Concealed Carry Permitted in National Parks

BELLEVUE, WA
Today’s announcement that the Interior Department has amended its rules and will henceforth allow licensed concealed carry in national parks was hailed as a victory for the Second Amendment by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.“No longer will American citizens be required to leave their right of self-defense at the gates of a national park,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.

“This common-sense change in regulations reflects not only changes in the laws of 48 states, but more importantly the Supreme Court’s ruling in June that upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment.”Under the rule change, individuals may carry concealed handguns in national parks and wildlife refuges only if they are licensed to carry under the laws of the state in which the park or refuge is located.

This new rule does not allow the illegal carrying of any firearm, nor will it allow hunting, target practice or poaching.“We are delighted that the Interior Department has taken this step,” Gottlieb stated. “This was never an issue of opening parks to hunting or recreational shooting, and the extremist opponents of this measure know it. This has always been about personal protection in areas where law enforcement may be hours away, or not available at all, in an emergency. “As with the adoption of con cealed carry laws in dozens of states over the past several years,” he added, “we are confident that passage of time will prove that all the alarmist rhetoric about poaching and increase danger to families and especially children was deliberately misleading.

“With the nation facing drastic budget cuts,” Gottlieb said, “this rule change comes at the right moment. It recognizes the inability of park officials to provide adequate law enforcement services, particularly in the back country. We are confident that passage of time will prove that this rule change, like the adoption of sensible concealed carry laws in dozens of states over the past 20 years, improves public safety and deters criminal behavior.”

Handloading Rationale

By Glen Wunderlich
Outdoor Columnist
Member Professional Outdoor Media Association

If you have settled on a caliber and outfitted your long-range rifle with good glass, it’s time to decide what to feed it. There’s some pretty good store-bought factory ammo, which is all relatively accurate but always costly. Unless you handload and you can’t get the fancy fodder to shoot 1-inch groups or better at 100 yards, you can go back to the store for another brand or settle for “good enough”. Understand that guns are like people in that they are what they eat; that’s why I feed them custom handloads. There’s no better time than the off-season to learn and practice the techniques of loading your own ammunition.

First, I don’t refer to the meticulous, quality-controlled process of custom loading as “reloads”, which implies cheap, unreliable compromises for quality. There’s nothing wrong with reloading hundreds of .38 special target loads with lead bullets and lightweight powder charges for practice. However, using new brass cases and components, cannot be considered reloading. Factories print lot numbers on boxes signifying unpredictable variations with changes in the numbers, but with detailed records of components, powder charges, and measurements, I can reproduce the exact same ammo years later. I load for performance. Period.

When it comes to rifle ammunition produced in factories, it’s made from top-of-the line brass, primers, powder and bullets and still cannot perform like my home-brewed tonic. Mass-produced ammo doesn’t get the quality control I demand. Additionally, the factories must produce one-size-fits-all ammunition for one simple reason: Not all firearms of like calibers have the same chamber sizes; the minimum to maximum chamber sizes can vary substantially. Factories, therefore, produce ammo short enough to fit into any manufacturer’s firearms. While this makes for reliable function, it does not necessarily meet the needs of a precision varminter. If I were to choose only one reason I handload, it is because I can produce ammunition custom-fit to my firearms.

With tools of the trade (overall case length gauge, bullet comparator, and dial caliper), I precisely measure the maximum overall cartridge length, and then seat the bullet to within 10,000ths of an inch of engaging the lands of the bore. Although there are myriad other variables to manipulate, close-tolerance bullet seating depth typically gives me the edge over the factories’ finest. Plus, some of the big guys’ stuff is on the tame side, so as not to harm grandpa’s gun that might not stand the punishment of higher pressure offerings. Not that mild is necessarily bad, but if I want maximum horsepower, I just add a little “octane”.

While we are on that subject, a word to the wise is in order. Novice handloaders may have an urge to begin by loading for maximum velocity. That’s a foolish idea for two reasons: 1) Any reference material warns to begin with lighter powder charges and urges one to check for pressure signs (flattened primers, etc.) before proceeding to anything approaching maximum listings, and 2) Maximum velocity hardly ever equals maximum accuracy. If you want something faster, refrain from pushing the envelope; step up to another caliber that will satisfy your need for speed.

As mentioned in a previous column, if you’ve chosen a high-end rangefinding reticle scope, its precision potential ranging is rendered useless unless you can match a load to its built-in trajectory scale.

