If someone were to ask you which products Colt has sold over the years, would you say a .22 semiautomatic rifle? I didn’t think you would. Colt made three versions of .22 rifles, the Courier, Colteer and Stagecoach, as well as others under several private-label names for Sears, Wards and other companies. This alloy rifle shot well, but did not hold up well. Unless it was kept oiled and clean, the alloy parts wore very rapidly. In spite of this, the little Colt rifles were good enough lightweight shooters that most owners will pay to get them fixed rather than discard theirs.

Introduced in 1963, the Remington Model 1100 shotgun has been around for over 40 years now. Variations include a sporter for field shooting, a Magnum version for ducks and geese, as well as a skeet and trap model for those who enjoy breaking clay targets. In all, there have been well over 3,500,000 Model 1100s produced over this period of time so you are bound to see one (or more) come across your bench. In this article, I’ll cover some of the common problems that result in ejection failures along with a few of the possible glitches that aren’t seen very often. And, of course, I’ll examine the cures that will help you get this shotgun back in service as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Check out several videos this week: Close quarter defense requires different tactics than defense from a distance. Pillar bedding is the process of installing aluminum columns in a rifle stock to ensure there is perfect metal-to-metal contact between the action and bottom metal. Gunsite Range Master Il Ling New demonstrates the how to properly load and unload your firearm.

What's ahead for the midterms? Jeff Knox at The Firearms Coalition says, 'There might be a few Democrats who haven't been able to bring themselves to declare support for the Second Amendment, but the official party line is broad support for the constitutional right, while interpreting it in the narrowest terms, and doing all they can to undermine and dismantle it.' As for the other party, 'Republicans, on the other hand, are generally supportive of the right to arms, but few of them have any more understanding of the issue than do the Democrats. They definitely lack the resolve and the backbone to vigorously oppose the Democrats' attacks on the Constitution and the President's appointments of radical extremists to the courts and high level government positions.'

Gun Reports - News

Hunting Communications a Major Focus of Justices’ Questions

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Hunting communications were a central focus of the United States Supreme Court last week as the justices heard arguments in the case U.S. v. Stevens, 08-769.

At issue in the case is a 1999 federal law that makes it a crime to create, sell or possess videos and other depictions of cruelty to animals. The case arose over the conviction of a Virginia man, Robert Stevens, who received a three-year prison sentence from a Western Pennsylvania court for selling videos that included scenes of hunting with dogs. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, stating it was in violation of Steven’s First Amendment rights.

Professional Outdoor Media Association Executive Director Laurie Lee Dovey was in the courtroom to hear the arguments.

“The Justices were highly engaged,” Dovey said. “Clearly, their queries were focused on testing the limits of the First Amendment. The questions were direct and at times extreme.

“Patricia Millett, the plaintiff’s attorney, represented Mr. Stevens, and the hunting and fishing industry and traditional outdoor sports journalists at the highest level,” Dovey added. “Patricia understands how the statue could criminalize the communication and promotion of legal hunting and fishing activities. She directly argued the overreach and chilling effects of the existing statute.”

Testing the wide net cast by the language of the law, hunting-related questions were debated. Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal often stated hunting imagery did not fall within the parameters of the statute. Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to disagree. Scalia concentrated on the language in the statute that says, “… a visual or auditory depiction … in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed.”

“Kill” has one meaning, which is kill,” Scalia told Katyal, plainly indicating concerns about the legal actions of hunters. Katyal responded with a statement citing cruel killing versus hunting. Scalia countered with a question about an accidental low shot on an animal by a hunter, which he said was completely legal. Justice John Paul Stevens also asked about bow-and-arrow hunting or hunting with knives. Katyal backpedaled, saying, “So, there may be certain hunting examples that fall within it (the law).

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg looked at another aspect of the law, the separation of the filming of a criminal act and participation by a photographer in a criminal act. The abuse of the dog and the filming of the act are different, she said. The abuse would go on with or without the photographer. The comparison being made was to image-makers in child pornography cases – where the photographer is an actual participant in the criminal act.

In response to questions by Justice Stephen Bryer about Congress simply writing a statute that actually aims at the “frightful things they were trying to prohibit,” Millett agreed Congress must use a scalpel, not a buzz saw, when crafting statutes that restrict free speech.

Justice Samuel Alito posed the most difficult hypothetical of the day to Millett. He asked if the First Amendment would cover “a human sacrifice channel.” The discomfort in the courtroom was palpable.

Taking a few moments to collect her thoughts, obviously taken aback by the extreme nature of the Justice’s example, Millett responded.

“I don’t want to watch this channel, and people should fight with their wallets and their votes and not support these things,” she said. “But, under the First Amendment, if the only rationale Congress is giving is we are here to shield your eyes for you, we will make this censorial decision, it has got to find some basis to think that was never freedom of speech under the First Amendment, in the way that obscenity was. You don’t get to make it up as you go along. We are interpreting a constitution.”

The United States Humane Society, which pushed the original prosecution of Robert Stevens, claimed this case was and is about animal cruelty. POMA, National Rifle Association, Safari Club International, National Media Coalition, American Society of Media Photographers, National Press Photographer’s Association and dozens of other groups, which filed amicus curiae briefs in the case, strongly disagreed. They defined U.S. v. Stevens as a First Amendment case that could have potentially devastating consequences on journalists and Americans’ right to information.

A decision could come sometime after the first of the year, but the Court’s final deadline is July 1, 2010.

Reader Comments

Holy Crap! What is next? Prohibitions of posting to this site?

Comment by: 1015811414 | October 15, 2009