons that are equal to the ARs in accuracy and equal to the Kalashnikovs in reliability. A wide variety of Kalashnikov variants have been produced over the years. The Israeli-made Galil...



...is a good example. Though a gun built by Jews would probably be off the table as an option (for political reasons,) there have been similar designs available from more "politically-acceptable" sources. The Finnish-made Valmet, for example:



Or the Russian-made VEPR:



Or the American-made Arsenal SLR:



All of these weapons rely on tried-and-true principles of firearm design and have proven track records of rock-solid reliability.

The AR-style rifles, in contrast, have been controversial from the beginning:

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara [was presented with] two conflicting views [on the AR-15]: the ARPA report favoring the AR-15 and the Pentagon's position on the M14. Even President John F. Kennedy expressed concern, so McNamara ordered Secretary of the Army Cyrus Vance to test the M14, the AR-15 and the AK-47. The Army's test report stated only the M14 was suitable for Army use, but Vance wondered about the impartiality of those conducting the tests. He ordered the Army Inspector General to investigate the testing methods used, who reported that the testers showed favor to the M14.

Secretary Robert McNamara ordered a halt to M14 production in January 1964, after receiving reports that M14 production was insufficient to meet the needs of the armed forces. Secretary McNamara had long been a proponent of weapons program consolidation among the armed services. At the time, the AR-15 was the only rifle that could remotely fulfill a requirement of a 'universal' infantry weapon for issue to all services. McNamara ordered the weapon be adopted unmodified, in its current configuration, for immediate issue to all services, despite receiving reports noting several deficiencies with the M16 as a service rifle, including the lack of a chrome-lined bore and chamber, the 5.56 mm projectile's instability under Arctic conditions, and the fact that large quantities of 5.56 mm ammunition required for immediate service were not available....

When the XM16E1 reached Vietnam with U.S. troops in 1966, reports of jamming and malfunctions in combat immediately began to surface. Although the M14 had a chrome-lined barrel and chamber to resist corrosion in combat conditions (a danger learned from WWII Pacific theatre combat experience), the M16/XM16E1 had no chrome-lined bore or chamber. Several documented accounts of troops killed by enemy fire with jammed rifles broken-down for cleaning eventually brought a Congressional investigation. Later investigations also cast doubt on the veracity of the original 1962 reports of the alleged stopping effectiveness of the 5.56 mm bullet, as well as criticism of inadequate penetration (in comparison to the Soviet 7.62x39mm round) when firing at enemy personnel through light cover.

Although a rush to production plagued ARs in the early days, a mature production cycle and numerous technical enhancements over the years have never been able to overcome the built-in limitations of the AR design:

The primary criticism of direct impingement is that fouling and debris from expended gunpowder is blown directly into the breech. As the superheated combustion gas travels down the tube, it expands and cools, not unlike an aerosol can cool when depressurized. This cooling causes vaporized matter to condense as it cools depositing a much greater volume of solids into the operating components of the action. The increased fouling can cause malfunctions if the rifle is not cleaned as frequently as should be. The amount of sooting deposits tends to vary with powder specification, caliber, and gas port design. Conversely, gas-piston operation has the gases acting on a separate piston, which actuates a linkage that in turn cycles the weapon; this minimizes the amount of debris that accumulates in the breech. This sooting characteristic had not been found to be a significant hindrance to reliability with ArmaLite's earlier AR-10 in 7.62 mm caliber, which had a different gas port. Because of this sooting, the M16 rifle requires more frequent cleaning and lubrication for reliable operation compared to most gas piston rifle designs.

While the military services have never been completely happy with the M16, they have yet to develop a suitable replacement:

Replacement of the M16 family has been proposed at various points, and its longevity is in part due to a series of failures in projects meant to replace it, driven largely by the requirement for a significant improvement. Immediately after the introduction of the M16, the Marine Corps sought to adopt the Stoner 63. Although they found it superior in most ways, it was still at an early stage of development; the Marines chose the technically inferior but mature M16.

As noted below, I decided, after much research, to go with the Springfield XD. Although my decision to go with the XD wasn't based solely on info from any single source, Springfield's 20,000-round XD Torture Test (see below) was pretty damned convincing.

