I mentioned this guy before, and recently, an acquaintance found his name for me.  He's an Atlanta Councilman for District 2, which is the area around the Capitol building and Georgia State University.

Mr. Hall's reaction to the ruling in DC vs Heller last week was:

"We need tighter restrictions to ensure that…particularly young people…young African American males as well are not allowed access to these weapons."

Read that again.  He wants laws to keep guns out of the hands of black folks, presumably folks like Nikki and her boyfriend from the video.  This is one of the most condescending, racist things I've heard in a long while.

So, who is this guy?  According to his resume, he's Vice President of Technology for Ambassador Andrew Young's company, GoodWorks International.  It should be mentioned that Young is a sponsor of George Soros' Council on Foreign Relations.

Mr. Hall is also a 2007 alumnus of the German Marshall Memorial Fellowship Program, an organization that funds the Tides Center, as well as David Fenton's Environmental Working Group.  Craig Kennedy, president of the German Marshall Fund, was also president of the Joyce Foundation for several years.

So, Mr. Hall's part of the hive mind, and he's obviously recieved his talking points.  Still, that's no excuse for this sort of unthinking lip service, especially for an M.I.T. graduate.

I don't care how he meant it to come out, or if he claims it was "taken out of context."  There's no acceptable "context" for something like this.  Essentially, he's saying that there are certain classes in society that don't deserve the tools for self-defense, and that's despicable and bigoted, no matter what the race of the person saying it.

He can be reached at info@hallforcouncil.com, or by all means, write Mayor Franklin, who so glowingly endorsed him.

The parent website is inaccessible, so I can't verify any of the specifics of the regulation.  Although there are numerous and strident statements about safe storage, there appears to be no legal requirement to lock guns or keep them unloaded.

They are making the process as hard as possible, while staying within the requirements of the ruling.  Applicants must:

• Be 21 years of age
• Be a DC resident
• Provide two passport pictures
• Submit fingerprints
• Pay $48.00
• Complete a "notarized firearms eligibility statement," and
• Pass a 20-question multiple-choice test.

Oh, and the office is only open 7:00am-3:00pm during the week.  Of all the impediments they've set up, however, the worst are the last two.

The last time any government agency required statements and written tests was…oh, 1965 in Alabama.  If blacks wanted to vote, they had to take time off from work (a request employers routinely denied) during specific and brief hours, and they had to consent to a literacy and background tests that were designed to stump anyone without an Ivy League law degree (the tests refer to "questions" as "interrogatories").

You can see the original test here [pdf].  The Civil Rights Act of 1965 established that human liberties were not subject to pop quizzes.  The District is opening themselves up for a lawsuit here.

Also problematic is one of the legal requirements.  Notice that the usual fare, such as felonies and narcotics (and prostitution?), place an applicant off-limits.  But #7 also denies firearms registration to anyone who "suffer[s] from a physical defect which would make it unsafe for you to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly."

So, what determines what "physical defect" applies?  Who makes the judgement?  The last time I checked, the handicapped are still citizens.  They have the right, and perhaps a greater need, of self-defense.

This is an ADA lawsuit waiting to happen.

The third problem comes with the types of weapons delineated.  According to the pamphlet:

(…) a shotgun barrel cannot be less than 20 inches in length, and a rifle barrel cannot be less than 16 inches in length and must have a total overal length of 26 inches or more. No weapon can shoot more than one shot by a single function of the trigger, or semi-automatically [sic] shoot more than 12 shots without manual reloading or be readily converted or restored to do so.

That means nothing semi-automatic, which excludes 60-80% of the handguns on the market.  Handguns are protected by the 2nd Amendment according to the ruling, regardless of type.  Moreover, since semi-automatic pistols represent the vast majority of military and law-enforcement sidearms (as well as a significant majority in civilian target shooting), they are protected under the Heller (p. 52) decision as weapons “in common use at the time.”

Mayor Fenty seems intent on baiting the Court on this issue.  I can think of no other reason for these stipulations other than to invite lawsuits. It could also be that the District seeks to postpone allowing residents to register handguns by allowing legal challenges to pile up.

