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

Gun News from Around the Web: Week of May 23, 2011

Gun News from Around the Web: Week of May 23, 2011



U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy & TSA Threaten to Shut Down Texas Aviation if state's "TSA anti-grope" bill passes

ATK Receives $488M in Small-Caliber Ammunition Orders

Bill shielding identities of gun owners heads to Gov. Pat Quinn’s desk

After Altercation, Philadelphia Police Say They Won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun Owners

"In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law." Comments on IN Supreme Court 4th Amendment case

Chilling: US outlines global plan for cyberspace

Reader Comments

Sooner or later, some state is going to stand up to fed reprisals and tell them to 'keep your money' or 'OK, shut down the flights - and watch the stock market crash'. And then there will be a rush to be next on the bandwagon. Once even ONE state resists and survives, or resists and is invaded by troops, the feds will lose ALL the leverage those threats currently carry. I expect at that point things will escalate rapidly. I may live to see the second American Revolution - and some folks already call me 'old'.

Comment by: david b | May 26, 2011

re: Illinois to shield gun owners from publication

" I don’t believe we should give burglars a map to systematically burglarize our neighborhoods and our farms". Maybe that was the purpose of the registry - and anti-gun attempt to escalate the violence by sending burglars to homes with guns where either somebody might be shot, or where the number of stolen guns in the hands of criminals would rise and scare all the anti-gun lily-livers into more anti-gun action?

And Sen. Schoenberg should study history a bit more and be a bit less sensitive about it. Its unlikely the Holocaust could have occurred if the Jews had been armed with guns. After all, even if only 2 million if them were capable of shooting that would have been enough riflemen to stop the Nazis cold.

Comment by: david b | May 26, 2011

re: Philadelphia open carry

So the police want to charge Fiorino later and inconvenience him for what - exposing ignorance, over-reaction and harassment over a completely legal behavior?

This could turn into a real peeing contest. Suppose ALL gun owners - or even just many of them - started carrying openly, and asked questions and told the officers they were wrong. The cops would be busy all the time, calling for back-up every time because they're cops and that's what they do. The expense and stress would probably bust the department's budget - and criminals would just listen to police band and do the real crimes while the cops were busy rousting law abiding citizens.

Peaceful protest? You tell me. Maybe the cops should drop their prosecution, apologize and try to reach a settlement. It would be cheaper to educate the guys than to pay the citizens.

Comment by: david b | May 26, 2011

re: no right to resist unlawful entry in Indiana

Well, it ain't just Indiana. In many states you no longer have that right, and this attitude that the cops can do what they please is completely out of control. They might as well be the Gestapo.

In my state for example, I'm told it is defined as a felony to resist in any way a cop who is violating the law or your rights - natural, civil, property, bodily, whatever. Here, you are supposed to permit them to do whatever they're doing and try to sue later - assuming you survive. Film or record - felony. Resist at the time and its an automatic felony prosecution for that as well, and as a felon you may be killed during the event.

Techncially, that means if you try to stop a cop from raping your teenaged daughter on the front lawn at noon on Saturday, he can shoot you and continue. If she fights back, he can kill her after. You were both felons resisting a cop on 'police business' - probably calling it an investigation. You got killed in self-defense, and the courts will uphold that because you're felons by definition.

Comment by: david b | May 26, 2011

David, you are just completely wrong. The court decision had nothing to do with a cop committing a crime-like raping your daughter on the front lawn. The decision merely restated what the law has been for centuries(going back to English Common Law), you cannot resist police while they are carrying out their duties, even if you think they are wrong, and they are in fact wrong. That is why we have courts who hand out multi million judgements against cops every day. If it was legal to resist an arrest or entry when the arrestee or property owner thinks the police are wrong, the issue will always be decided by force rather than by law. Is that a better idea? Of course the cops do make mistakes, and that is why they are permitted to make mistakes without having a gunfight over the mistake as opposed to a civil (or criminal) case against the cops later. If you have a better way I would like to hear it. And please don't say "the cops should not be permitted to make mistakes", they make them all the time, usually in good faith, but sometimes not, and the awards in the suits reflect that most of the time. Thw whole idea is to allow the mistakes to be settled without anyone getting killed or hurt.

