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

Obstruction Over Cali Lead Ammunition Research

(GunReports.com) — National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation representatives have revealed numerous obstacles frustrating the NRA/CRPAF’s pursuit of underlying data behind taxpayer funded “research” that is being used to advocate proposed lead ammunition bans in California and in other states.

The information behind these research studies must be critically evaluated to determine the legitimacy of claims being used to support lead ammunition bans. But despite being paid for with taxpayer dollars, the data is not being made publicly available.

Obstacles being thrown up in the face of the NRA/CRPAF probe include claims that data has been destroyed, and that other data is being withheld on legal grounds.

For several years, NRA/CRPAF attorneys have been seeking the original research data underlying the claims being made to purportedly justify proposals to ban the use of lead ammunition in California. Significantly, analysis of the data obtained so far has revealed significant problems with the research methods and samples used to support these proposals.

For example, the NRA probe revealed that the authors of the “Church Report” had not incorporated all the relevant underlying data into their findings and had omitted data that did not support their conclusions. When these omissions were revealed to the Fish & Game Commission in August 2009, proposals to expand the current condor zone lead ammunition ban statewide, to include all lead ammunition under the ban, to ban lead .22 rimfire ammunition for hunting rabbits, and to ban lead shot for hunting migratory upland game were all rejected by the Commission.

At the time, the “Church Report” was one of the primary scientific studies being relied on to support the lead ammo ban proposals. Upon seeing that data had been selectively excluded from consideration, several Commissioners criticized the scientific validity of the “Church Report” findings. One Commissioner even called it “pseudo-science.”

More recently, NRA/CRPAF public records requests have sought the underlying data being used to support conclusions reached in new University of California, Davis (“U.C. Davis”) lead ammo studies. Some of the requests seeking public records related to these taxpayer-funded research projects have been blocked by various governmental agencies and the universities.

Both the University of California, Santa Cruz (“U.C. Santa Cruz”) and U.C. Davis refused to produce the documents and underlying data, claiming they were exempt from production under the California Public Records Act under an alleged “researcher’s privilege.” Both universities claim that information relating to scientific research is “privileged” until that study is published in a peer reviewed journal. But the California Public Records Act contains no exception for a “researcher's privilege” and such "unpublished" studies are being routinely used by the researchers to influence the public policy debate on the regulation of lead ammunition.

Apart from the claimed "researcher's privilege," U.C. Santa Cruz has also made excuses, including claiming it will take eighty weeks to provide responsive documents relating to published studies, even for those to which the alleged researcher’s exemption admittedly does not apply (i.e., published studies). U.C. Santa Cruz’s actions forced the CRPAF to initiate litigation to obtain the information.

Tweet

Reader Comments

Along with all the other examples of wasteful government spending, this research into the environmental effects of lead from ammunition borders on the same degree of ludicrous actions as other "tree hugging" missions.

Comment by: canovack | September 22, 2011

Plenty of evidence of brain damage in California. Must be more than one source, as most of the brain damaged don't shoot guns.

Comment by: Mister E | September 22, 2011

I live in CA and it's a shame that the stinking government and it subdivisions are such a bunch of jerks. But being a lousy, rotten, stinking, low- life, self serving, sorry piece of human flesh comes from the top of this manure pile - the executive branch of government and the democrat controlled legislature. Of course this is just their "good points" . . . . . . . .

Comment by: lorenzo | September 22, 2011

The only things lead is harmful to are criminals.

Comment by: msg51 | September 22, 2011

Remember back when we were all informed that various "scientific studies" demonstrated conclusively that global warming was a clear and present danger to continued human existence on this planet? And by gosh we evil, greedy Americans were pretty much the sole cause of this catastrophe. Then remember when those "studies" turned out to be (big oops here) flawed and pretty much made up out of whole cloth? So that now what we have to worry about is "climate change" which happens regularly every few hundred years.

Our collective dolts in Sacramento still buy those first studies. And they will, consequently, accept any study--legitimate, illegitimate, or authored by Alf the Alien--that will support their preconceived beliefs. On a final note, would anyone want to lay some money on the question of why these studies have not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal? I posit a simple reason, no legitimate journal would accept them.

Comment by: Visigoth52 | September 22, 2011

You are right on target, Visigoth52. One of the supreme tests of scientific endeavor occurs when the results of that endeavor have been published for peer review. That, in turn, results in attempts to replicate the investigation demonstrating the correct application of scientific reasoning, experimentation, data acquisition, analysis, and conclusions based on all factors. If a study cannot withstand the light of peer review, it is likely that its' conclusions are flawed.

Comment by: canovack | September 23, 2011

Well, I for one with throw the BS flag here. If the data exists to prove the case it allegedly makes, then it seems they would want to show it. Otherwise, it's an invented argument with lies about alleged data to back it up, but nothing really there.

As far a 'researcher privilege' goes, that went out the window when the university let the alleged data-based conclusions get out. If you go public with an analysis of data, you're obligated to produce the data. That's what happens immediately when something like these studies is published for peer review - you give up the data for everyone who asks for it.

These excuses are a scam to keep the studies hidden - probably because the data doesn't support any anti-gun conclusions that are being pushed based on alleged results.

Comment by: david b | September 26, 2011

Well, davidb, I think you and I just said, essentially, the same thing.....;-).

Comment by: canovack | September 26, 2011

Maybe so Colonel, maybe so.

Comment by: david b | September 26, 2011