My critical item is reliability. Accuracy is important, of course, but accuracy isn't really in question for any of the major handgun models. Variations in accuracy show up for highly skilled shooters shooting from sandbag rests. For most shooters, though, shooting from a standing position, the biggest variable in hitting the target is going to be the shooter rather than the gun. When and if I'm capable of shooting 2" groups from a standing position, I'll start worrying about whether my handgun can keep up. Now, none of this is to infer that the XD isn't accurate. From everything I've read, it's equal to or better than most of its competitors on that score. For me personally, though, discussion of handgun accuracy is largely academic. Now, about that XD Torture Test:

The Ice Test. We filled a tub with water, dropped in the XD with a magazine and put it in the freezer for a week. Breaking it free by dropping the "gunsicle" onto concrete, we let it thaw out on the way to the Oak Tree Gun Club, our favorite outdoor handgun range. Upon arrival, we inserted a fresh magazine into the XD and fired. We fired about 150 rounds before wiping it down and lubricating it. Result: zero malfunctions.

The Dirt Test. Following the lead of the Glock tests, the XD was "caked, covered and buried alive in soils of varying consistencies." We used everything from dust and ash to moist dirt and sand. We fired 100 rounds after subjecting the XD to each of the five kinds of dirt, for a total of 500 rounds. Predictably, sand proved the most challenging to its mechanism. After burying the gun in sand, then stepping on it to grind it in, we took it out to shoot. The slide cycled noticeably slower, but the gun never jammed. Result: zero malfunctions.

The Mud Test. The XD was covered with thick, gritty mud. After a quick shaking off, it was fired 100 times. Mud went everywhere from the recoil, mostly on the shooters, some on bystanders--it was amazing how much sprayed off the gun. Still, the gun kept working. Result: zero malfunctions.

And then there was the Water Test, the Degreaser Test, the Tire Test, the "Throw it off a Mountain" Test, etc., etc. On top of this, there was the little matter of 20,000 rounds pumped through the gun along the way. Through all this abuse, the weapon never skipped a beat.

The manufacturer has also demonstrated a plugged barrel firing test (yikes!), and another torture test involving a 48-hour saltwater test, a sand test and a truck and bulldozer test, all with no malfunctions.




I understand most Glocks are able to withstand the same or similar torture tests. The Glocks are the weapons I've seen most commonly compared to the Springfield XDs. I probably would've been just fine with a Glock--though I found a number of reviewers who never liked the Glocks but love the XDs.

I headed over to the local gun show today still undecided between the XD40 and the XD45acp. I've never bought into the idea that caliber is critical. Everyone's heard the anecdotes about PCP-crazed psychos who can take on 50 rounds of 9mm and just keep coming, but the truth is that 99.9% of mortal humans hit in the middle of the chest at close range with a 9mm hollowpoint are going down PDQ--no ifs ands or buts. On the other hand, you can blow someone's arm off with an elephant gun and still fail to incapacitate him.

My prior semi-auto pistols have all been 9mm, because of magazine capacity and ammo expense as much as anything else. These days, magazine capacity is not as much of an issue. The XD-45acp magazine holds 13 rounds, vs. 16 for the XD9 and 12 for the XD40. My interest in the .40 or the 45 as compared to the 9mm had more to do with variety than anything else. In any event, I was planning to go with the 5" Tactical model either way. After having a look at the guns being offered at the various booths, I decided on an XD-45acp Service model (4") in black:



For my money, I think the Tactical model is a better-looking unit (image HERE), but it's also bigger, heavier and more expensive. After considering that this gun's going to spend most of its life stashed in my glove compartment, compact practicality won out over cool looks.

If there's any question as to whether the Springfield XD was the right option, Jawa Report commenter "LC Guido Cabrone" shared the following for consideration:

Our rentals have been through more abuse and more rounds fired than any personally owned weapons ever will. (Well, with one exception I can think of, but most of us can't afford to dump 45,000 rounds downrange in a month and a half... (Yes, that guy is a serious shooter and was getting ready for a competition.))

We have had four total malfunctions with our XD rentals. Our four inch nine lost it's cocking indicator, (the little silver pin that sticks out of the back of the slide), and the four inch forty lost a cocking indicator, (no biggie, it's more of a convenience than anything else), broke the tip off of the ejector, (dunno when it happened, it just started tossing the brass back over the shooter's shoulder, again, no biggie), and, finally, broke a locking block at about 25,000 rounds. That tied it up, but, since Springfield told us it was one of the first ones built, and had been to half the gun mags in the country before we got it, there was no telling how many rounds were fired beforehand.