In any case, nothing good can really come of stalling, and the Mayor should have learned that by now.  Politically, the smart thing would have been to cooperate with the DC Circuit Court when they overturned the ban.  Instead, he chose to fight, and in doing so, he lost on a scale much wider than I'd guess he'd imagined.

I find it hard to find sympathy for him.

WHEREAS, current Georgia laws applicable to the carrying of firearms are extensive, complex, ambiguous, scattered in various provisions of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, and frequently produce unintended results and confusion among Georgians who carry firearms, law enforcement officers, and the courts (…) in light of the above, it is now time to closely scrutinize and improve Georgia's firearms laws

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the committee shall undertake a study of Georgia's firearms laws generally and the application of these laws to Georgia's peaceable and law-abiding citizens to ensure that constitutional rights, the right of self-defense, and public safety are properly protected and that persons involved in the firearms licensing process are treated fairly and equitably. The committee shall make recommendations for changes in legislation and shall provide copies of proposed legislation to be prepared by the Office of Legislative Counsel and shall recommend any other action or make such report which the study committee deems appropriate.

Their report is due on or before January 31, 2009.  Senator Chip Rogers of Woodstock is on the committee, as are Senators Don Balfour of Snellville and David Adelman of Atlanta.

Senator Seabaugh sponsored Senate Bill 277, which proposed allowing citizens without Georgia Firearms Licenses to carry weapons anywhere within their personal vehicles.  This clause was merged into House Bill 89, which was also strongly supported by Senator Rogers.  Their presence on the committee is cause for real optimism in next year's legislative session.

Of course, this flies in the face of innumerable sources, several of which are illuminated by Scalia.

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. DC vs Heller, Majority Opinion, p. 19

Scalia's assertion that the 2nd Amendment "recognizes the pre-existence" of the right to keep and bear arms seems a pre-emptive strike on Stevens' argument:

With all of these sources upon which to draw, it is strikingly significant that Madison’s first draft omitted any mention of nonmilitary use or possession of weapons.  Stevens dissent, p. 25

Madison didn't mention nonmilitary use of weapons because it would have been redundant.  "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means what it says, and he would have expected that fact to be obvious.

But the right the Court announces was not “enshrined” in the Second Amendment by the Framers; it is the product of today’s law-changing decision. (…) The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations.  (…) Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, I fear that the District’s policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.  Stevens, p. 45-46

Again, he's missing the point.  The Heller decision doesn't make any new laws, and the 2nd Amendment did not create a right out of thin air.  The right of self-defense was sacred to Blackstone, sacred to the Founding Fathers, and it existed long before 1791.  The 2nd Amendment simply guarantees that said right is protected, and the Heller decision is neccessary to clarify its scope, at least in part.

As for the "District's policy choice" being the first of many firearms regulations to be overturned, it's a moot point.  Those laws are unjust by nature, and anyone with a healthy respect for civil rights should seek their abolishment.

Then there's the flawed Miller ruling.  This is the only precedent the Court has to justify a militia-based interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and when Justice Kennedy posulated during oral arguments that Miller "may be deficient," I could almost hear the air being sucked out of the room.

Miller was a bad case, heard by a politically-motivated Court, in which the respondents were not present.  Blatantly false information was presented by the petitioners, and no effort was made to clarify it.  Still, Stevens attempts to defend it:

Perhaps in recognition of the weakness of its attempt to distinguish Miller, the Court argues in the alternative that Miller should be discounted because of its decisional history. It is true that the appellee in Miller did not file a brief or make an appearance (…) But, as our decision in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, in which only one side appeared and presented arguments, demonstrates, the absence of adversarial presentation alone is not a basis for refusing to accord stare decisis effect to a decision of this Court.  Stevens, p. 43

While technically true, he stumbles here:

Of course, if it can be demonstrated that new evidence or arguments were genuinely not available to an earlier Court, that fact should be given special weight as we consider whether to overrule a prior case. But the Court does not make that claim, because it cannot.  Ibid

The prosecution in Miller never mentioned, though they must have been aware, that the weapon in question (a short-barreled shotgun) had, in fact, been used frequently by the military during the early 20th Century.  Winchester 1897 shotguns were found to be effective in the trenches of World War I, and it was not uncommon for soldiers to saw the barrels down to increase their efficiency at close quarters.

