Don’t give up if a replacement firing pin is unavailable from your catalog suppliers. Instead, use these tips to solve the problem.

Here are all the items tested in Gun Tests magazine from 2011 back through 1999.

The group Media Matters for America hates NRA. Few organizations have more strongly proclaimed their disdain for our right to keep and bear arms and self-protection, says the NRA-ILA.

Lethal Force Institute’s Massad Ayoob gives a lesson on what to do if you are stopped with firearms in your vehicle. These essential tips will teach you how to safely interact with police when carrying a firearm while driving. (3:47).

Gun Reports - News

ATF offers $5,000 for info
on shooting of Michigan officer

(GunReports.com) – The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is offering a $5,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of individual(s) responsible for the homicide of Macomb County Correctional Officer Clarence Hammond.

On Jan. 14, at approximately midnight Macomb County Correctional Officer Clarence Hammond was fatally shot in the parking lot of his apartment complex, 31597 Harlo St., Madison Heights, Mich. According to witnesses Hammond was approached in an apparent robbery attempt, then struck with a firearm and shot once in the head. None of Hammond’s belongings were taken in this crime. A gray mini-van was identified as a possible vehicle at the scene. At the time of the shooting, Hammond was wearing his Michigan Department of Corrections uniform.

In addition to the ATF reward, the Michigan Corrections Organization is offering $5,000 and Crime Stoppers is offering $3,500 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the individual (s) responsible for the homicide, bringing the total reward to $13,500.

Anyone with information is encouraged to call ATF at 1-800 ATF-GUNS (1-800- 283-4867), the Madison Heights Police Department at 248- 585-2100, or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-SPEAKUP (1 800- 773-2587).

Tweet

Reader Comments

This sounds more like an assassination than a mugging or robbery gone wrong. The death penelity is in order!!!!

Comment by: purplefred2 | January 26, 2012

Do the ATF normally get involved with intra-state gun crimes against prison guards where there is no evidence that it was an illegal firearm? Maybe this guy was a snitch? Nothing was taken, but the ATF is offering a reward. Seems strange to me.

Comment by: david b | January 26, 2012

When the perpetrator of this heinous crime is caught, he should be tried, convicted, and given a life sentence without the possibility of parole. I figure a life sentence is a greater punishment than the death sentence, because the criminal will have the rest of his life to suffer the consequences. Besides, death row inmates often spend years upon years sitting in cells on death row, so they might as well be sentenced to life without parole.

I do not think any government should have the power of life and death over any of its citizens/subjects. Now some might think me a flower child because I am against governments taking the lives of their citizens. That I am not! I am a 71 year old, retired Army lieutenant colonel, Vietnam combat veteran. I have killed people in the course of my career, and I have no problem with killing a home invader, nor do I have a problem with cops shooting felons in the course of their duties. My objection to the death penalty is simply one that is based on my aversion to a government that slowly, deliberately, and somewhat ceremoniously kills a criminal years after the crime was committed. The first duty of any government is the protection of its people. A government that is able to legally kill its people is inconsistent with that first duty.

Comment by: canovack | January 26, 2012

Didn't I read in here a while back that ATF was offering a larger reward for a heap of guns that were stolen from Missouri? But the value of a CO's life is $5,000. Thanks, ATF.

The Colonel has a good point. I can't really support the death penalty any longer, if for no other reason that it takes too long to impose. The murderers who are executed have that sentenced imposed decades after the actual crime. In California, the number one cause of death on "death row" is old age and/or natural causes. Then comes suicide. State imposed executions are way down on the list.

Colonel, I agree that government's first duty is public protection. But doesn't that protection, of necessity, require that a government put its best in harm's way on occasion? It is any more inconsistent with that primary duty, if a government chooses to protect its population from a mass murderer, say, by taking his life?

Comment by: Visigoth52 | January 26, 2012

Now see, I, on the other hand, don't have such qualms. I think that if someone is too dangerous to be let back on the streets, then instead of making taxpayers shell out thousands of bucks for him to have an easy life, we should just eliminate them. Recidivism really is a problem in law enforcement. In spite of the fact that they all claim to be innocent, I think damned few really are. Bad brains is bad brains. They won't get better by hanging out in jail with more of the same. If you can't let them out - what do you do with them? Smuggle them all into Somalia and leave them there?

Comment by: david b | January 26, 2012

@ Canovack Lieutenant Colonol and Vietnam Vet..Your resume is MORE than impressive ! Your comment regarding shooting a home invader made me recall how I was describing, to a relative, the good points about having a heavy caliber personal defence weapon in one's home. I was showing him a photo of a small .45, and telling him that the MOST impressive feature of the gun was the large exit hole it left in a home invaders back..."Carjackers" may also apply...

Comment by: Muzzlepuncher 7 | January 27, 2012

I certainly understand that opinions vary with respect to the death penalty. As I stated above, I do not support the slow, deliberate, ceremonious taking of life by any government, when the first duty of that government is the protection of life. I fully understand the argument that it might be less expensive to execute a death sentence than to maintain a prisoner for a life sentence without parole..... But then when one factors in all of the time a felon sits on death row, along with the court costs and attorney fees generated in the mandatory appeals process, it may not really be less expensive to execute the death penalty. I also understand the argument concerning the idea that heinous felons cannot be given the remotest chance to, once again, walk among civilized people. That's why I espouse life without parole.