A few years ago I forked over some hard-earned cash for a guided Montana elk hunt. Since there was the potential for long-range game getting, I custom-loaded some premium bullets for my rangefinding Shepherd optics atop a tricked out Browning A-Bolt in .300 Winchester Magnum. The scope came with a chart listing specific bullets at specific velocities that purported to be on target (i.e. minute of angle) at 1,000 yards. So, I loaded a couple of the specified premium test bullets with my usual charge of IMR 4350 powder, launched it through my chronograph and discovered it was 250 fps too fast. Through experimentation, I reduced the powder charge, until I got it right on the velocity mark specified by Shepherd. The beauty of this testing was that I only loaded 2 rounds per variation until I got it right and didn’t have to spend $30 a box at the local sporting goods outlet on stuff that wouldn’t work.

After an initial sight-in confirming a close-range zero, off to a safe shooting zone at a nearby field I went to set up a distant target at an unknown range. Pow! Peering through the spotting scope, I found it right in the black. Making sure it wasn’t a fluke. Pow. Right in the black, 2 inches from the first shot. Confirming the distance with my laser rangefinder, I learned I had just placed those shots on target at 356 yards as quick as you can say Missoula.

Holder Nomination Signals Anti-Gun Rights Agenda

From the Second Amendment Foundation

AGENDABELLEVUE, WA – The nomination of Eric Holder for the post of attorney general of the United States sends an “alarming signal” to gun owners about how the Barack Obama administration will view individual gun rights, as affirmed this year by the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

“Eric Holder signed an amicus brief in the Heller case that supported the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, and also argued that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right,” noted SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “He has supported national handgun licensing and mandatory trigger locks. As deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, he lobbied Congress to pass legislation that would have curtailed legitimate gun shows.“This is not the record of a man who will come to office as the nation’s top law enforcement officer with the rights and concerns of gun owners in mind,” he observed.

Holder’s nomination, like the appointment of anti-gun Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff, tells American gun owners that Obama’s campa ign claims supporting the Second Amendment were “empty rhetoric,” Gottlieb stated. “America’s 85 million gun owners have ample reason to be pessimistic about how their civil rights will fare under the Obama administration,” Gottlieb said. “Mr. Obama will have a Congress with an anti-gun Democrat majority leadership to push his gun control agenda. Gun owners have not forgotten Mr. Obama’s acknowledged opposition to concealed carry rights, nor his support for a ban on handgun ownership when he was running for the Illinois state senate.

“Barack Obama vigorously portrayed himself on the campaign trail as a man who supports gun ownership,” Gottlieb concluded, “but now that he has won the election, he is surrounding himself with people who are avowed gun prohibitionists. What better indication of what to expect from Barack Obama as president than the people he is selecting to lead his administration?

This isn’t a roster of devoted public servants. It’s a rogue’s gallery of extremists who have labored to erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights.”

Opening Day

By Glen Wunderlich
Outdoor Columnist
Member Professional Outdoor Media Association

“There I was, back in the wild again
I felt right at home where I belong
I had that feelin’ comin’ over me again
Just like it happened so many times before

The spirit of the woods is like an old good friend
It makes me feel warm and good inside…” Ted Nugent

Love him or not, Uncle Tedly speaks volumes in his opening tribute to ol’ Fred Bear. My wife can’t understand but my cat does. Season after season, I am driven to show up. No matter the job. No matter the weather. No matter what.

Like a kid at Christmas, the anticipation evolves into overwhelming excitement. All the reading, practicing, and paraphernalia preparation come down to one morning. Off I sneak into the dark unknown. While the saner among us remain tucked in, snug and warm, I begin to work my plan to another season’s destiny.

Face in the wind, ears alert, I stare into the silent darkness, as if somehow, for the first time in my life, I will be able to see in the dark. A Great Horned owl informs me it’s too early, but a short while later, cruising crows tell me otherwise. To them and my wife, it’s just another day; to me it’s Opening Morning.

The sum of all the days of our lives has placed us in our secret hideouts this morning. And, then we hear a distant shot and wonder if that hunter connected. Just in case, we face the direction of the sound, hoping deep down that guy missed. It has to be a buck, because nobody would be after a doe this early.

We wait. We wiggle our toes to get blood moving down there. We withdraw our fingers inside our gloves and make a fist inside them. Our exposed ears are chilled, so we shelter them with our caps. We shiver.

Have our buddies seen any? Another shot and then some more. Once again we assume they missed. Slowly and silently we shift position, as our eyes rapidly scan for any sign of movement. We wonder.