The short-barreled shotgun is a militia-class weapon, and therefore, under the terms established by Miller, taxing and regulating it is unconstitutional.  Given that the status of said weapon was the fulcrum of Miller, the case and subsequent judgment must be thrown out.

Thank you all…I'll be here all week.

Now, on to Breyer.  He's a Clinton appointee and a big fan of the "living Constitution."  He seems more inclined to interpret the law with an eye on its consequences, provable or not, rather than whether or not it is just.

Far more important are the unfortunate consequences that today’s decision is likely to spawn. Not least of these, as I have said, is the fact that the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States. I can find no sound legal basis for launching the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission. In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.  Breyer, p. 44

Notice his tone and articulation.  With the majority having established that handguns are "Arms," which are protected by the 2nd Amendment, he's left to argue for the status quo.  Of course, Heller "threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States."  That's the point; those laws are unjust and unconstitutional.

He is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.  It is his duty to strike down unconstitutional laws, not protect them.

In the end, his only argument falls into the "think of the children" category:

The reason there is no clearly superior, less restrictive alternative to the District’s handgun ban is that the ban’s very objective is to reduce significantly the number of handguns in the District, say, for example, by allowing a law enforcement officer immediately to assume that any handgun he sees is an illegal handgun. And there is no plausible way to achieve that objective other than to ban the guns.  Breyer, p. 34

It isn't the Court's job to determine the "plausibility" or utility of a law.  It's their job to weigh it against the spirit of the Constitution and the intent of its authors.  If that law is found to be in conflict, it must be overturned, no matter what its effect might be.

Though I'm disappointed in the politicized responses of the dissenting Justices, I still find great relief in the final ruling.

In conclusion, I'd like to point out that Scalia's language discounts any argument against "modern" weapons of any sort:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.  Majority Opinion, p. 8

I really look pale on camera.  I wish I could tan.

The resultant story was well-balanced, with the exception of a truly disgusting statement from District 2 Councilman Kwanza Hall.

Of course, we're seeing all kinds of hysterics from the Left.

The Violence Policy Center, who hold one of the few Federal Firearms Licenses in Washington DC, wrote:

In its ruling, the Court has ignored our nation’s history of mass shootings, assassinations, and unparalleled gun violence. It has instead accepted an abstract academic argument with dangerous real-world results for residents of the District of Columbia. Thankfully, because the plaintiff in Heller did not challenge the District's ban on "machine guns," [don't worry, that'll happen soon] Washington, DC’s ban on most semiautomatic weapons, including semiauto handguns, should be unaffected.

It's interesting that semiautomatic handguns are still considered verboten, and I've been unable to get confirmation on that statement.  It's mentioned in Mayor Fenty and Attorney General Nickles' press release, but I'm not sure it'll pass muster with the Supreme Court's orders.

Nickles also claims that under the District's relaxed laws, all handguns must be locked (did they read the decision?) or unloaded.  The pre-1976 registration scheme will likely be resurrected.  In many ways, it was still in place; the 1976 ban simply prohibited registration of any new handguns.  Residents will be limited to one handgun per person.

So, if you live in DC, you get one handgun, and it can't be an automatic.  Fine.  Start shoppin' for a nice revolver.  It makes me warm and fuzzy inside to think everyone in our nation's capital is packing wheelguns.

So, how about the rest of the country?  Chicago Mayor Daley had this rambling incoherency to add to the debate:

It is frightening that America loves guns and to me, I think this decision really places those who are rich and those are in power [perhaps like Chicago Alderman Richard Mell?], they'll always feel safe. Those who do not have the power do not feel safe, and that's what they're saying. If you're elected officials, you feel safe. You cannot carry a gun into a federal building. You cannot carry a gun into a federal court. So they're setting themselves aside, and really, they're saying to the rest of America that the answer to all the constitutional issues is that we can carry guns. And I just don't understand how they came to this thinking.