Comment by: CAPT29 | May 26, 2011

CAPT29 - I wrote a nice long reply with all my objections, but apparently it was TOO long and wouldn't post. So I'll have to try to break it up into multiple posts.

First, I think you're probably right about the theory. I have cops in my family, I'd trust these guys to arrest me if needed and not if not needed, and I'd hate to see them hurt on the job. But I don't think your theory justifies Waco, Ruby Ridge or the killing last week in Tuscon of Jose Guerena by a SWAT team who shot him 61 times to serve a SEARCH warrant. 61 times mind you and Jose's safety was still 'on'. What do cop procedures say abut how often you shot somebody?

Second, that multimillion dollar settlement isn't going to do HIM any good is it? Besides, settlements come out of city or state budgets, not the cops salaries.

Comment by: david b | May 26, 2011

CAPT 29 - Third - The Tucson (Pima Cy. Sheriffs apparently) stated they were going to knock and wait 15 seconds for an 'open' at the door. At night. I can't make it across my living room from a chair that fast, so if somebody is busting my door I'm going for the shotgun.

4th - Criminals can shout 'Police' to fake a 'knock and announce' too. Heck, they can even buy uniforms online and body armor too. I'm not a freakin' psychic, or a criminal. So I have NO expectation of cops ever coming to my home, and no way of knowing who is on the other side of that door regardless of what they say. Not until they break it down.

5th - at which point if I'm not armed and it's criminals, I'm f**ked. If I'm armed and it's cops, I'm probably dead. Why?

6th - Breaking the law in the line of duty isn't really justifiable. We hanged Nazis for doing their duty, and what they did was perfectly legal in Germany at the time they did those things. Other examples might be Cambodia, Commie China, Soviet Russia. All legal - but it just wasn't 'right'.

Comment by: david b | May 26, 2011

7th - the Second Amendment was written to protect citizens from over-reaching government. Except for the distinction of 'federal' vs. whatever level of gov't you're defending, how does it become 'ok' for LAW ENFORCEMENT to act in a criminal fashion?

8th - And please don't try to say that $$ settlements prove it isn't OK. Putting cops in jail for breaking the law in the line of duty would prove that, and there would be less of it happening then too. Paying somebody off is paying them off even if they do 'settle' for it. How many cops do you know of who broke the law in the line of duty and even lost their jobs without being hired somewhere else in the same capacity? How many ended up working for Wackenhut? How many went to jail? I don't know those numbers, but maybe you do or could find them?

Comment by: david b | May 26, 2011

CAPT29 - Last point I'm going to make -

Claiming that it's OK for cops to violate the law against citizens encourages criminal behavior by police because they get a few weeks off with pay for the investigation, go back to work, a few years later they get paid to testify and the department (taxpayers actually) pay the 'settlement'. No harm no foul, right? So what's to stop some sociopath - or some nice but momentarily stressed out cop - from shooting me on the spot for 'suspected' DUI? A settlement to my widow? I don't think so. Is that an extreme example? Sure - but with those cop-protection laws, where IS the line? I suggest there is none - so long as the crime is done in uniform. And if that is true, then no example is really an extreme because they are all possibilities.

And that is the crux of the matter. Already we have law-abiding citizens suffering criminal activity by police toward them almost daily - just search YouTube or Google something like 'cop abuse'. So people like me no longer trust them with our safety, and may see their storm-trooper attitudes and legal immunity as threats - I do. After all, isn't a cop breaking the law a criminal at the time? The law says 'no', but his victims know better. Or have we lost the legal right to defend ourselves against criminals now too? So THAT leads to people deciding that they can't tell if it's a good cop, a bad cop, or a home invading psycho beating on the door. And in the end, more law-abiding citizens will be killed defending their homes or selves, and some of the cops will be killed eventually too. Maybe lots if it becomes a source of social anger. Some of them doubtlessly won't deserve it any more than you or I would.