As random thoughts come and go, we daydream about so many things we never seem to have time for otherwise. The warmth of the sun melts our shivers. Our bellies growl. Bacon and eggs sure sound good, but we fight the impulse. We remain hidden and watch.

What drives us hunters to be afield tomorrow? (And, don’t tell me it’s the meat. Of course, that’s part of it, but I consider it to be only icing.) This tradition, which has been bestowed upon us, drives some ¾ of a million Michigan minions to purposely shirk the day-to-day responsibilities of normal adults. We never seem to have time for anything, but for this November 15th, we find it.

Some say they just like to be “out there”, but I don’t buy it. Why pick this day to be out there? Are you crazy?

Others cite camaraderie, but playing cards or bowling on a Friday night serves that purpose. So, that can’t be it.

So what does that cat understand anyway? He has the choicest cat food in those fancy little cans costing more than prime beef. He gets Mexican cheese and the finest IGA ground round. He doesn’t care much about camaraderie, either. He does like being out there, however, but his quarry better watch it.

I gotta go with Ted on this one; it’s primal and it’s The Opener.

Rising Gun Sales Explained

Obama Administration Showing Anti-Gun Cards Early

Last update: 5:29 p.m. EST Nov. 10, 2008

NEWTOWN, Conn., Nov 10, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/

As firearm sales continue to increase this year, at a rate of 10 percent over the same period last year and 15 percent in October alone, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) — the trade association for the firearms industry — is pointing to gun-owner concerns about an Obama Administration as reason for the boom.

Last week President-elect Obama’s Web site had posted his administration’s agenda for curtailing the Second Amendment rights of law abiding Americans, thereby validating the concerns of gun owners, sportsmen and firearms enthusiasts all across the country. Curiously, the Obama-Biden gun control agenda was taken down from the Web site after just two days.

President-elect Obama’s Web site stated he would make permanent the expired “assault weapons” ban of 1994, a ban on firearms that was based on cosmetic appearance, such as the type of stock on the gun, and not functionality. The expired ban did nothing to reduce crime while it was in place. President-elect Obama’s Web site intentionally misled the American people by referring to these firearms as “weapons that belong on foreign battlefields.” These firearms are not machine guns. In reality, these commonplace firearms that President-elect Obama wants to permanently ban are used in shooting competitions and are found in homes and hunting lodges all across the country. They fire only once with each trigger pull, no spray firing, and they shoot the same ammunition as other firearms of the same caliber.

President-elect Obama has also promised to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, a law which restricts public access to sensitive, law enforcement — only firearms tracing data. Public release of gun trace data outside law enforcement has and will continue to jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations, putting the lives of law enforcement, witnesses and others at risk. This is why Congress, ATF, and law enforcement, including the nation’s largest police organization, the Fraternal Order of Police, agree on the importance of securing this sensitive data. Access to gun trace data should only be available to law enforcement taking part in a bona-fide investigation, and law enforcement already has the access it needs for this purpose. No law enforcement agency has ever been denied access to trace data as part of a criminal investigation.

The Obama-Biden Web site also called for “childproofing” all firearms, despite firearm-related accidents being at their lowest levels in history, including a 60 percent decrease over the last 20 years, and a federal law that requires firearms dealers to provide a lock with each handgun sold and to have locks available for consumers to purchase. Firearms industry members have a long history of supporting the safe and responsible use and storage of firearms through programs such as Project ChildSafe, a campaign developed by the NSSF that has distributed over 35 million free gun lock safe storage kits throughout the United States. For years, manufacturers have voluntarily provided a free locking device with each new firearm. Thankfully, the National Safety Council reports that childhood firearms accidents now comprise less than 1 percent of all fatal childhood injuries.

Finally, the appointment of Rahm Emanuel, the strident chief architect of the Clinton-Gore gun control agenda, as President-elect Obama’s chief of staff sends an unambiguous message to gun-owners and members of the firearms industry.

“The increase in firearms sales was predictable,” said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. “It’s clear from President-elect Obama’s voting record, and the promises that he continues to make, that gun control will be coming back to the White House. Eloquent rhetoric notwithstanding, sportsmen, gun owners and prospective gun owners recognize this and are reacting accordingly.”

For more information on gun sale statistics, legislative issues and general firearm related questions, please visit the NSSF Web site at http://www.nssf.org/ — the media’s resource for all things firearms.

