They may be familiar to some, but not every gunsmith knows the ins and outs of drill bits. Here are the basics.

The graceful, light, and distinctive L.C. Smith Hammerless Double sidelock is a favorite of American shotgunners. Here’s how to fix its most common problems. If you own a Smith and want to make it suitable to shoot again, or if you are presented a Smith to repair, here’s what you need to know about the shotgun.

In June 2010, Kahr Arms purchased Minnesota-based firearms manufacturer, Magnum Research, Inc., maker of the Desert Eagle Pistol and BFR Revolvers in .44 Magnum, .45 LC/.410 or .45/70. Kahr Arms offers a selection of other niche-type firearms, such as the “Tommy Gun” and Auto-Ordnance line of M1 .30 caliber carbines. In this video, Gun Tests Contributing Editor Roger Eckstine shows off two of the company’s big-hole BFR wheelguns.

Beretta USA introduced the BU-9 Nano as its entry into the pocket 9mm pistol category last September. Initial shipments of the American-made pistol left the Accokeek, Maryland factory beginning in November 2011, with a suggested retail price of $475. In this video, Gun Tests’ Contributing Editor Roger Eckstine gets a detailed explanation of how easy the Nano is to break down for maintenance. The Nano's modularity provides for simple disassembly and easy cleaning. Safely disassemble the pistol by first engaging the striker deactivator, a patent pending safety mechanism that eliminates the need to pull the trigger prior to disassembly.

Gun Reports - News

Eyewitness Report from the U.S. Supreme Court

(GunReports.com)--Alan Korwin writes in his Page Nine blog, "Are the 50 states required to obey the Second Amendment?

"Or can they do whatever they want, with no obligation to respect our right to keep and bear arms?

"That's what's at stake in the Chicago gun-ban case, McDonald v. City of Chicago,at the U.S. Supreme Court, where oral arguments [were heard March 2], with a decision expected in June."

Korwin continues:

There's no disagreement that when the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights were ratified in 1791, they were designed to control the federal government only, not the states. Did the 14th Amendment change that?

The First Amendment says it plainly: "CONGRESS shall make no law..." (emphasis added). The whole idea was to control the central government, not the states (which had their own protections and statements of rights).

The idea that the states should also be obligated to respect the fundamental rights in the national Bill of Rights didn't arrive until 1868, with the 14th Amendment. And that was a result of the end of slavery -- the former Confederate states did everything they could think of to deny virtually any rights to newly freed slaves -- especially the right to keep and bear arms.

Congress, led by the northern states, declared that all Americans had rights and that, "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive anyperson of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..." (the key 52 words of the 14th Amendment's 435 words, emphasis added). The historical record is emphatic in noting that the right to arms, especially for freedmen, was a prime mover in passing this amendment.

That language is clear, but here's where it gets tricky, and the heart of the McDonald case. Passage of 14A didn't automatically protect all citizens. What exactly are all the rights, privileges and immunities of the people? For reasons too complex to go into now, rights in the Bill of Rights have been applied to control the states, but only one at a time, by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There were two main ways to do this -- the Privileges and Immunities clause (which protects only citizens), and the Due Process clause (which applies to "any person"). The Court has essentially abandoned the P&I clause, and relied mainly on Due Process.

A set of cases, combined into "The Slaughterhouse Cases" (look that up, it's fascinating) pretty much gutted the Privileges and Immunities clause, by saying the only rights you have as an American are extremely narrow. The P&I clause has essentially been a dead letter since that case in 1873 -- and this is why McDonald v. Chicago is seen as so critical -- it could breathe life into the heart of the 14th Amendment. The Second Amendment is the subject matter, but the 14th Amendment is what's at stake. OK, OK, they're both at stake.

With a key chunk of the 14th essentially dead, the High Court has relied on Due Process to apply (legal eagles say "incorporate") the Bill-of-Rights rights against the states. That's why states can't search and seize your property without a warrant (well, in theory at least -- the states have usurped enormous powers too). The Due Process clause is why free speech cannot be denied by the states (again, only in theory -- the abuses here are so great it's the subject of my next book: Bomb Jokes At Airports -- And 186 Other Things You'd Better Not Say).

So now we're at the case in hand. Chicago has pretty much outlawed or severely infringed firearms rights for anyone in the city. All the city's powers are basically derived from the state of Illinois. Does Chicago have legitimate power to outlaw your rights? It says yes.

Is Chicago obligated, under the 14th Amendment, to honor and respect your rights? It says no, it can do as it pleases and screw your rights, just like other abhorrent petty tyrants currently running loose without nooses in the United States. (FWIW, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey filed briefs supporting Chicago, a total of three arguing against RKBA rights.)

