.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
Categories
The Veterlli Connection
Categories
The Imperial Gewehr 71
Yeah I knows its the Marines but there is still some good stuff here- Grumpy
Buffalo Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia conceded a few months ago that he would confiscate an individual’s firearms based upon an anonymous tip that the individual was a threat to himself or others.
Gramaglia was testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform back in May when he was directly asked by Louisiana Congressman Clay Higgins (R) whether he would enforce confiscatory red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders.
“Would you go to your neighbor’s home and confiscate his legally owned weapons, a man that was not under a criminal investigation nor under arrest? Would you do it?” Higgins asked.
“The red flag laws…,” Gramaglia began, when Higgins interjected, “That’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ brother.”
“It’s more than a yes or no answer,” said Gramaglia.
Higgins went on to explain how red flag laws operate and how low the evidentiary bar is to trigger enforcement.
“‘Determined to be’ is defined by the letter of this law to be an anonymous tip that an American citizen is a threat to themselves or others,” noted Higgins.
“You’re a police commissioner, a thin-blue-line brother, sworn to uphold the constitution and you’re saying you’d seize those weapons,” he continued. “I see that as a problem.”
SEE ALSO: Connecticut Considers Expanding ‘Red Flag’ Law, Eliminating Expiration on Gun Confiscation
Red flag laws work like so, a citizen “determined to be a threat” is disarmed and loses his right to keep and bear arms until he can convince a judge that he is not a danger to himself or others.
Under this system, the accused is guilty until proven innocent or, more accurately, rendered disarmed and defenseless until the state decrees otherwise.
It’s worth noting that it can be weeks before the accused is allowed to go before a judge to respond to the allegations and to tell the other side of the story. As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, spoke to GunsAmerica in the past about the many issues surrounding red flag laws.
“We are talking about depriving law-abiding citizens of their fundamental civil liberties and if that is to occur, those affected parties have a right to confront witnesses and evidence before a judge renders a decision to enforce an order,” said Mark Oliva, NSSF managing director of public affairs.
“In exigent circumstances when an individual poses an immediate danger to themselves or others, those individuals still have rights and must be afforded the opportunity to come before a judge within a reasonable timeframe. When an individual is arrested, they are before a judge within 24-72 hours. There’s no reason someone should be deprived of their civil liberties without the same standard of justice,” he added.
There is no hard evidence to suggest that red flag laws “save lives” to the degree proponents tout, but there is plenty of evidence that they are just the start of a larger confiscation scheme. Case in point, states have been expanding the roster of who is allowed to petition a court for a red flag order.
Initially, it was only law enforcement and immediate family members who wielded that power. Now, many states have added to that list registered nurses, psychologists, social workers, teachers, and a wide variety of extended family members and acquaintances.
But wait, it gets worse. In at least one state, lawmakers have discussed eliminating the expiration date on red flag orders altogether. In most cases, the revocation of 2A rights is only supposed to last one year. But politicians in Connecticut have talked about imposing it indefinitely.
It also bears mentioning that red flag laws do not provide help or assistance to those deemed a public danger. The government assumes that the immediate seizure of firearms is all that is necessary to render a potentially violent person impotent. No follow-up care or mental health treatment is administered.
The sole focus is on taking guns. But sharp objects, blunt instruments, and automobiles kill thousands of people each year. However, under a red flag law, a suspect’s access to these “weapons” remains unrestricted.
Last month, Biden signed the “Safer Communities Act,” the first major federal gun control legislation in 30 years. While many saw it as a big nothing burger in terms of its immediate effect on 2A rights, contained in that law are incentives for states to adopt these confiscatory red flag schemes. Nineteen states already have them on the books. Time will tell how many others follow suit now that there’s federal aid on the table.
The hard truth about red flag laws is they weren’t crafted by the state to take guns away from criminals or the mentally deranged. We have plenty of existing laws to handle those legitimate threats. No, politicians designed red flag laws to take guns away from you. And unfortunately, it appears they have at least one police commissioner in power that is eager and willing to do their bidding.
Background
President Carter was fishing in his hometown of Plains, Georgia, on April 20, 1979, alone in a flat-bottomed boat while staff were on land nearby. Carter said a rabbit being chased by hounds “jumped in the water and swam toward my boat. When he got almost there, I splashed some water with a paddle.”[1]
When Carter returned to his office, his staff did not believe his story, saying rabbits could not swim or that one would never approach a person threateningly.[2] However, a White House photographer had taken a picture of the incident, which was released by a later administration
Categories
A Fabbri S/S 12/70 Shotgun
During a trial in West Virginia earlier this year, witnesses tell The Daily Beast, a state court judge whipped out his handgun, waved it in the air, and left it on the bench with the barrel pointing directly at the corporate lawyers who had irritated him.