This man talks like a Babelfish translation of Linear B.  He goes on to opine:

Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society? If they think that's the answer, then they're greatly mistaken. Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun, and we'll settle it in the streets if that's they're thinking. (…) We think we're such an improved society.  The rest of the world is laughing at us.

In the words of Isaac Brock, "laugh hard, it's a long way to the bank."

As I predicted, his city's ban on handguns is next on the chopping block.  The Second Amendment Foundation filed the first of several lawsuits challenging the Constitutionality of Chicago's similar ban hours after this morning's announcement.

Several people have complained to me that they were unhappy with the Heller ruling.  The consensus seems to be that it doesn't do enough.  In truth, the Court did exactly what they were asked to, and they gave us all they could within the parameters they'd been given.

The Court was posed two essential questions in the case:

• does the 2nd Amendment guarantee the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms, outside any organized military context, and
• does the Washinton DC ban on handguns violate the 2nd Amendment?

Both questions were answered to my satisfaction.  (In case you're still catching up, the answers are "yes" to both.)

The only question that remains open is one that was never addressed directly: incorporation.  Since this is still something of a nascent issue for the Court (only 217 years in), the 2nd has yet to be applied to the States, as opposed to the Federal government.  Some think that it's implied in the Heller ruling, but I'd still like to see a more explicit acknowledgment.

Many people seemed to expect the Court to somehow exceed its mandate and declare the NFA and every other gun-control law in the country invalid.  That wasn't the point of this case.  Even Gura, in oral arguments, stated that the scope of this case was limited to the two questions above.

What we're left with is a significant change in the way the 2nd Amendment will be handled by the courts in the future.  Until now, we've been trudging through the briny waters of Miller, a decision that could be cited in any number of ways to support both sides of the issue.  The Heller decision imparts some clarity, and it grants the 2nd Amendment the status it should have always enjoyed, which is that of an enumerated, fundamental right.

In light of this, issues such as the NFA, gun registration and may-issue carry licensing will be rectified in future cases.  Heller plants our foot squarely in the door, and now that it's open, the rest will follow in time.

(1)  The ruling states, on p. 64:

(…) we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

The decision is available here [pdf].

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

p 54

Scalia wrote the majority opinion, supported by Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts and Alito.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.  Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but  does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative  clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th Century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.  It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.

Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.  Pp. 56–64.

The possibility of future litigation, on both sides, is taken into account by Scalia:

But since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field, any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.

p. 63

Dissenting Justices were Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens and Breyer.  From Stevens' dissent:

Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced
by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

Stevens' dissent focused on what he sees as a historical justification for restriction of firearms to a "state militia," while Breyer's opinion seems to focus on practical concerns and ramifications.

The District has announced that it will allow citizens to purchase handguns, and there will be an "amnesty," under which existing handguns may be registered.  All handguns must be registered, and carry outside the home is still prohibited.

Basically, states with lenient firearms laws will see little, if any change, while cities like New York and Chicago will likely move to legal schemes only slightly less strict.

There seems some murkiness as to whether or not this decision is intended to apply to states via the 14th Amendment, or whether it only applies to the Federal government.

Still, it's a wonderful opening salvo and a philisophical victory.

In some cases, a lack of forethought can create no end of confusion.  Take, for example, the “Thirty Eight.”  The 20th Century has seen innumerable .38-caliber loadings, and using the wrong one in your weapon could have some pretty disastrous results.

In fact, very few .38 cartridges actually use a .38 caliber bullet.  What follows is a quick tutorial on .38 cartridges.

It all started back in the days before smokeless powder and self-contained cartridges.  A .36 caliber blackpowder load that actually used a bullet .380″ in diameter was used in both sides of the Civil War.  Actual ballistics were fairly impressive, though pistols for the rounds were large, heavy and slow to load.

