Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Beretta 92FS Review


Ever since I first saw one, I wanted the Beretta 92FS. This is the same sidearm as the M9, the handgun that our armed forces carry today. Several weeks ago I got a message from a friend on Texas CHL Forum with an ad for them at $399.00

They are back!! One day only. This Saturday September 1st, 9am untl 1pm. Brand new, in the box Beretta Model 92FS 9mm, with 3 Hi-Cap mags, box, papers and gun lock $ 399 !!! First come, first served, Ty's Gun Shop, inside Cowboy Polaris on Hwy 69 in Nederland (formerly Southeast Texas Powersports) They will not last long. No early birds please. Sale starts Saturday at 9am. These are brand new guns, not used and not reconditioned. New New guns. If you missed out last time, don't miss this time.

I made the 100 mile drive down to Nederland and plunked down my 400 bucks and got the police special, 3 mags manual the obligatory Berettta bicycle lock, and a 92fs 9mm handgun in a cardboard box. Yup, it was a cheap corrugated cardboard box. 3 magazines though, I could load up almost a whole box of ammo into those 15 rounders. Magazines for the Berretta though are easily available, I can pick up 15 rounders at the surplus store for $10.00 and Academy has them for $18.00

The first thing I did was after studying the manual was to disassemble the gun, wiped out the grease, ran a patch down the barrel, and lightly oiled. the workings and slide. The Beretta comes apart easily and intuitively. There is no critical lining up or trigger pull involved. Push the takedown button and flip the lever slide forward and the slide is separated from the frame. There are some plastic parts. The trigger, and the hammer are plastic, although one can't really notice with casual observation . The guide rod is plastic and looks particularly flimsy although I haven't noticed anyone having issues with it on the net, supposedly it is just as reliable as the older style metal rod. The wide open chamber makes it easy to inspect even in poor light conditions. There really isn't much opportunity for spent brass to jam up, and is a help in keeping this gun ambidextrous.

Shooting her is very pleasant. The Beretta is a natural pointer. To point is to have the 3 dots line right up on the target. The recoil is gentle even with stout personal defense loads. Recovery seems automatic and almost instantaneous. The trigger in double action is long but smooth, in single action the pull is very short and light. I've put about 1,000 rounds through her so far, and there hasn't been a single problem. Its 5” barrel provides a nice sight radius. Line the sights up squeeze the trigger. An X ring hole is an almost guaranteed result. Darn gun almost aims itself.

This thing is pretty big though and it's not the ideal conceal carry piece. I normally carry my Ruger 95. in a Don Hume JIT Outside the waistband holster. I haven't made much of an effort to find a suitable holster because as far as I'm concerned its not suitable for every day carry. I do carry it on occasion though. I have a cheap Uncle mikes and will carry it if I am wearing a large cover garment, or in the waist hipside or at at the small of the back. Its comfortable enough for walking around, but its a literal pain in the butt to carry in a car. I know of some people that do carry a 92FS on a regular basis. Most seem to prefer 'small of the back' carry also.

If one wants a nice handgun right out of the box, thats not going to cost an arm and a leg. This might be the gun for you. This is one of the more trustworthy handguns made, afterall, it is built for military performance. It is pretty, it works, its effective, very nice to shoot but its not small.

Labels:

posted by Liberty @ 9:47 AM 29 comments.
links to this post

Friday, December 14, 2007

Killing Zones

24-year-old Mathew Murray was feeling persecuted, He was told he didn't have enough of God's love to be a Christian missionary. To prove he had what it takes he decides to go out and take out a few Christians and go out in a blaze of Glory. Maybe he was thinking the church people would be sheep ready to be herded to slaughter. He should be able to march in and mow them down securing his name into history. One brave lady stood in is way and stopped what otherwise could have been a scene of complete carnage. Cal Thomas does a great job of putting this all into perspective.
It is Assam and not the shooter who received — and deserves — most of the media attention and praise. Calm and collected at a news conference, Assam detailed her movements and decision-making after hearing shots in the parking lot outside the church. She was especially attentive to possible danger after learning of the earlier shooting during which two people were killed at the YWAM facility several miles away. After hearing shots in the church parking lot, Assam said she walked about 100 yards through a hallway, hid herself and when Murray walked in, emerged from hiding and confronted him. “I was just asking God, bottom line, this is all you,” she said. “It was so loud. … It was scary. But God was with me. I asked him to be with me. And he never left my side.”