I say, along with a huge chunk of this great country, that the states should be as totally bound to protect and safeguard the rights you have as an American citizen as all government should be. (38 briefs were filed in defense of our rights, including one by 251 congressmen and 58 senators). I go a bit further and say the bigots who have been denying and repressing your rights all this time belong in prison, but we're not likely to go that far. This time.

People who know about these things believe it is most likely that, if the High Court decides the states are obligated to honor the Second Amendment (and by implication, the entire rest of the Bill of Rights) they will apply the Due Process clause to justify their reasoning. That's how it's always been done, that's the most safe and precedent-ready route, and that's the best argument to press. Or is it?

Hopes are huge and the Court has subtly signaled that it is ready to finally breathe life into the P&I clause, and that has become the dominant argument for the petitioners (McDonald, et al.) and their attorneys, led by Alan Gura. The Court has all it needs to go the Due Process route, why not give it the encouragement it needs, seems to want, to rebirth P&I.

And here's where it gets really interesting. McDonald v. Chicago is seen as the best opportunity in more than a century to fix the harm done by Slaughterhouse. There is virtually unanimous consensus that Slaughterhouse was bad law, decided for bad reasons, and that it needs to be overturned. It has killed off a crucial part of a crucial constitutional amendment, and the times, and the Court, and the legal system are ready to set it right. It means upsetting a huge apple cart, but it's time.

Even though the subject matter of McDonald is gun rights, and a positive decision will have enormous positive impact on everyone's right to arms, many on the political left are supporting this case. Talk about strange bedfellows. They want that 14th Amendment restored because they see it as a linchpin for all sorts of possible "civil rights" they envision in the future. Think of every wacky demand the left makes, and then imagine these are "found," one by one, to be civil rights the federal government can force the states to honor and protect.

Yes, we're delighted that the states may be forced -- by our friends the feds -- to honor our right to keep arms and our right to bear arms. We can conveniently overlook and rationalize any concerns about federalism -- the concept that states are sovereign and independent, and in many matters can decide on their own how their territories will be run. Force from federal mandates seems just fine to protect free speech or stop search-and-seizure abuse, or to protect RKBA. But how well that flies if it's "newly discovered privileges and immunities" (polygamy? drugs? animal rights? affirmative action? debt? medicine? carbon neutrality? diversity? greenness? diet?) remains to be seen.

Those are far fetched and unlikely concerns, according to most people in the know. And the idea of losing the case, leaving states free to trample our precious right to arms, is just unthinkable. Giving up the best chance we've had in our history to right the wrongs of Slaughterhouse is not an easy option to consider. But the NRA, with laser aim on reinstating the rights of Chicagoans, has stepped into the fray, and asked for and received part of the tiny argument time (30 minutes) Alan Gura has before the Court.

The NRA has retained Paul Clement, the former solicitor general whose experience before the Court is unrivaled (and who wrote the pro-rights brief signed by 58% of the U.S. Congress for this case). The NRA wants to make sure the Due Process arguments are firmly made, since Mr. Gura has chosen the somewhat riskier focus on the Privileges and Immunities clause (though both camps make arguments for both approaches). The NRA's request for time, unusual but not unheard of, was definitely a fly in the ointment, but an ointment they felt needed a stir and examination.

To be sure, many of the friend-of-the-court amicus briefs filed in this case brought up and documented well the value, need and reasons to re-establish the P&I clause -- but it would break very new ground. So the NRA's position is not out in left field -- they are recognizing and making the more traditional case based Due Process. It's a double-barreled approach for success. which is a good thing. Probably. You never know when the Supreme Court gets its hands on an issue.

The most dangerous game may be the side note about Chicago's gun-registration scheme. If you can have a gun there at all it must be re-registered every year, most guns simply cannot be registered, and if you miss your renewal date (and fee for every gun you own) the gun(s) becomes permanently unregisterable and contraband. Is that OK? The Court's handling of this policy if they decide to touch it (and it seems they may have to based on the facts of the case), is fraught with danger for gun rights.

So there you have it. In the amicus brief my company Bloomfield Press filed with lead attorney Chuck Michel and dozens of district attorneys, gun rights groups from Texas, Virginia and Arizona, sheriff Richard Mack who was behind the original Brady law case (which he won) and others, we mainly left the 14A arguments for others. Instead, we addressed some essential points that got far less attention.

