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

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich) asked the three witnesses "How many know that almost 300 African-American youth between the age of 15 and 24 are injured or killed by gunfire each week?"

Conyers Plays Race Card During Reciprocity Hearings

(GunReports.com) — On Tuesday, Sept. 13, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held a hearing on H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, the NRA-ILA reports.

The bill, introduced earlier this year by Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and cosponsored by more than 240 of their colleagues, would enable millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.

Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) opened the hearing by saying the legislation is needed because state laws on right to carry reciprocity are "confusing, vary widely and can subject otherwise law-abiding citizens to frivolous prosecution." He also argued that permit holders' fundamental Second Amendment rights were at stake, noting that "this legislation recognizes that the right to bear arms does not stop at the state line."

Testifying in support of the bill were Prof. Joyce Lee Malcolm of the George Mason University School of Law and Prof. David Kopel of the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

Prof. Malcolm, an expert on the rise and fall of the right to keep and bear arms in Great Britain, noted that while America has seen crime fall as "shall issue" permit laws became the norm, Britain has systematically wiped out gun ownership for self-defense since 1920 -- culminating in the 1997 handgun ban -- with opposite results. As Prof. Malcolm noted in her written testimony, "English men and women have suffered from a doubling of gun crime in the last decade while in London alone gun crime doubled in 2010 over the previous year."

Prof. Malcolm responded strongly when challenged by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) about crime and gun ownership, testifying that "more firearms has not increased violent crime. We've had more firearms over the last few years, millions more, and crime, violent crime has been going down."

Prof. Kopel's testimony focused on the constitutional aspects of the bill. While many anti-gun lawmakers who've long pushed national gun bans, national bans on private gun sales, national waiting periods and other federal restrictions have suddenly become born-again advocates of "states' rights" to oppose this bill, Prof. Kopel pointed out that several provisions of the Constitution give Congress the authority to enact interstate carry.

Opposing the bill was Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, who previously was the police chief in Washington, D.C. While Ramsey admitted that permit holders aren't the problem, he also made clear that he strongly opposes the right to carry firearms, even for retired police officers.

Ramsey repeatedly claimed the bill didn't include enough restrictions on permit holders -- but when pressed, admitted that there was no level of regulation that would make the bill acceptable to him. "Personally, I don't like it . . ." was his response when asked if he supported right to carry laws. He made clear that he fundamentally doubts law-abiding Americans' ability to defend themselves in a legal and appropriate manner.

One congressional questioner seemed to have no understanding of the provisions of the bill, or the issues being discussed. To open his questioning, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) stated "this is the most insane bill" he had ever seen. But in a demonstration of his fundamental lack of understanding of the bill, Rep. Conyers asked the three witnesses "How many know that almost 300 African-American youth between the age of 15 and 24 are injured or killed by gunfire each week?"

When Prof. Malcolm attempted to explain that the statistic, regardless of its accuracy, had no bearing on the issue of right to carry reciprocity, Rep. Conyers cut her off, demanding a "yes" or "no." When allowed to continue, Prof. Malcolm explained that the majority of the people involved in violence have criminal records or are part of gangs, a fact Rep. Conyers similarly brushed aside.

Tweet

Reader Comments

hmm,, Phily cops must be so proud of Commish Ramsey , thinking his own men do not have the ability to defend themselves in a legal and appropriate manner..

they must be sooooo proud of him...

Comment by: PAT FINN | September 22, 2011

Hr included retired police officers. Peculiar. So who can be trusted to defend himself? Conyers? As a youngster I used to be confused by people public official who denied the right of self defense; but I learned along the way they just don't care. It is for the greater good that lives are sacrificed. Of course "we'll miss them, and eulogize them properly; but that's the best we can do."

Comment by: tovlogos | September 22, 2011

It seems to me that those who oppose the bill are not really interested in the rights of citizens to defend themselves from deadly attack, but are more interested in providing criminals with a "risk free" arena in which to 'attack with out fear of resistance' the law abiding citizens. These politicians who are supposed to be serving us apparently are serving the criminals instead. Maybe we should elect others who truly will represent us.

Comment by: Texas Jim | September 22, 2011

Conyers never had time to read the bill. He never does. Another dead head that needs to go.

Comment by: Mister E | September 22, 2011

Why, oh why, do so many of our politicians repeatedly play the so-called race card? For people who profess to desire harmony in our communities, so many are intent on sowing the seeds of racial discontent. This is unacceptable.

Comment by: canovack | September 22, 2011

I agree with Col. Novack, it is unacceptable and way out of hand.

Comment by: Robert J | September 22, 2011

Hmmmm...WHO mentioned "race "? I don't see the difference what color someone is if they are murdered. Although I would guess that more African American youth are engaged in a "high risk" lifestyle

Comment by: Muzzlepuncher 7 | September 22, 2011

Aside from the title of the article, race is not mentioned in the article. That said, however, most of our politicians have mastered the play of that so-called "race card" without even mentioning the words "race", "minority", "ethnicity", or any of the other terms that might apply. All one has to do is look and listen to the dialogue proffered by the most outspoken political critics.