.38-40, also known as .38 WCF (”Winchester Center Fire”). Introduced in 1874 by Winchester, it used a .401″ bullet, traveling at ~1100 ft/s.  Though designed for rifles, the round was better suited for revolvers, in which it was frequently used. It is essentially a necked-down .44-40.

.38 Colt. Developed by Colt in 1875. Manufactured in short and long-cased variations; the .38 Long Colt was adopted by the U.S. Army in 1892. Though actually .357″ inches in diameter, the round was referred to by the width of its case (.38″) in deference to naming conventions dating back to blackpowder days.  Actual ballistics involved a 125 gr bullet moving at ~775 ft/s, with ~165 ft/lbs muzzle energy.  It was proven to be a dismal performer in the Philippine Insurrections at the turn of the century, in which Moro warriors with wooden shields were able to withstand repeated hits without falling.

.38 S&W ⁽¹⁾ Introduced by Smith & Wesson in 1877, it would end up bearing several names:  .38/200, .380″ Revolver Mk IIz, and with a different bullet shape, the .38 Colt New Police and Super Police.  The cartridge used a .361″ bullet, 146 to 200 gr, with a velocity of ~620-800 ft/s, depending on weight.

It was a popular cartridge, used by Charles Guiteau to kill President Garfield.  It was also one of Elmer Keith’s favorite loadings.  Despite its perceived lack of power, it is a quite accurate cartridge, with little recoil, and can be good for taking small game.  The Webley Mk IV in .38/200 was in service in the U.K. until 1963.

.38 S&W Special (or just “.38 Special”) This is what people usually mean when they say, "38." It was created by Smith & Wesson in 1902 (some folks claim 1899). Though it used the same width casing as the Long Colt, it was lengthened it by 0.13″.  For the new cartridge, Smith & Wesson used a frame with a swing-out cylinder they’d introduced for the .32 S&W Long in 1896.

This was the 1st Model Hand Ejector, and it became one of the most well-known and beloved handgun designs of the 20th century.  The design eliminated a potential weak spot, which was the hinge at the top of the older top-break design, and the Hand Ejector (or K-Frame, as it would come to be called) served as a test bed for later, more powerful cartridges.

Early loadings for the cartridge involved a 158 gr bullet doing ~760 ft/s, with ~200-210 ft/lbs of muzzle energy and 17,000 PSI chamber pressure.  Many folks saw the tremendous potential for the .38 Special, and by the 1930s, it was being loaded to higher pressures.

.38 Special +P is simply the .38 Special loaded to ~20,000 PSI ⁽²⁾, which increases muzzle energy by about 25-30% (~258 ft/lbs) and velocity to ~1000 ft/s.

.38 Super, introduced by Colt in 1929, was a modified version of John Moses Browning’s .38 ACP round designed for automatic pistols ⁽³⁾.  The .38 Super had better ballistics than the .38 Special loadings of the time, but law enforcement would find the .357 Magnum loading more desirable.  It is still a very popular cartridge among competition shooters.

.38-44, introduced in 1933 by Douglas Wesson to compete with Colt's .38 Super.  It was essentially a .38 Special driven to higher velocity (early loadings ran ~1100-1150 ft/s).  To accommodate the higher pressures of the new loading, Smith & Wesson designed a revolver around the frame used for .44 loadings (now called the N-Frame).  The resulting model was called the 38-44.

Initial ballistics did not compare to Colt's 130 gr .38 Super loading, but using 13.5 grains of Hercules #2400 powder, Elmer Keith was able to propel a 160 gr .38-44 bullet 1509 ft/s, dumping ~800 ft/lbs of energy.  SAAMI does not list a chamber pressure for the .38-44 loading, but I’m willing to bet it’s equal to (if not above) the 35,000 PSI the .357 Magnum generates.

.357 Magnum, introduced in 1934.  Since the .38-44 could be inadvertently be chambered in a gun built only to handle milder .38’s, Smith & Wesson lengthened the casing by 1/10″ and named it the .357 Magnum.  It’s worth mentioning that a revolver chambered for the .357 can also fire .38 Special loadings of any sort, as the bullet diameter and case width are identical.  The case was simply stretched to avoid having Magnums accidentally loaded into a .38 Special revolver.