Assam is a former Minneapolis police officer who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon. She said she had been praying about what to do with her life and had volunteered to help with security at the 10,000-member church. She said, “I wasn’t going to wait for him to do other damage. I knew what I had to do.”

Jeanne Assam is a true hero, there are many people alive today because of her clearness of thought and courageous actions. There are some political heros also, those who made it possible for folks like Ms. Assam to legally carry a concealed weapon. There are states where its very difficult for folks like Ms. Assam to legally carry. Some places don't allow carry into a place of worship.

Killers — ones with mental disorders, or terrorists — look for places with large gatherings to amplify their acts. That’s why in recent years they have selected targets ranging from the World Trade Center, to Columbine High School, to shopping malls and now a megachurch. On the rare occasions when an armed person has been on the scene before police arrive, such acts have been stopped before further damage could be done. When no armed person has been present, by the time the police show up the killing is usually over and the gunman has shot himself.

The point is that gun laws will not deter criminals with evil intent and police can’t be everywhere they’re needed. But killers can be stopped by law-abiding citizens with guns. As the Supreme Court considers its ruling on whether the strict gun laws in the District of Columbia are constitutional, it might remember Jeanne Assam and her courageous, proper and for now legal response to a lawless act. Though four were killed at the two locations and several others wounded, many more owe their lives to Assam, who should be the new poster woman for those who wish to preserve the right to keep and bear arms.

Well said, Cal.
Ed Morissey summarized it so well,
After the Virginia Tech shooting, people asked whether a CCL holder could have made a difference once the shooting started. Jeanne Assam answered that question on Sunday.

Labels: ,

posted by Liberty @ 1:53 PM 1 comments.
links to this post

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Being Gutless:The NRA

It might surprise some folks that I'm not a big fan of the NRA, nor its affiliate the TSRA. I got irritated with the TSRA (Texas State Rifle Association) in my bid for the Texas State Representative position. They wouldn't mention me nor most Libertarians who were running in for various positions. I felt they had a right to support whoever they wanted for what ever reasons, but to ignore completely those who were most stout in support of the right to bear arms was disingenuous. They ignored us precisely because we had stronger positions than those whpo we ran against but they didn't wish to alienate those in power. Truly the NRA was being gutless and lacking principle in their beliefs.

Not surprisingly when it comes to taking the lead in defense of the second amendment and RKBA (Right to Keep and Bare Arms) It is not the NRA but an individual supported by the ACLU. Now most NRA members would normally consider the ACLU the leftist enemy. In this case it is the NRA that is being the obstructionist for support on the 2nd amendment, and the ACLU who has been supportive of the RKBA. Its a strange world we find our selves in.

The beginning:
A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long- standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia.

The ban on owning handguns went into effect in 1976.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also threw out the district's requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock.

This court case was pursued and financed the federal District Court by Robert Levy a private citizen. Mr. Levy doesn't even own a gun. He had some support by the CATO institute and the ACLU. Now this case seems destined to heard before the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). One would think that the NRA would be supportive, but instead they have resorted to deception and roadblocks. In an editorial written for the Washington Examiner, Robert Levy explains the subterfuge.


Could the National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress be undermining the best pro-gun case ever likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court?

More than four years ago, three attorneys and I filed Parker v. District of Columbia, a Second Amendment case on behalf of six local residents who want to defend themselves in their own homes.