Comment by: canovack | September 22, 2011

It amazes me that anyone even thinks that we should not be eligible for our God given right as written by our Forefathers."We the People" are entirely misrepresented when it comes to our Second Amendment.I do not recall God coming down from Heaven and declaring that "We" as a nation no longer have the privilege to protect ourselves from the "Tyranny of Government" or for that matter "Enemies both foreign and domestic".Our elected Representatives need to go back to the constitution and reread word for word exactly what "The Peoples" rights are and who exactly they are supposed to be representing.

Comment by: SigArmored | September 22, 2011

john conyers is corrupt as they come his wife is currently in prison for accepting bribes for waste hauling contract approval

Comment by: arthur07 | September 22, 2011

Prior to my departure for active US Army duty of 21 years, followed by a public education career of 22 years, my home of record was near Detroit. Conyers has always been an outspoken critic of everything that doesn't involve a hand-out of some sort to his constituency. I find it rather ludicrous that he takes issue with the idea that 300 black youths are injured or killed by gunfire each week. Conyers ignores the proposition that most, if not all, of those casualties are the result of black on black criminal behavior. So, now he wants to ban firearms so that only the thugs who are gangbangers will have the guns. What is he really asking for?

Comment by: canovack | September 22, 2011

@ canovack Bless your Christian heart ! And even if you're not a Christian, bless it anyway ! I LOVE the TRUTH !

Comment by: Muzzlepuncher 7 | September 22, 2011

Evil people think differently than law abiding citizens.I often tell anti gun people they need to be out with their wife,children and grandchildren and watch some criminal with a gun shoot and kill all of their family.First you would wish you had a gun to stop it from happening and second you witness that gun control does not work.How can people not understand it.Taking responsibility for our own safety is of the upmost importance.The evil ones pick the time and the place.We must always be prepared.

Comment by: John F | September 22, 2011

Maybe Conyers would go for the bill if we pointed out that those "300 dead or injured black youth" would surely vote to reelect him if some *white* out-of-state CPL holder used his concealed pistol to protect them from being harmed?

I'm reminded of the exchange between Bill Murray and the NYC Mayor in Ghostbusters...

Comment by: Slipstick | September 23, 2011

As a Detroit area retired policeman I can attest that Mr. Conyers is an idiot. He didn't know his wife was taking graft in the political cesspool of Detroit. As for the commish', ask the guys on the street what they think.

Comment by: Frank044 | September 23, 2011

Racist remark? Look didn't 95% of Conyers brothers vote for OB just because he's black?Of course he'd bring the race card in it....

Comment by: mariano | September 23, 2011

Personally, I think racism has been on the rise for the last decade or so. Why? Call me a cynic, but there are too many people who stand to gain financially from perpetuating racism. If there is no more racism, we no longer need ethnically based lobbying groups, we don't need Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, and politicians lose a major special interest area to wrangle over. Surely we have some zealous bigots left, but the average American could care less about ethnic backgrounds...

Comment by: PVB | September 23, 2011

Agree PVB. At the heart of virtually every conflict we will usually find something to do with money or wealth. It's the nature of the beast. And, like you I could NOT care less about ethnic backgrounds.

Comment by: canovack | September 23, 2011

Granting the point that there currently are, and will always be, a small percentage of the population who are racist. And conceding that there are likely to be professional racists such as Jackson, Sharpton, et al. on all sides for any foreseeable future, nevertheless I would suggest that we are now living in a post-racial society. Obama could not have been elected without wide support from all races in our melting pot. We here revile him because of his socialist agenda and his opposition to the basic freedoms we enjoy as Americans. We would oppose him for that reason if he were white, Latino, Asian, or green. The professional haters don't get it (or if they do, they cynically ignore it), the vast majority of Americans now choose to like or dislike individuals, and support or reject policies and politicians irrespective of their color. Conyers and his ilk couldn't care less about the "African-American youth" being killed except insofar as they contribute to his ability to get reelected and stay in power. That's not cynicism, PVB, that reality.

Comment by: Visigoth52 | September 25, 2011

Vis - I agree with you, though I do think the "professional racists" (I like that term) are fanning the fires.

Comment by: PVB | September 25, 2011

Who 'missed' the race card? It's right here: "How many know that almost 300 African-American youth between the age of 15 and 24 are injured or killed by gunfire each week?"

Making a discussion of something not at all about race into one that is, by use of some barely connected 'racial' statement IS the race card. Duh. Conyers tried to turn the discussion from Second Amendment rights not applying in 49 states for most citizens, into one about ghetto black-on-black crime and prevention.

Comment by: david b | September 26, 2011