One other factor also comes into play here..... I am a committed pro-life advocate. I am that way, because when the male and female sex cells join in conception, the resulting zygote is a HUMAN cell with its 46 chromosomes. It ain't gonna be a turtle, a fish, or a cow. It's gonna be a living breathing human. With that said, if I did support the death penalty, such support would be inconsistent with my firm stand against abortion.

Comment by: canovack | January 27, 2012

I did neglect to say that I don't think we should let convicts sentenced to death linger in prison for years waiting. That's like inviting the Turkey to supper for all of October. I say if they can't walk among society, then execute them quickly. Or maybe put them on some remote island with no way off and leave them there to build their own society.

It's interesting to me, sir, that you've decided the first duty of government is to protect life. Our own government denies that fact consistently - both in their decisions about the obligations of police and military toward protecting citizens, and in their approach to self-defense and weapons. I also don't recall the Constitution providing that obligation to government. May I ask how you came to this conclusion?

Comment by: david b | January 27, 2012

If memory serves me properly, I think that historically speaking, all societies came together in order to gain the protection afforded by their numbers. This need stems from time immemorial, and as those agglomerations of individuals found that in order to gain the most protection, a system of governance was needed. In the most primitive of societies, that governance was provided at the hands of the strongest members of the groups, and as time marched forward, more functions of governance evolved. It is likely that the first governments were dictatorships based on the strength of those who took charge, but as time marched on and the requirements of those societies multiplied, the dictatorships may have given way to autocracies. We don't see much in the way of democracy until we get into the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome, but even in those societies protection of the governed was a critical element that essentially pooled the resources of the group in the best interests of the group, with protection of the group still very much at the forefront. Now, david b, you have gotten me off on a jag, babbling, so I am going to close this before I really get carried away.

Comment by: canovack | January 27, 2012

Thanks for the explanation Colonel. I was just curious.

I would point out however, that until our own nation was founded, the same governments that were allegedly there to 'protect life', took it at will from their own 'subjects'. It was not until the late 1700's that any of us were 'citizens' - well, except perhaps for ancient Greek city-states. And there, it was only the men, and only those with property. Even then, citizens were murdered for the convenience of the state - Socrates, for example.

So, I'm going to say that action speaks louder than words, and that protection of life by government is no more than a theory. Like the 'pure' concepts of capitalism and communism, it is a lovely idea which falls apart when one takes it 'off paper' and puts it into society. I'm sure you're more familiar with Gen. Smedley Butler's book than I, but that is what happens to capitalism when you try to put it into practice. And today, our own government - the best in history by any measure I've even seen, spies on everything we do, say, and buy, and also has claimed the right to assassinate any one of us anywhere, any time, without a conviction or even any charges filed against us - or short of that to just make us disappear somewhere. "Protection of life" is, I believe, a nice theory but still a fantasy nonetheless. Given that, I suggest we need to worry more about law-abiding citizens having protection than criminals. They made their choices.

And remember, I'm the 'liberal' here.... (Ha!)

Comment by: david b | January 28, 2012

I really cannot argue with anything that you said, david b. Since you asked where I had gotten the idea that protection was the first function of government, I provided the explanation. The transgressions of government that you mention are, I believe, likely developments we can attribute to the basic corruptibility of human beings. That said, I believe it is paramount that law abiding citizens maintain their means of protection. I could not care less about the protection of the felons, however, I will continue to posit that those felons should not be executed as an official act of any government. It is far better that those felons be killed in "hot blood" by righteously acting armed citizens who act in defense of themselves, their loved ones, and/or other innocents.

Comment by: canovack | January 28, 2012

Colonel - you did reply when I asked. The rest was more of 'further thinking' on my part than an attempt to discredit your thinking. And you are correct - the transgressions likely come from the humanity of the individuals in those governments.

Now, I believe we're in agreement again sir. I too think it's preferable that violent felons be killed in the act. As a second best I'd take cold-blooded revenge by the victims or their next of kin. Third, the 'community' (government in most cases, I suppose), but quickly. I would agree that a slow process is wasteful, demeaning to the society, and cruel even to the felon.

Comment by: david b | January 29, 2012

Ah, yes..... One of my favorite expressions..... "Revenge is best served cold". The practical problem with that, though, is that it can get you into a whole lot of trouble with the law, so it has to be done very carefully.

Comment by: canovack | January 29, 2012

Amen to that.

Comment by: david b | January 30, 2012

Justice, if it is to be effective, must be swift and sure.

In addition to the points mentioned above, an attorney friend who long ago clerked for the Supreme Court has told me the level of legal representation afforded to the typical death row candidate is pathetic. He is opposed to it simply because of what he has seen in that regard during his career.

Comment by: PVB | January 30, 2012

I am not surprised that legal representation for the typical death row inmate is less than stellar. I suspect that in many cases attorneys are drawn from a pool in some random fashion, so whoever is drawn for a particular case is who is going to try his/her hand at the ins and outs of the legal profession in criminal law. While my reasons for standing against the death penalty are well documented in my discussions above, here is simply another reason that it should be dispensed with.

Comment by: canovack | January 30, 2012