Circuit Judge David W. Hummel Jr., who oversees cases in the tiny city of New Martinsville, repeatedly told The Daily Beast it never happened. When reached by phone in March, he initially professed shock at the allegations. On subsequent phone calls, however, his story kept changing as he claimed to recall more details about the incident.
“I did not have my 1911 at any point during that trial,” he said then, referring to a common type of semi-automatic pistol. “It was secreted in a drawer on the bench. I never showed my 1911 at the trial whatsoever—at any point during that trial.”
That judge is now under investigation by the state’s judiciary for violating the profession’s code of conduct, according to three witnesses now sharing information with law enforcement and official communications about the investigation reviewed by The Daily Beast. The judge’s own staff has since told an investigator that the judge did, in fact, display his gun openly during an attorneys-only hearing and boasted about having it in his possession, according to two of those witnesses.
Hummel insisted to The Daily Beast that there was no recording of the incident that would back up these accusations, but two witnesses say the state investigator has acquired a videotape of the interaction.
“You don’t understand what a terrible victimization it is,” said Lauren Varnado, the attorney who was standing at the podium when the judge pulled out his gun. “It was pretty traumatic for multiple people. The whole trial was insane.”
“We have no power in this situation,” she said. “It was way scarier than even just a normal person on the sidewalk. You need more power over us than you already have right now? That’s frightening, because he could order us to do whatever. Why would you ever need to pull out a gun?”
The judge’s show of force was the culmination of months of building tension between him and Varnado’s team of corporate lawyers. The Daily Beast has reviewed hundreds of pages of court transcripts and spoken to several people involved.
As with many legal battles in West Virginia, it all started with fossil fuels.
Until the case settled recently, Hummel oversaw a dispute involving West Virginia landowners who sued over the royalty payments they get from the natural gas giant EQT for fossil fuels extracted from the earth hundreds of feet below their property.
But the gas company’s lawyers accused the judge of never disclosing that his parents get gas company royalties that may someday pass on to him—sparking questions about a glaring conflict of interest. When the gas company’s lawyers sought to disqualify him, court transcripts show he grew increasingly aggravated at Varnado and her team.
At an April 2021 court hearing in which he was asked about his family’s gas interests, the transcript shows how the judge patronized EQT’s lawyers as he detailed his family tree and dismissed their concerns, ranting about how his cousin “Christy” got mad at him for not recognizing her at a wedding. When the attempt to have higher state courts disqualify him failed, Hummel started the next court hearing in similar fashion.
“Okay. Excellent. And I’m Judge Hummel, and I have no conflicts, Supreme Court said, so here we are. And this time I don’t have to talk about my Aunt Rose’s numerals or which shoe I put on first or anything,” he said on July 19, 2021, according to another transcript.
The dispute revolved around the energy company EQT.
Photo Illustration by Rafael Henrique/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty
The eventual trial was always going to be fiercely contentious. EQT cut its royalty payments nearly a decade ago, shortly before the energy value of the state’s natural gas production began to overtake coal. While the state has relied heavily on the exports of coal and oil since the 1800s, natural gas from the fracking of the massive Marcellus Shale underground has the promise to enrich the state.
By the time the two-week trial started in February in New Martinsville, the locals were so angry at how the gas company had cut their royalties in recent years that EQT lawyers felt the need to be escorted by ex-CIA private security contractors, according to three members of that team. But when lawyers on both sides were called into the century-old sandstone courthouse for a special hearing on Saturday, March 12, bailiffs at the entrance surprised the legal teams with a new rule for the day.
“Trial counsel only today,” they said, according to three witnesses who spoke to The Daily Beast on condition of anonymity, fearing potential reprisal.
Varnado’s private security guard and a paralegal were turned away. The lawyers made their way into the courtroom on the second floor. Once there, according to a transcript, the judge castigated the gas company’s lawyers for having private guards, noting that if there were any concerns about safety, “I promise you, I’ll take care of them.”