And Springfield didn't quibble about any of the repairs.

And I don't want to start any flame wars here, but we don't tend to keep Sig or HK for rentals.

They break too much. (Yes, that includes the MP-5...)

Thanks for all the input. Based on the feedback, and other research I've done on the web, I'm planning to go with the Springfield Armory XD.

I'm pretty old school, and I've always had a soft spot in my heart for the classic Beretta/Taurus lines and the feel of a metal frame gun. That said, there are times when you just have to "step into the future," and this may be one of those times.

There's a gun show this weekend, and if I come across one of these at the right price, I may just have to pick one up.

Of course, there remains the age-old question: WHICH CALIBER? I'm leaning toward .40 S&W, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

Thoughts?

Back when I was in pirate training, I had a Taurus PT-99 9mm, and was pretty happy with it, but it was a bit "rough around the edges"--a bit like yours truly. I'm now in the market for a new handgun. I'm thinking something in the $500 range.

I just recently became aware of "double stack" 45s, which give you the magazine capacity of a 9mm in the larger caliber. That's a nice combo, but the guns I've come across so far weren't mass-production items. Limited-run guns come with limited-run prices--and more importantly, limited-run availability of spare parts.

Your thoughts on good sidearms are appreciated--unless your thoughts are stupid, in which case you will likely be savaged mercilessly.

Via the Washington Post:

Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.

The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill gunman killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech University. The shooter, Seung Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns. But the state of Virginia never forwarded that information to the federal National Instant Check System (NICS), and the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program.

Wayne Chiang, the Virginia Tech student falsely accused of being the Virginia Tech gunman, has had his Facebook account suspended for "posing with guns ... in a non-sporting context."

Wayne's letter to Facebook management is here:

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting, it is an easy reaction to remove all firearm related photos from your site in an effort to minimize those that may do things as tragic and senseless as the aforementioned school shooting. However, this is an overreaction and in doing so, you limit the freedoms of the vast majority of those who are law abiding and whom deplore the type of violence that occurred at Virginia Tech. I ask this of you in the utmost respect, to take into consideration the large communities of individuals whose actions are currently being considered "offensive" on Facebook.

Cross-posted at The Jawa Report.

An excellent historical analysis of the Second Amendment. The author's conclusions:

[T]he evidence presented here is sufficient to support three historical conclusions: An interpretation of the Second Amendment as securing in part an individual right to keep arms was contemporaneous with the amendment's framing. That interpretation was recognized as authoritative early in the nineteenth century. Finally, the early American proponents of that interpretation transcended region, partisan affiliation, and any reasonable measure of plebeian consciousness. Lawyers, backwoodsmen, Federalists, and Democrats, they believed...that they had a right to keep arms.

Full article here.

It would appear so:

I'll tell you what the point of the sign is and it is not about protecting anyone. If there is a provision for a sign there has to be an outlay of money to pay for the sign giving the powers that be one more chance to kill the bill in the Finance Committee. That's all that was -- nothing more.

Complete with Torx mounting screws and everything...

Pictures coming soon.

This book got some press when it came out, but not nearly enough, in my opinion.

It was a study of the connection between the crime rate and gun control, commissioned by the Clinton Administration. It was intended to be, in some sense, a "response" to John Lott's work showing that there's a positive correlation between the crime rate and gun control.

The problem for the committee was, they couldn't really come up with any data showing that gun control reduces crime.

Under Japanese law, civilians are strictly forbidden from possessing firearms. Apparently, this criminal didn't get the memo:

NAGAKUTE, Japan -- A former gangster surrendered Friday night after a shooting rampage at his home that left one policeman dead and three other people -- including his son and daughter -- injured, police said...

The use and possession of guns is relatively alien to the Japanese public. Handguns are strictly limited to police and other professionals such as shooting instructors...

Amid the standoff, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki urged government officials to step up gun control measures.

"This is a gun crime that clearly threatens the peace of public life. It is absolutely unacceptable," Mr. Shiozaki said.

Sanae Takaichi, the head of a government gun-control task force, called for "drastic, tougher gun control-measures."

"They told me to go get a lawyer if I wanted my guns back."