SOURCE National Shooting Sports Foundation http://www.nssf.org/

Comment by Glen Wunderlich, Outdoor Columnist follows:

Maybe the Obama administration will not be able to take our guns, as some would argue. However, as in the Clinton gun-ban years, its “common sense” approach to circumvent the intent of the Second Amendment by banning certain ammunition or firearms that look menacing is reason enough for concerned citizens to stock up while it’s still legal.

I, for one, will never understand why any lawmaker who attempts to outlaw any firearm – expecting that by so doing, criminals will be foiled – fails to comprehend how the same firearm can be a useful tool in defense by law-abiding citizens against those same criminals. If it is too good for bad guys, it would be just right for me.

Results of CDC Study Questioned

NEWTOWN, Conn.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) — the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry — issued the following statement in response to study results from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), released by the North Dakota Department of Health, showing no evidence that lead or “traditional” ammunition pose any health risk to those who consume harvested game meat.

Recognizing that hunters and their families may be concerned or confused by recent news reports about the study, NSSF encourages every individual who may consume harvested game meat to read the NSSF statement, fact box and CDC report made available in this news release.
Facts Hunters Should Know from the CDC Study . . .

1. Consuming game harvested using traditional hunting ammunition does not pose a human health risk.

2. Participants in the study had readings lower than the national average and well below the level the CDC considers to be of concern.

3. Children in the study had readings that were less than half the national average and far below the level the CDC considers to be of concern.

4. The study showed a statistically insignificant difference between participants who ate game harvested using traditional hunting ammunition and the non-hunters in the control group.
5. Hunters should continue to donate venison to food pantries.

The CDC report on human lead levels of hunters in North Dakota has confirmed what hunters throughout the world have known for hundreds of years, that traditional ammunition poses no health risk to people and that the call to ban lead ammunition was nothing more than a scare tactic being pushed by anti-hunting groups.

In looking at the study results, the average lead level of the hunters tested was lower than that of the average American. In other words, if you were to randomly pick someone on the street, chances are they would have a higher blood lead level than the hunters in this study.

Also of note, the lead levels of children under 6 in the study had a mean of just 0.88, less than half the national average. Children over 6 had even lower lead levels. The CDC’s level of concern for lead in children is 10.

A media advisory released by the North Dakota Department of Health cited the highest lead level reading of an adult study participant as still being lower than the CDC lead level threshold of concern for a child, and significantly lower than the CDC accepted threshold of concern for an adult. Furthermore, during a tele-press conference hosted by the ND Department of Health, officials stated they could not verify whether this adult even consumed game harvested with traditional ammunition. Correspondingly, the study only showed an insignificant 0.3 micrograms per deciliter difference between participants who ate wild game harvested with traditional ammunition and non-hunters in the non-random control group.

Also demonstrating their understanding that game harvested with traditional ammunition is safe to consume, the ND Department of Health, following the release of the CDC study results, encouraged hunters to continue donating venison to local food banks as long as processing guidelines were adhered to.

NSSF was critical of the ND Department of Health when earlier this year the Department overreacted to a non-peer reviewed study by a dermatologist who claimed to have collected packages of venison from food banks that contained lead fragments. North Dakota health officials did not conduct their own study, but merely accepted the lead-contaminated meat samples from the dermatologist. The ND Department of Health then ordered all food banks to discard their venison. Serious questions were raised in a subsequent investigative journalism piece published this summer about the scientific validity of the testing of venison samples from the ND food pantries, including concerns regarding the non-random selection of the samples.

It has since come to light that the dermatologist’s efforts were not the independent actions of a concerned hunter, as he claimed. It was an orchestrated strategy by the Peregrine Fund — an organization dedicated to eliminating the use of lead ammunition for hunting. The dermatologist serves on the Fund’s Board of Directors.

For more than a century, hundreds of millions of Americans have safely consumed game harvested using traditional hunting ammunition, and despite there being no scientific evidence that consuming the game is endangering the health of individuals, special interest groups like the Peregrine Fund and anti-hunting groups are continuing to press state legislatures around the country to support a ban on this common, safe and effective ammunition.

These politically driven groups understand that while an outright ban on hunting would be nearly impossible to achieve, dismantling the culture of hunting one step at a time is a realistic goal. Banning lead ammunition is the first step of this larger political mission. We can only hope that with the conclusive CDC results concerning the safety of traditional ammunition, legislatures across the country will listen to science and not anti-hunting radicals.