Our brief establishes this crucial point: the Second Amendment protects an American right that is long standing, deeply rooted and truly fundamental, and therefore meets the tests for incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

We did this with five separate arguments, two of which were a direct result of the work I did with attorneys Dave Kopel and Stephen Halbrook on my 10th book,Supreme Court Gun Cases. We found 92 gun-related cases the Court had heard (starting in 1820) up to that time (2003) and they were uniformly consistent with an individual right to keep and bear arms. (By my count, the Court has actually heard 103 gun-related cases at this point. McDonald will be the 104th).

In 14 of these prior cases the Court repeatedly stated every basic tenet of self defense in effect today. The Heller case forced the modern-day judiciary to finally unambiguously recognize and accept self defense as a core reason and justification for the right to arms in the first place. The public already understood this well. We carefully documented which classic cases supported which aspects of self defense (innocence, reasonable belief, grounds for belief, actions not words, necessity, equal force, immediacy ends, retreat and chase, plus rightfully armed, mutual combat, wounding and withdrawal) to show how solidly grounded these rights and issues are in the High Court's existing jurisprudence.

Reader Comments

well written article. raises some interesting points to say the least.

Comment by: pa-cman | March 4, 2010

I wonder how the people who feel the state's rights arguement gives them the right to ignore the 2nd Amendment, as Chicago has, would feel if a state used the same arguement to ignore the 1st Amendment or better yet the 13th Amendment. It seems they want to select only the Amendments they feel are neccesary.

Comment by: Robert J | March 4, 2010

Why mess with 140 years of 2nd amendment clarity? We have established throughout our very short history as a nation that we have the right"to keep and bear arms" period.Those of us that keep and bear arms have been able to do so for as long as this country has been around.Destroying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights won't keep the guns out of the reach of criminals any more than outlawing sugar will keep desserts away from kids.104 gun cases via SCOTUS and still no definitive answer. WOW! Aren't we productive? Semper Fi

Comment by: Sharps | March 4, 2010

"The Slaughterhouse Cases" (look that up, it's fascinating) pretty much gutted.... LOL!!!

I'm not sure I fully understand Slaughterhouse, but I wonder where we would be if the butchers found a responsible solution to the problem of polluting the water supplies with the "guts" leftover, without involving legislators?

Comment by: P V B | March 4, 2010

I don't understand all the legal mumbo jumbo that the Supreme Court mixes'with law abiding citizens, but here is an example that happened yesterday in Fayetteville, AR. A man was getting some money out of an ATM.(see Arkansas Democrat Gazette,3/3/10)Three young men were in back of him without money for gas or ciggarettes.One of them, described as a young man with tattoos on his face and neck, took a long blade and robbed the man of his "20.00" dollars. Would the story have changed if the man who was robbed had a "conceal an carry permit?" I hope to God our rights are not "ajusted".I know that we have a choice to protect our precious rights this NOV.I'm voting. The libral Democraps, which we have a few, that love Obamma's health plan and would stand by him if our 2nd A was attacked, will be looking for new deskjobs in Nov. Oh yea, the kid was caught that held up the old man.But,he will get a year and turned out on the street to commit further crimes. Like I said,"What if the man had a Conceal and Carry Permit?" Gman.45

Comment by: Ghostman45 | March 4, 2010

addendum;The man was held up on 3/3/10, in the paper this morning,"Arkansas Democrat Gazzette" 3/4/10...Ghostman45

Comment by: Ghostman45 | March 4, 2010

addendum;The man was held up on 3/3/10, in the paper this morning,"Arkansas Democrat Gazzette" 3/4/10...Ghostman45

Comment by: Ghostman45 | March 4, 2010

The Democrat Gazette - ironic....

If the old man had a gun, at least one of the perps would be wounded or dead; maybe more.

Comment by: P V B | March 4, 2010

Alan, I think you're missing the point about the 14th. I don't think the left supports the due process clause because of "newly discovered privileges and immunities". I suggest they want to take advantage of the "any PERSON" part, which would include illegal aliens and undocumented terrorists who also crossed the southern border. Oh, and now it would also include corporations, per the recent Supreme Court decision on 'free speech', right?

Comment by: david b | March 4, 2010

Just finished a 6 hour deposition with 6 attorneys trying to hack me up.I have seen first hand how many times a single word in our language can be twisted, ground up, and end up void of any meaning. "any person" may seem straight forward UNTIL the attorneys are involved. David B is right, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the intended meaning of the 14th , you just can't be an attorney.LOL

Comment by: Sharps | March 9, 2010

I once heard in a deposition that "you" was a racial slur. Plaintiff's counsel actually tried to pursue that. Not "you people" which I could see in some contexts, but simply "you" as in "you need to do your job." THAT's why on the 2A Extension Likely page we are debating the simplicity of our Constitution. There should be nothing much left to talk about after 200+ years.

Comment by: P V B | March 9, 2010