Despite the popularity of the Magnum loading, the .38 Special has never fallen out of favor.  The Remington 158 gr LSWCHP (”lead solid wad cutter hollow point”) was the favored round of the FBI and countless state and local law enforcement agencies for four decades, and the Air Force issued .38 caliber Model 15’s until 1982.  The loading is still in use by many security agencies today.  For civilians, modern 125 gr +P loadings are excellent choices, and the 148 gr wad cutter remains a very popular target load.  Ammunition is plentiful and (relatively) inexpensive (in Europe, ask for 9×29mm).

In many ways, the .38 Special is the great handgun cartridge of the 20th Century.  It’s very accurate and generates only moderate recoil, while still being potent enough for small game and self-defense.

..^

(1) Not to be confused with .38 S&W Special. The .38 S&W bullet is .359″ in diameter and will stick in the barrel of a .38 Special revolver.  I’ve twice had to remove them for people who didn’t know better.

(2) It should be noted that it is unwise and unsafe to use +P ammunition in revolvers for which it is not designed.  Many older European and Central American revolvers are not rated for +P rounds.  Find out before using them.  According to Smith & Wesson, any numbered model of their revolvers is safe with it.

(3) There have been several other attempts to adapt the .38 to automatic pistols.  Due to the rimmed casing, standard .38 Special cartridges tend not to feed well, but S&W did make a Model 52 target pistol for it.  There were also endeavors to convert either the guns or the ammuntion to work together.  One example is the .38 AMU.  Dick Casull designed the .38 Casull, and even the late, lamented Dardick used a .38 caliber round (or, “tround”).

A friend compares carrying a gun to wearing ladies' underwear.  It's comforting, and as good as it looks, it's not something you'd want to have to explain to a random person on the street.  It's a secret you keep to yourself, but one that could save your life one day (*).

It's vital to have one that fits the hand just right.  Under stress, the weapon needs a sure grip, and one in which the sights line up naturally.  The quality of grips is a rarely-mentioned factor in this.

As much as I love Smith & Wesson revolvers, their stock grips have always left something to be desired.  The classic Magna grips were far too thin, leaving an empty area in which the weak hand tends to creep up and get lodged behind the trigger guard.  That can get uncomfortable fast if you're shooting Mangum loads.

(One alternative is to use Tyler T grips with them, and though I thought they were ugly in the past, I'm coming around lately.)

The other standard grips were the walnut Target grips.  These were a bit on the large side and tend to move about too much in the hand for my taste. Though the newer Pachmayr and Hogues are a better fit, rubber tends to trap moisture underneath, and they catch on clothing quite often.  That, and they're just not very attractive.

Over the years, there have been a number of ingenious folks who've come up with more ergonomic wood stocks.  Roper and Herrett are two revered names in this area, and over the last couple of decades, Kim Ahrends has been making a reputation for himself.

Every set I've owned has been a perfect fit, with no gaps or misaligned seams.  They fill the hand better than the old Magna grips, but are slimmer in profile than the Target grips.  The shape is comfortable, and the thumbrest is carved in just the right spot so the gun rides high in the hand.  They leave the backstrap exposed, so they don't mitigate recoil much, but recovery is quick given the ergonomics.  They're available with or without finger grooves.

In terms of aesthetics…well, I'll let the pictures speak for themselves.  He works in a variety of woods and finishes, and he'll make grips from a blank if you send it to him (I'm seriously considering some made from this). The grain is flawlessly bookmatched.

A beautiful wheelgun demands nice accouterments, but they also have to be practical.  Ahrends stocks fill both roles perfectly.

Given his popularity, turnaround times can be a few weeks.  I've dealt with two online retailers who stock his goods, D&J Gun Repair and Mizzou Mule Guns.  D&J is a more modern operation, with an online shopping cart and such, while Mizzou Mule expects you to call and talk like a human being.  Dennis is a really nice guy, but set aside a few minutes; he's a great conversationalist.  Both operations ship very quickly.