“We were never told these folks were security until most recently,” the judge said, according to a court transcript. “I got this man here carrying a man purse, which I make fun of him every damn day for wearing such a sissy-ass contraption. And I hear he has blood coagulant. I have blood coagulant up here too, and I’ve got lots of guns. Like, bigger ones too.”
Hummel then pulled out a black handgun from an over-the-belt leather holster beneath his robe, and started waving it around the room, according to Varnado and another person in the room.
Hummel then put it down on his wooden desk, known as a judge’s bench, and left the barrel pointing at Varnado, her New York law partner David R. Dehoney, and their local West Virginia attorney Jennifer Hicks.
The gun stayed there for the rest of the hearing. When the attorneys were directed to negotiate in a private room, they found the handgun still waiting for them when they returned. When lawyers had to approach the judge, the resting gun remained pointed at their faces.
“It’s just a violation of basic gun safety, having it out like that pointing at people,” Varnado said. “It was too stunning to even process it. My brain didn’t even process it until after the hearing concluded. I was on edge. I don’t know if it was loaded.”
Indeed, pointing a firearm at anything but a target violates the National Rifle Association’s primary rule on gun safety, which is to keep a barrel pointed away from people at all times. And the judge seems to have broken a second rule of safe gun handling, which is to check whether a firearm’s chamber is empty and clear of ammunition—then say so out loud.
In the days after the hearing, Varnado reached out to the FBI to report what happened. But she decided to seek help from the feds 100 miles away in Pittsburgh, concerned that local law enforcement might be untrustworthy given the judge’s position of power and influence.
Varnado still feels confident that was the right move. When The Daily Beast reached out to Wetzel County Sheriff Michael L. Koontz, whose deputies provide security outside the courthouse, the sheriff remembered that a special hearing happened that Saturday morning—but denied any knowledge about the judge pulling out the gun.
However, two sources with direct knowledge say a sheriff’s deputy who was in the courtroom that day has since confirmed to the state investigator that the judge brandished his pistol.
When reached by phone a few weeks after the episode, Hummel first denied anything remarkable ever occurred.
“There is no incident… I absolutely, categorically deny I had a gun that day in the courtroom,” he said. “It was just me and the attorneys. I had no reason to have a firearm that day… I’ve never shown a gun in my courtroom to anybody. I don’t want them to know that I have it. I do not display my firearm at any time during trial.”
“My job is not to protect anyone with firearms,” he said. “That’s what my bailiffs and deputy sheriffs are for.”
Minutes later, the judge called back and said he now recalled having a holstered gun on him beneath his robe during the trial the previous week. But it wasn’t the 1911 pistol, he said. It was a long, classic-looking revolver that hails from the days of the Wild West.
“I wore the Colt Peacemaker,” he said. “The Peacemaker never ever came out of the holster during that trial.”
When the judge called back a third time, he acknowledged showing something to the attorneys in the courtroom that day. But he said it wasn’t a gun.
“I did pull out a small, red first aid kit. But it was casual. I did show her a foiled packet, and said this is blood coagulant. We have preparations for active shooter situations,” he said.
In April, a spokeswoman with the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia told The Daily Beast that she was not aware of the gun incident. And records showed that Hummel had not been the subject of an admonishment or formal statement of charges.
But in the weeks since, Judicial Investigation Commission of West Virginia investigator David Hudson has been gathering evidence about the incident, asking witnesses to describe the firearm and how they felt about it being displayed by the judge, according to communications reviewed by The Daily Beast.
In a signed affidavit submitted to the investigator, Varnado, who hails from Texas, described the judge’s gun as a “Colt 45,” a widely recognized pistol otherwise known as a 1911.
The judge, his court clerk, a secretary, and a court reporter have all submitted sworn affidavits describing the events that day to the investigator, court reporter Holly A. Kocher told The Daily Beast on Wednesday.
Since March, the FBI’s Pittsburgh field office has repeatedly declined to confirm that a special agent there has been assigned to look into the incident. The judge did not respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.
The state judiciary, citing policy, declined to provide details about the ongoing ethics investigation. But its staff pointed to its website, which indicates that judges who violate the rules face a one-year suspension.
Blued-steel and walnut; for time immemorial this was the combination of materials used to make a firearm. Bluing—or blacking if you’re referring to English guns—can be achieved via several different methods, but for generations, walnut was the preferred material for a gun stock.