The notion by some, that any amount of lead is a “concern,” is scientifically unfounded rhetoric that runs contrary to nationwide, long-standing standards of evaluation. The NSSF is pleased that hunters and others can now comfortably continue consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition that has been properly field dressed and butchered, yet we remain unsettled that for so many months good and safe food was taken out of the mouths of the hungry as nothing more than a political gambit by special interest groups.

Sighting In with Iron Sights

By Glen Wunderlich
Outdoor Columnist
Charter Member Professional Outdoor Media Association

If you are one of the more fortunate hunters who still has keen eyesight, iron sights offer some distinct advantages. However, as with any choice of sighting mechanism, disadvantages must be understood, so as to maximize potential.

To begin with, iron sights are typically very reliable. They don’t fog up, have no parallax challenges, and given modern versions that are highly visible, they lend themselves to quick sight acquisition.

Long shots are problematic,however, unless the firearm is specifically sighted in to the specific long-range target. That’s fine, if all shots are at that range. If shots are presented closer to the sight-in distance, holding under the target a certain amount is required and only practice afield can insure the best possible accuracy.

Because iron sights offer no target enhancement, as do modern scopes, one is limited to the capabilities of his vision. In most instances, sighting in a firearm with iron sights should be limited to 100 yards or less, because of the difficulty in defining one’s target beyond that.

Let’s say a hunter sights his slug gun in at 50 yards. Once again, if the hunter will not be taking shots beyond that range, the 50-yard sight-in is workable. If, however, he sights in at 50 and has an opportunity at 100 yards, he must block out the target with the front sight to properly elevate the barrel. And, when one blocks out the target, well, you can’t hit what you can’t see. Unless, of course, you are reckless enough to take such a foolish, unethical shot.

To sight in for deer, use a 6-inch black circle on a larger piece of paper. Line up the back and front sights so that the front sight sits in the middle of the rear sight and is in clear view. Here’s the key: Make sure that the 6-inch cirlcle target sits directly on top of the front sight. The 6-inch cirlce must be in total view – not blocked out or partially blocked out by the front sight.

Using the above sight picture will allow you to see your target, and that’s the only way to be successful with iron sights – or, any other sights for that matter.

Political Camouflage

The great liability of the engineer compared to men of other professions is that his works are out in the open where all can see them. His acts, step by step, are in hard substance. He cannot bury his mistakes in the grave like the doctors. He cannot argue them into thin air or blame the judge like the lawyers. He cannot, like the architects, cover his failures with trees and vines. He cannot, like the politicians, screen his short-comings by blaming his opponents and hope the people will forget. The engineer simply cannot deny he did it. If his works do not work, he is damned.

Herbert Hoover (1874 – 1964), Opening Quote of Chapter 5, Introduction to Aeronautics: A Design Perspective by Steven Brandt et Al.

Obama’s Weasel Words Matter Most

By Chris W. Cox
Executive Director of NRA Institute for Legislative Action
Thursday, October 30, 2008

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama speaks at a rally in Lancaster, Pa., on Sept. 4. He strongly denied that he had any intention of taking away anyone’s shotguns, rifles or handguns. (Associated Press)

In speech after speech, Barack Obama has claimed he would “uphold the Second Amendment.” Mr. Obama, of course, is a polished speaker who says “words matter.” But records matter more. And while Mr. Obama is short on experience on most issues, he’s long on anti-gun votes and even longer on rhetoric. Now’s a good time to review both.

One of Mr. Obama’s first statements on the issue really said it all. During his first run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, Mr. Obama said on a candidate questionnaire that he supported legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” When challenged about the questionnaire earlier this year, Mr. Obama blamed others, saying his campaign staff had filled out the questionnaire incorrectly. (Unfortunately for that story, a version of the questionnaire later appeared bearing Mr. Obama’s own handwriting.)

Questionnaires aside, Mr. Obama has supported handgun bans even when they trap people who defend themselves. In a 2003 case, a resident of Wilmette, Ill., used a handgun to defend himself from a burglar with a drug habit and a long criminal record, breaking into his home for the second day in a row. Though authorities found the shooting justified, the armed citizen was charged with possessing a handgun in violation of Wilmette’s handgun ban.

Illinois lawmakers proposed legislation that would make self-defense an “affirmative defense” against prosecution for handgun possession in towns like Wilmette. Mr. Obama voted four times against the measure, which passed over his opposition, and over a veto by Illinois’ anti-gun governor, Rod Blagojevich, a long-time Obama ally.