I take a certain amount of pride in my guns, and although few people outside of work will ever see them, it's nice to know they look swanky.  Just like lace panties.

(*) The story involves a plane crash in Thailand and a frilly corset.  The less said about the whole situation, the better. In fact, forget I mentioned it at all.

It's not the Gay Agenda.

It's not even the Slightly Grim and Dour Agenda.

It's a shadowy organization far older and more powerful.

It's the Habsburg Nobility, gang.

Let's start at the beginning.

The Habsburg Dynasty can trace its lineage back to 12th Century Switzerland.  After the fall of the Hohenstaufens, Rudolph of Habsburg was appointed King of Germany (and King of the Romans) in 1273.

For the next six centuries, the Habsburg Dynasty would act as the kingmakers and often kings of Europe.  The Austro-Hungarian Empire would collapse at the conclusion of World War I in 1918, and with it went Charles I, the last of the Habsburg kings.

In the early 19th Century, the Rothschild family would quietly enter the stage.  The served as bankers for the Habsburgs, and their financial influence was such that they were able to steer significant changes in the European political landscape.  They managed their businesses well, and they kept their cards close to the vest.  As such, they were able to survive the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Their influence was spread throughout Europe.  In the late 19th Century, Nathan Rothschild would fund the construction of the Suez Canal, the founding of the De Beers diamond company and Oxford University's Rhodes Scholarship.  The entire family held positions of power and prestige throughout the 20th Century.

In 1930, György Schwartz was born in Hungary.  His name was changed to George Soros, and after World War II, he moved to England to study Economics, where he would study with Karl Popper.

In 1969, the Rothschilds helped finance the founding of Soros' Quantum Fund in Curaçao.

Throughout the intervening years, Soros and the Quantum Fund would do quite well at speculating on currencies.  In 1992, Soros' reputation was cemented when he made nearly two billion dollars by short-selling English Pounds for the Deutsche Mark and instigated the event known in the UK as Black Wednesday.

The 1960's also marked the entrance of David Fenton to the stage.  Fenton was one of those peace-and-love sorts.  In fact, he was so full of love, he was happy to work as a photographer for the Weathermen.  Never mind the fact that blowing up buildings is hardly my idea of love.

He made friends with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and this friendship would pay off later, when they would help him score a position on the Board of Directors for Chicago's Woods Fund.

As has been publicized recently, Barack Obama was also a director, as well as a friend to Ayers and Dorhn.  Through the Woods Fund, he arranged donations to the Tides Foundation.

At this point, I'll be discussing two groups about whom I've written previously: the Joyce Foundation and the Tides Foundation.

Through his "Open Society Institute," Soros has donated over $16 million [pdf] to the Tides Foundation.

So, where's the connection?  Fenton founded Fenton Communications in 1982.  The company focuses on legal representation and public relations for far-left causes.  Remember the fake Alar scare of 1989?  You've got him to thank for it.

Fenton Communications has received substantial financial assistance from Moveon.org, which is heavily funded by Soros.  He also sits on the Board of Directors for the Environmental Working Group, with Drummond Pike of the Tides Foundation.  The EWG is also funded by the Joyce Foundation, in which Barack Obama was a Board Member.

It's all connected, and it all leads back to George Soros.  It breaks down like this:

Barack Obama—>Tides/Moveon/Joyce/Fenton—>George Soros/OSI—>Quantum Fund—>Rothschild Dynasty—>Habsburg Monarchy.

Pretty good, eh?  Ready to vote McCain this year?

Think again.

McCain founded a little "think tank" called the Reform Institute.  Look at the donor list.  See some familiar names?  They're also taking money from Tides.

Sorry to ruin the mood, folks.  I really am.

The Reform Institute has also received support from Soros' Open Society Institute, as well as David Geffen–the man I will never forgive for ruining Sonic Youth.  They're also taking money from the Proteus Fund, which counts Barbara Streisand among its donors.  The Proteus Fund in turn gives money to the Piper Fund, and who do we see on their donor list?  The Joyce Foundation and Tides Foundation.

