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. Darrell E. Issa (above) and Sen. Chuck Grassley sent a letter to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, demanding access to documents pertinent to the Fast and Furious investigation.

Lawmakers blast Justice Department’s
‘Fast and Furious’ probe

(GunReports.com) -- The Washington Times reports that two senior Republican lawmakers lambasted the Justice Department last week for its “false denials” in the Fast and Furious gunrunning operation, demanding that the FBI turn over documents in its ongoing probe into the shooting death by Mexican bandits of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

In a seven-page letter to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, Rep. Darrell E. Issa of California and Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said the lack of answers being given to Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry’s family concerning his Dec. 14 killing and the delay in bringing those responsible to justice “only compounds their anguish.”

“After 10 months of FBI investigation, Agent Terry’s family and the American public deserve to know more about the status of the inquiry, the state of the evidence, and any connections to Operation Fast and Furious,” they wrote.

The central characters in the failed “Fast and Furious” firearms investigation were 19 men and one woman, all legal residents of the U.S., accused of laying down hundreds of thousands of dollars in illicit cash at Phoenix-area gun shops to buy an arsenal of high-powered weapons for Mexican drug smugglers.

Between September 2009 and December 2010, congressional investigators said, they purchased or aided in the purchase of more than 2,000 AK-47 assault weapons, Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles, FN 5.7mm semi-automatic pistols and other assorted rifles, shotguns and handguns that later were “walked” into Mexico. About half the weapons remain unaccounted for.

They paid cash, as much as $900,000, and with each purchase they signed their names on Form 4473, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) document, swearing under the threat of committing a felony that they were not purchasing the weapons for someone else — that they were not “straw buyers.”

But they were, and the ATF knew it.

Read more in the Washington Times and the letter linked below, and then come back to GunReports.com to discuss.

Tweet

Click here to read the entire letter.

Reader Comments

I'm beginning to wonder how long the administration intends to drag this out. My guess right now is that they are hoping the holiday season will make folks forget about F&F.

Comment by: david b | October 27, 2011

The administration wants to avoid accountability for as long as they possibly can, and I agree they hope to drag it out long enough we all forget.

Comment by: PVB | October 27, 2011

P V B, I'm wondering about the timing of things to come. If they drag it out too long, it's going to be an election issue. If they try to bury it they risk a higher demand for investigative results. If they keep stonewalling, they risk a "Nixon moment" when they realize the goose is cooked either way. If they keep lying, they risk perjury charges no matter what happens to the ATF. If they hope to drag-ass until America forgets, what if we don't? So there are a lot of possibilities in the air, and a big opportunity to screw up the timing if you're juggling them.

Me, I'm hoping they screw up the timing. Not only was this apparently completely illegal from the get-go, but the ATF was arming national enemies (drug cartels) at the same time they go around trying to put people like us in prison for 'technical fouls'.

Comment by: david b | October 27, 2011

Timing is everything, and I think may also play into why we are still waiting on a special prosecutor. I think I suggested last week (or before) that if Obama were smart, and not so arrogant, he would have supported a special prosecutor months ago. Surely, Holder would have fallen under the bus, but Obama could have shown the public he was living up to his campaign promise of '08 to clean up Washington, AND it would be wrapped up in time for '12 elections. (I know, Ken Starr took forever, but after the first year of first year of special investigations, the public at large will have made up their minds.)

On the other hand, if congress allows the administration to drag it out long enough, they can appoint the SP just in time to create that "Nixon moment" and have it fresh in voters minds after the primaries are decided. At this point, I feel timing can only benefit Obama if he drags it on until well after the primaries. At that point, there is the unfortunate possibility that much of the public will probably not care about it, as they will feel that if there was anything of substance to investigate, it would have been done. Between now and the primaries, I think timing benefits republicans, and would not expect a special prosecutor to be appointed before next spring.

I think Obama is arrogantly foolish for thinking this is going to quietly slip away, and must be banking on Republican idiocy to help launch him into a second term. He is also showing a Bush-esque loyalty to his "team" of players, and we know how that worked for Bush...

Comment by: PVB | October 27, 2011

You mean, as in "You're doing a hell of a job, Brownie"? You're doing one hell of a job, Eric! HA! One HELL of a job....

Comment by: david b | October 27, 2011

Some very lucid comments are made here. I think it's probably anybody's guess as to when this thing is finally going to erupt. The one thing that we cannot permit is for this mess to simply shrivel up to the point that nobody cares about reviving it. We need to keep on reminding our elected representatives about keeping this thing alive and at the forefront of the public attention. I also believe that our direct correspondence with Chuck Grassley and Darrel Issa, though they may not be our actual representatives, will help to spur this on. If you have noticed, our mailboxes are regularly filled with campaign literature and requests for campaign contributions from candidates who are running for office representing locales other than where we reside. So it's not improper to communicate with representatives of other jurisdictions in order to keep the right people tuned in to our concerns.

Comment by: canovack | October 27, 2011

Canovack - I agree. When I receive calls I always ask about the individual they represent with "what is his/her stance on F & F. Normally they have no clue, thereby no donation.

Comment by: 7mag | October 27, 2011

Yeah, 7mag, whenever I am solicited for any sort of contribution.....no matter what the organization might be.....I always ask about the organization's position on the Second Amendment. If they respond that they don't have a position, I tell them that they should, and it should be a pro-Second Amendment position.....then I terminate the conversation with no contribution. Of course, this all is contingent on me answering the phone at all when I see who is on the caller ID screen.

Comment by: canovack | October 28, 2011