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

Supreme Court to Hear 2nd Amendment Challenge to Chicago Gun Ban

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court announced September 30 that it will hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, and decide whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from state and local governments.

At issue is a 27-year-old Chicago law banning handguns, requiring the annual taxation of firearms, and otherwise interfering with the right of law-abiding individuals to keep guns at home for self-defense. The case was brought on behalf of four Chicago residents, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

Last year, in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, as that case concerned the actions of the District of Columbia government, a federal entity, the high court was not called upon to decide whether the right bound states and local governments. Over the years, almost the entire Bill of Rights has been held to apply to state and local governments by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"The freedoms we enjoy as Americans are secured to us against violation by all levels of government," noted Alan Gura, of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, lead counsel for the McDonald plaintiffs. "State and local politicians should be on notice: the Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights, and it is coming to your town."

Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident since 1952 who led the fight to integrate his union local in the 1960s and is a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the news. "I am grateful the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case," McDonald said. "I now pray that the Court secures me and all other law-abiding citizens the right to defend ourselves and our families."

Chicago attorney David Sigale commented, "The City of Chicago cannot take from millions of Americans the fundamental freedom of self-defense in one's own home. We are confident the Court will stand on the side of the law-abiding citizens and the Bill of Rights."

"We're pleased to hear that the Supreme Court has decided to take a look at Chicago's gun laws," added ISRA President Don Moran. "In this time of economic uncertainty and increasing lawlessness, the good people of Chicago ought not have to choose between violating Chicago's gun ban, and protecting themselves and their loved ones."

Oral argument will possibly be scheduled early this coming winter, with a decision expected by June 2010. Gura will argue the case on behalf of the McDonald plaintiffs.

Reader Comments

I sit here wondering why this has taken SOOOOOO long. State's rights and the City of Chicago's rights are two separate battles vs. individual 2nd amendment rights.

Comment by: Sharps | October 4, 2009

I predict a 5-4 decision in our favor.

Comment by: Robert J | October 5, 2009

Watch what is happening in Washington DC right now. As things stand today, the city is making it as fiendishly difficult as humanly possible to get the permits, acquire the firearm, and get it transferred into the city legally. They borrowed California's "Approved Handguns" list, and if the gun you want isn't the right color, or doesn't have all the right fiddly little breakage-prone gimmicks on it that they demand, you can't have it. There is only one gun dealer in Washington DC, and he doesn't sell guns to the public. He sees his transfers customers by appointment only. The only reason he has a gun license at all is because he's a former cop. They're making New Jersey look like Montana.

I forsee decades of litigation before the city of Chicago is beaten into submission and the city administration is forced to accept the fact that the residents of Chicago are free Americans.

Gaviota

Comment by: Lee W | October 5, 2009

Only a hypocrite liberal would discriminate against a gun due to its color.

Comment by: Robert J | October 6, 2009

How about Sen. Soles, Mr. anti gun himself "shooting an intruder with a GUN!!!! That takes hypocrisy to an all time high. Will the liberal Senators ever be held responsible for their actions??.

Comment by: Sharps | October 8, 2009

As I said in another posting on this same site, today, I view the Chicago thing as having the potential of clarifying our Second Amendment rights as individual keepers and bearers of arms as Americans, no matter what our state of residence might be. It does, however, depend on how the Supreme Court writes the decision. Assuming a 5-4 decision in favor of the Second Amendment, when the opinion (decision) is published, it will need to specify in no uncertain terms that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is and individual right that applies to all Americans regardless of their residential status. The decision should be presented in much the same way that many of our states (Texas included) have adopted pre-emption laws that prohibit any governmental entity from abrogating the rights of its citizens. Even though we lost the Senate vote on CHL reciprocity this time around, with a Supreme Court decision that provides pre-emption of any subordinate governmental entity, reciprocity of CHL should go through with little to no problems. Now, it would be disingenuous of me to believe that the states and cities would just role over for the Second Amendment. It would, however, create a Second Amendment friendly environment for the pursuit of litigation against those governmental entities that violate national pre-emption.

Comment by: canovack | October 8, 2009

Canovack, I'm sure that what "frosts" us all is the number of times the entire issue is brought before the Supreme Court. I ,for one, thought that the 2nd Amendment had already been interpreted by the high courts.You seem to have a solid grasp of the politics involved. I sincerely wish I had your patience for, and understanding of, the political and legal processes involved in making the 2nd Amendment an IRONCLAD right of the citizens to legally bear arms. Your explanations are sound and your logic impeccable. I lost my grip on "their" logic about 20 years ago. Semper Fi

Comment by: Sharps | October 9, 2009

Sharps and my dear brothers in the Second Amendment..... I too am impatient with the process that should once and for all resolve the so-called issue of interpretation of the Second Amendment. Hell.....we should all be impatient with the national government concerning all aspects of our nation's governance. It has, however, become clear to me and many others, that there is a definite process that the governing types have adopted. We have all heard the phrase "nothing is simple". What appears simple and easy to understand for us, just does not appear simple and easy to understand for myriads of other people. So it is, that the "Federalese Game" must apparently be played according to a complex and silly set of rules that requires judicial interpretation. This, in and of itself, may not necessarily be a bad thing, but it sure as hell does get cumbersome and frustrating. As all of this monkey dung gets poked and stirred, perhaps we poor, dumb, ordinary people should keep in mind that inefficiency in our government plays a critical part in maintaining the checks and balances that are key to restricting the tendency for governments to overstep their functions. I seriously doubt that any of us would really like to see our government acquire such a high measure of efficiency that it could do whatever it wants to whenever it wants to. Remember high governmental efficiency was the hallmark of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, etc, etc.....

Comment by: canovack | October 10, 2009

Canovack, you hit the X ring again. I remember reading back in the '80s that the IRS was complaining that their computers were obsolete, and unable to network with the Social Security Administration's computers, or the Medicare/Medicaid computers, or any other financial systems in the Fed.gov. I thought to myself "This is a bad thing?"

Turns out I was right. Too much government efficiency always means too little liberty.

Gaviota

Comment by: Lee W | October 10, 2009