Not only do they have horrific taste in music, they're supported by two of the largest left-wing finaciers in this country.

So, applying the Obama calculus:

McCain—>Reform Institute—>Piper Fund—>Joyce/Tides—>Proteus Fund—>George Soros/OSI—>Quantum Fund—>Rothschild Dynasty—>Habsburg Monarchy

Yep, either way, this election's looking pretty grim.

Though I may be a bit flippant in my presentation of historical connections, everything I've written here about current-day funding is true.  Leave out the idea of the Habsburgs waiting in the wings, and the reality is the same:  our two Presidential candidates share the same funding, and as such, the same masters.

George Soros will be the man steering our country, no matter who you vote for.

I ask that you halt consideration of all pending judicial nominees from the Bush Administration who are hostile to reasonable gun control laws until a new president is sworn in next January. The American people don't need any more Second Amendment extremists from this lame-duck president.

The left is running scared because it looks as if one of their sacred cows is about to be taken away.  Screaming for stricter gun control is their way of "raising awareness," "doing something for the children," or even, "making a difference."  Once they've vented their spleen and chanted their slogans (preferably in a medium where all their friends can see them doing it), they can go back to their neighborhood coffee house, listen to not-too-weird jazz, and bask in the satisfaction of having been a "part of something important."

Essentially, it's a way of looking concerned without having to actually do anything.  A Supreme Court ruling in support of the 2nd Amendment as written is going to deal a swift blow to their pet cause, and they're just a tad bitter about it.

Normally, such behavior would only be an annoying exercise in self-promotion, but the gun-control lobby has some serious money, and some crafty ways of hiding it.

…and frankly, I like kicking hypocrites when they're down.

Let's talk about Larry Litvak.  He's on the Board of Directors for the Tides Foundation, a member of the "Political Mutual Funds" Working Group within the New Progressive Coalition, and a founder of Working Assets, the parent company for the CREDO Action organization.

With all these hats, how does a guy find time to earn a living?  Well, it would appear that Larry, like many of his ilk, have found some really creative ways to earn serious money.  Working Assets sells "socially conscious" credit cards, wireless service and long-distance phone services.  Apparently, calling it "responsible" means that they can take some of their customers' money and funnel it off into happy little causes, like the Brady Campaign.

Of course, it's hard to find venture capital for a company that offers the same things other, larger companies already do, so where's a poor white-collar lawyer to turn?

Enter the Tides Foundation, a 501(c)3 management organization with a net worth of $145,459,750 as of 2004.  You've heard me grouse about the Joyce Foundation before, and although they're a sneaky bunch, they've got nothing on the Tides Foundation when it comes to obfuscating the sources and uses of tens of millions of dollars in tax-exempt funding.

Founded by Drummond Pike, they've been tax-exempt since 1995, and they handle donor-advised donations.  "Donor advised" donations are tax-deductible and completely anonymous.  The funds go to the Tides Center, which manages the money and funnels it into the Tides Foundation, who then parcel it out to various "causes."

The whole thing sounds like a money-laundering scheme from 1987 or so.  It should, since Managing Director Danica Remy learned from the best–she worked for Michael Milken as Vice President of Knowledge Universe.  Milken certainly knew a thing or two about shady dealings.

How quickly people drop their principles when money's involved.  Doesn't this whole scheme sound just like the sort of thing liberals usually scream about when they're pointing out how evil rich Republicans handle their finances?

The article accompanying the petition I cited above closes with this:

The Senate should simply refuse to move forward with confirmation proceedings for any judicial nominees who hold Second Amendment views far outside the mainstream.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy can shut down the process entirely and keep Second Amendment extremists off the bench. So please send Senator Leahy a message today: block the appointment of federal judges who are hostile to reasonable gun control laws.

It should be noted that Senator Leahy is a former aide and current mouthpiece for the Environmenal Working Group, a project chaired by Drummond Pike.