Walnut is tough, light, rigid, hard and doesn’t split easily, making it just about the perfect choice for a gunstock. Other woods have been used, but the most popular material has been walnut, though as with any wood species, it comes with its own unique issues. Walnut, in many different circumstances, can be one of the most highly figured woods imaginable; if you’ve ever seen a true high-end stock, you can spend hours staring into the depths of that figure.
However, wood will absorb water, it will swell, it will warp, it can (under heavy recoil, or if the grain is maligned) crack or split, and all of these characteristics can drastically affect the performance of the firearm. Looking back at historic firearms, their walnut stocks will show varying levels of wear—quite obviously, depending on finish and amount of use—but gunsmiths have always searched for the best materials for making a dependable firearm.
If you’ve spent any amount of time shopping for a new firearm, I’m sure you’ve noticed that there are as many—and quite often more—choices of polymer, fiberglass or synthetic stocks as there are wood.
These relatively modern developments (they became popular in the 1950s in firearms like the Remington Nylon 66) proved to be nearly impervious to weather, resisting the influence of heat and humidity on the firearm’s performance. When combined with stainless steel or some of the other more impervious metal finishes, these stocks were a big part of the weatherproof equation that hunters who spend their time in salty sea air or those areas with heavy rainfall would come appreciate.
Taking a look at some of the most popular firearms companies, I was honestly a bit shocked to see how the synthetic/polymer/laminate wood stocks have come to dominate the market. The vast majority of Ruger, Remington and Savage rifles and shotguns are stocked in something other than walnut. The Winchester Model 70 maintains a walnut stock advantage, as does the lineup of Winchester lever-action rifles, but synthetic-stocked lever-actions are popping up regularly these days; Marlin and Henry being two examples which come quickly to mind.
Like I said, the weatherproof characteristics of the laminates and synthetics make a lot of sense, but I personally feel that many of them lack the warmth and feel of the walnut stock. There are a few—Mark Bansner of Bansner & Co. makes a synthetic stock that I really enjoy—but when you compare them to the design of a proper Winchester Model 70, or some of the higher-end rifles like the Rigby Highland Stalker or the Heym Express by Martini, I feel the synthetic stock gets left behind. A worn, vintage Winchester or Marlin lever gun seems to have a story to tell, with every ding and scratch being a chapter in the tale.
A well-sealed walnut stock will actually stand up well to most hunting situations, though they aren’t as rigid or easy to produce as a synthetic stock. While the mass-produced stocks are created by machinery, the higher-end walnut stocks are finished by hand. Custom stocks are a work of art, and to watch a classically trained stockmaker hand-carve a stock is like watching Michelangelo work.
Names like Ralf Martini, Todd Ramirez, D’Arcy Echols, Mark Renmant and JJ Perodeau, just to name a few, can make the stock of your dreams. And I firmly believe that, like a fine watch, everyone should own at least one gun with a stock they are truly proud of.
Those stocks—even the blanks from which they are made—are not cheap. The custom walnut stock is extremely labor-intensive, and the highly figured walnut, which was much more common a century ago, has become a rarity. Many of the hardwood stocks in use today are rather plain looking, and the figured stocks come at a premium, for certain. So where does that leave the walnut stock? Is it nearing the end of days for a stock with that honey and chocolate streaking, which seems to have an immeasurable depth to it? Has the synthetic stock won after all?
I think that the walnut stock still has its place, especially in the world of bespoke guns. I am proud to own a pair of Heym rifles—a .404 Jeffery Express rifle and a .470 NE Model 89B double rifle—which have some pretty fancy Turkish walnut. Rather than make them safe queens, I hunt them pretty hard in rather remote locations, adding one chapter at a time to their story. I also own synthetic-stocked rifles, which may not be as handsome, but with which I’ve made some wonderful memories. In spite of the new offerings, most lever guns will continue to be bedecked in walnut, as will any of the classic double rifles. And I’m also pretty certain we’ll always have a shiny, well-figured stock on a Weatherby Mark V, Browning Medallion and Dakota 76.
If your budget only allows one rifle or shotgun—and my own did for quite a few years—a synthetic-stocked gun with a rugged finish makes all sorts of sense. I’ve always been the kind of hunter who would rather go hunting than own a bunch of fancy rifles which gobble up the hunting budget. But if you’re in the market for a rifle or shotgun on the fancier side, a fine walnut stock will certainly provide a lifetime of enjoyment. With modern finishing techniques, there aren’t many worries about the reliability of a walnut stock, just be prepared to pay a premium for a piece of walnut with some figure to it.