For reasons that remain unclear, we faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation. Happily, the case survived. On March 9, in a blockbuster opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the city's gun ban — holding that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Parker is the first federal appellate decision to invalidate a gun control statute on Second Amendment grounds. Federal circuit courts covering 47 states have held that there's no recourse under the Second Amendment when state and local gun regulations are challenged. That means Parker could be headed to the Supreme Court.

Enter Congress and the NRA. First, Reps. Mike Ross, D-Ark., and Mark Souder, R-Ind., introduced the D.C. Personal Protection Act. Then, on March 28, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, followed suit in the Senate. Both bills, pushed hard by the NRA, would repeal the D.C. gun ban.

Ordinarily, that might be a good thing. But passage of the bills would kill the Parker litigation. It isn't possible to challenge a law that has been repealed. Yet, Sen. Hutchison claims in her press release that she favors "both a legislative and judicial remedy. I hope the Parker case goes before the Supreme Court and that the court asserts that the right to bear arms is an individual, and not a collective, right. ..."

Incredible.

When asked to clarify the NRA's position, CEO Wayne LaPierre told us in a private meeting, "You can take it to the bank. The NRA will not do anything to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing Parker."

Maybe so, but actions speak louder than words. The NRA's aggressive promotion of the D.C. Personal Protection Act is baffling at best.

Parker is a much better vehicle to vindicate Second Amendment rights than an act of Congress. First, legislative repeal of the D.C. gun ban will not stop criminal defense attorneys and Public Defenders from citing the Second Amendment when they challenge "felon in possession" charges. Thus, if Parker is derailed, the next Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court could feature a murderer or drug dealer instead of six law-abiding citizens.

Second, a bill aimed at D.C. does only part of the job. It could be repealed by a more liberal Congress. And it will have no effect on state law outside of D.C. In effect, those who support the D.C. Personal Protection Act will be opposing an unambiguous Supreme Court proclamation on the Second Amendment, applicable across the nation.

Third, the Supreme Court is more conservative today than it's been for some time, and probably more conservative than it's going to be. In the unlikely event that five current justices decide to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by upholding a total ban on handguns, that would be the time for Congress to act. Until then, the D.C. Personal Protection Act is premature and counter-productive.

Meanwhile, if Congress wants to help, there are positive things it can do. D.C. has no federal firearms licensees. And handguns, unlike rifles and shotguns, can't be purchased out of state. So even if Parker wins, D.C. residents could not buy a handgun.

Congress should allow interstate handgun sales as long as they comply with the law in both states. And Congress should change how D.C. processes gun registrations. The city requires multiple pictures, fingerprints, and on and on. The process can take months. Congress can mandate that D.C. officials accept the National Instant Check System used everywhere else.

My colleagues and I have drafted alternative legislation — now in the hands of selected senators —that accomplishes those objectives and more, without extinguishing the Parker suit.

Finally, the NRA has suggested that the D.C. Personal Protection Act is "must" legislation. But the D.C. handgun ban was enacted 31 years ago. Why is it only now that legislation must be passed — especially when the effect of that legislation will be to kill the best chance ever for the Supreme Court to affirm that the Second Amendment means what it says?

One might ask why the NRA would actively seek to sabotage a Supreme Court hearing on the Parker case. An arguement coulds be made that if the 2nd amendment gets sustained then the NRA would be lose their reason for being. Levy reminds us though there are other battles to be fought in this campaign. One thing is clear that the NRA is more interested in the politics of self preservation and that the real support of the RKBA is being fought and won by individuals libertarians and civil right activist while being abandoned by the NRA.

Another argument in defense of the NRA sabotaging this case is that if we win, the Antis will mobilize us and ram a new constitutional amendment down our throats. This seems like a real stretch Constitutional amendments are not that easily won and that it is us gun owners that are in power and not the Brady bunch. With the very strong possibility that the Republicans are going to lose the presidential election and Congress the time to move is now while we still have control of SCOTUS.

Reasonable and civil discussion of this can be found at the Texas CHL Forum

Labels:

posted by Liberty @ 10:25 AM 1 comments.
links to this post