Where does this benefit ANY of us?

Comment by: david b | May 26, 2011

So; the lone vote in opposition in the IL senate seems to be from a descendant of a Holocaust victim taking offense to comments made by a pro-gun outfit comparing gun owners' treatment to the Holocaust. True, that is arguably crass and tasteless, but is there a group of people anywhere in the world who should be more sensitive to tyranny, and thus support the Constitution, more than Jews?

Comment by: PVB | May 30, 2011

P V B - Agreed entirely. Sadly, some Jewish folks think that if guns were illegal there would have been no Holocaust. However, I suggest that if guns had not even been invented, there would have been bows and arrows, knives, etc. to exterminate them. So - the more logical approach should seem to be 'have your own gun'. But, some people just can't get there. It is ironic, isn't it?

Just BTW, there is the JPFO, which I recently joined (www.JPFO.org). They didn't even ask if I'm a Jew or not, so THAT isn't part of the criteria. I joined because they are one of the more active and more determined gun organizations out there. They also produce a list of nations where disarmament led to genocide or mass murder in the last century. Germany, USSR, China, Cambodia are only a few out of many.

Comment by: david b | May 31, 2011

I've heard of JPFO, thanks! They do a lot of good work. Actually, didn't Hitler outlaw guns before the Holocaust began?

One of the links I didn't comment on before was about Philthadelphia police saying they'll hassle open carriers. After reading the article, it almost sounded like the cable guy that was "hassled" was one of these guys who goes looking for a hassle. He had a recorder running the entire time. Since recording without both parties consent is a third class felony in PA, he could have some trouble ahead...

I'm fine with open carry if that's what one chooses, or restricted to because of stupid laws; however, I am not a fan of open carry activism.

Comment by: PVB | May 31, 2011

P V B, I gotta say I'm not a fan of open carry activism either. For one, I prefer concealed because I believe in surprise as a tactic. Second, I harbor a personal distrust of people who push their agendas on others in an in-yer-face fashion. I'm not sure why - its got something with 'looking for an argument' or something - but that may only be here in the east. And I also think it can be counterproductive to push open carry in that manner - even though I don't really care much about the open carry issue.

And yes, Hitler started out with gun registration, then gun confiscation, then extermination of Jews, Blacks, Gays, Ukrainians, Poles, the retarded, etc. Strange thing - I recently read the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was done by NINE guys with pistols only, who held off something like several hundred Nazis for a week or two. NINE guys who hadn't registered their guns, so had not had them confiscated. Probably a good anectdote indicating that if Jews had been armed the Holocaust could have never happened - and a damned good reason to make sure we all have some 'unregistered' arms too if you believe History has anything to teach.

Comment by: david b | May 31, 2011

David - the OC crowd is big out west too. There's a guy in California who goes around OC'ing and calls himself in to the police. He's posted videos on youtube of that. He has a facebook page, and all of the pics show OC'ers with their carrying hip forward. I think there was an article in here about him winning a suit against San Diego County last year. I think your right - it's the "in your face" aspect that I distrust of any activist.

Comment by: PVB | June 1, 2011

Several years ago the Dade county Fl. police and SWAT were breaking into the wrong houses until the Miami Herald got wind and got all the victims together and they filed a class action suit that resulted in the department laying of about 15% of the force and freezing pay til the debt was paid by the dept and not the public as per the judges order, so we don't always pay and the dept had to pay for all legal fees of the victims.

Comment by: robhof | June 1, 2011

robhof - really? They hit so many wrong addresses that they lost a class action over it? One wonders if they were really wrong addresses or just random practice busts... the judge's ruling about how it got paid makes me think 'practice'.

Anyway, how many 'wrong' folks got shot? Or how many got jail time for resisting officers in 'the line of duty'? Is there someplace I can find out more? This is an example of what I had been complaining about earlier....

Comment by: david b | June 1, 2011