Self-defense at home or outside the home – it’s all just as bad to Mr. Obama.
In 2004, he said he was “consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry,” and that he’d back “federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement.” Mr. Obama had already put that anti-self-defense belief into action in 2001, voting against a state Senate bill that would have allowed people who receive protective orders – such as domestic violence victims – to carry firearms. Why? Because, in Mr. Obama’s world, “authorizing potential victims to carry firearms would potentially lead to a more dangerous rather than less dangerous situation … It was a bad idea and I’m glad it failed,” he said.

Mr. Obama also claims he’s no threat to hunters. But in 2005, he voted for a ban on all but the smallest rifle ammunition used for hunting (or for anything else). If the measure had passed, it would have classified most rifle ammunition beyond the low-powered .22 caliber as “armor piercing ammunition,” prohibited for civilian manufacture by federal law. The ammunition ban was hardly Mr. Obama’s first act against hunters, either. In 1999, Mr. Obama proposed increasing firearm and ammunition excise taxes by 500 percent. Right now, a rifle that a manufacturer sells for $500 carries an excise tax of $55. Under Mr. Obama’s proposal, that amount would rocket to $330. This would turn a tax willingly paid by sportsmen, which funds many of our wildlife conservation programs, into a tool to punish gun buyers.

Also, while Mr. Obama promises hunters, “I will not take your shotgun away,” his votes tell a different story. In 2003, while serving on the Illinois state Senate’s Judiciary Committee, Mr. Obama voted for a bill that would have banned (as so-called “semi-automatic assault weapons”) most single-shot and double-barreled shotguns, along with hundreds of models of rifles and handguns. If the bill had passed, any Illinois resident who possessed one of these guns 90 days after legislation went into effect, would have faced felony charges. What was that about not taking shotguns away?

As if voting for anti-gun plans wasn’t bad enough, Mr. Obama also helped pay for them. He was a board member from 1994 to 2001 of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation, which is the largest source of funding for radical anti-gun groups in the country. On Mr. Obama’s watch, Joyce donated $18.6 million to approximately 80 anti-gun efforts, including $1.5 million to the Violence Policy Center, the nation’s most aggressive gun-prohibitionist group. Many of the Joyce Foundation’s projects were aimed at editing the Second Amendment out of the Constitution.

But an Obama Supreme Court could do that more directly. Mr. Obama has said he would not have nominated Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. It was Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller, which declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and that D.C.’s handgun ban is unconstitutional. Justice Thomas joined in that opinion. As a member of the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama also voted against confirming Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom joined Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller. That means four of the five pro-freedom votes on the Supreme Court would not have been there under an Obama presidency.

This is the real Barack Obama. This record matches the attitude Mr. Obama revealed when he said rural Pennsylvanians are “bitter” and “cling to guns.” This record matches what you would expect to emerge from a Chicago political machine where an unrepentant terrorist is “respectable” and “mainstream.”

Finally, with no way to run from his record, Mr. Obama resorts to the ultimate political dodge. Does he support gun registration? “I don’t think that we can get that done.” Banning guns? “I couldn’t get it done. I don’t have the votes in Congress.”

These efforts to ease gun owners’ fears should make any gun owner ask, “Wait … why is he counting all these votes already?” Instead of this not-so-reassuring rhetoric, gun owners deserve the truth. And the truth is clear: Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in history – bar none.

The Two-Shot Sight In Technique

By Glen Wunderlich
Outdoor Columnist
Charter Member Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA)

If you don’t have a lot of ammo to waste attempting to sight in your gun, here is a technique that’ll save you time and expense. For the technique to be successful, two assumptions are in play: 1) Your first shot must be a good shot – not good as in the center of the target, but good as in trigger pull and not moving the gun in any way as you squeeze the trigger. 2) The ammo must be accurate in your gun. Obviously, if you’ve never tried it before this sight-in session, you will have no way of knowing if it is an accurate load. But, if you have used it before and it performed to your liking, you are ready for the two-shot sight in technique.

First, make sure to use a rock-steady rest such as sandbags – one under the forearm of the stock and one at the buttstock. As in all sighting in sessions, the object is to eliminate human error, so it is extremely important that the gun does not move when the first shot is taken.

Second, note where the first shot hit the target. If you have a friend nearby, have him help steady the gun while you make the following adjustment: Center the crosshairs back on the center of the target, after having removed your adjustment turrets. Then, with your friend holding the gun steady, look through the scope making sure it is centered on the target and begin to move the turrets so that the crosshairs move to the first bullet hole.

That’s it. You are now sighted in using only two shots!

1 160 161 162 163 164 165