Category: Guns
New Language
I can indeed find some new language in this year’s castle doctrine, as opposed to last year, but so far I don’t see anything that should give us cause to withdraw support for the bill or seriously worry ourselves:
(2.3)  An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, WHO IS NOT IN ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii), has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:
The section in all caps is new. For most of us who are carrying firearms legally, this isn’t an issue.
(2.4) Â THE EXCEPTION TO THE DUTY TO RETREAT SET FORTH UNDER PARAGRAPH (2.3) DOES NOT APPLY IF THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE FORCE IS USED IS A PEACE OFFICER ACTING IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AND THE ACTOR USING FORCE KNEW OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE PERSON WAS A PEACE OFFICER.
This is new in this section. Without context it’s hard to explain, but I will try. In last year’s bill, you could not use the presumption set fourth that deadly force is justified against someone unlawfully and forcefully entering your home if that person was a peace officer performing his official duties. In a way it’s kind of redundant, because presumably a peace officer is lawfully entering a home, and if a peace officer were unlawfully entering a home, then that wouldn’t be part of his official duties, would it? This years bill adds that same provision to anywhere you have a legal right to be. My opinion is this is a feel good provision. Obviously a peace officer who’s in the process of, say, unlawfully raping a woman, isn’t “acting in the performance of his official duties.”
(d) Â Definition.–As used in this section, the term “criminal activity” means conduct which is a misdemeanor or felony, is not justifiable under this chapter and is
the proximate cause ofRELATED TO the confrontation between an actor and the person against whom force is used.
You can see where last year’s language was struck and replaced with the language in caps. This is probably the language being talked about by the DA’s association. My guess is they were concerned about the burden of proving proximate cause, rather than just having to prove a relationship between the crime and the need to use deadly force, which is a clearer standard. I don’t seriously object to this change.
The rest of the bill is identical to last years, including the civil immunity provisions. My feeling is the changes promoted by the DA’s association are relatively minor and are a reasonable concession if in return they drop their opposition to the bill. The DA’s association no doubt came to the table because they realized something was likely going to pass this session, and decided it was better to get some minor concessions than continuing to tilt at windmills.
That has probably been why this bill has moved so quickly and been voted on so overwhelmingly. Without the DA association’s objections to ride on, opponents of Castle Doctrine don’t have much political cover for their opposition, so they caved. I think the changes outlined were small concessions to make in order to get this bill to move quickly and get cleanly through the legislature.
DA’s Association on Castle Doctrine
Looks like the DA’s association has softened their opposition, but the reason is worrisome:
Now, Marsico says the DA’s Association is working with, and not against, Republican lawmakers, in an effort to change the bill’s language. New language the group helped craft would only eliminate the duty to retreat before firing if the other person is armed. “It also provides that the individual who wants to avail themselves of the expanded doctrine cannot be engaged in any criminal activity,†he said. “And prior versions of the legislation put the onus on the prosecution to prove there was no criminal activity. We’ve removed that with the current amendment.â€Â He outlined one more change: “The other thing in the current amendment does is that it provides that if someone’s going to claim the expanded stand your ground doctrine, and they use a firearm in defending themselves, then they have to be legally in possession of that firearm. So we’ve tightened the law a lot.â€
I will do my best to look into this, but this could be cause for concern. I need to look at this year’s and last year’s bills side by side, but I’m pretty sure most of what they are speaking of here is already a feature of last year’s bill, IIRC.
Jason on Printer Issues
My goal was to try to come up with a design where if you had one of these low cost ABS printers, you could just download the file, print the parts, superglue them together, add the spring, and you’d have a working 32 round magazine.
Right now I’m at the point where you can download the file, print the parts, superglue them together, sand like crazy, add the spring, and you would have a somewhat finicky 20 to 25 round magazine.
The problem I’m having is a combination of ABS being a bit too flexible and software issues with tool path generation. The walls of the magazine needs to be at least a couple millimeters thick and solid in order to prevent excessive flexing. The tool path generating software (Skeinforge) doesn’t deal well with thin solid walls whose thickness is some uneven multiple of the print head width. For example, if the wall thickness is 3.5 times that of the print width, it will generate one pass along the outer surface of the wall, one pass along the inner surface, and then one more interior pass against either the outside or inside surface. But that leaves the remaining 0.5 of the wall thickness unfilled, and you end up with a hollow very flexible wall. What it really should be doing is a zig-zag like pass over the wall interior. I can trick Skeinforge into filling in the walls completely by lying to it about print head width, but the wall surfaces end up off a bit and then I have issues with the magazine fitting in the mag well or the rounds fitting in the magazine. So I’ve been tweaking the wall thickness and print head size setting in order to try to get Skeinforge to do what I want.
The right solution is probably to modify Skeinforge so that it will generate the correct tool paths from the correct model, rather than adjusting the model to try to make up for Skeinforge’s deficiencies.
Other than the flexing issue ABS seems to be strong enough. I have one magazine I printed which can hold the full 32 rounds and feeds fine, but it bulges so much when fully loaded that it won’t fit in the mag well. The one magazine rupture I had was due entirely to a mistake in the cad file that caused the printer not to correctly bond the insert pieces (where one section of the mag body fits into another) to the rest of the part.
Grassley on Cam and Company
Cam Edwards interviews Senator Grassley (R-IA), who’s been spearheading the Project Gunrunner scandal investigation. Grassley is the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, which is the highest minority party position. The Committee is chaired by Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
IGOLD 2011
Follow Thirdpower for live coverage of IGOLD 2011. Illinois gun owners have a lot to be optimistic about, since Concealed Carry passed its first hurdle. This is far from passing a bill, and getting it signed by the Governor, but it’s progress.
It Starts With a Design
The first step in figuring out how to print a magazine on a 3D printer is deciding which magazine to make. Those of you who know the gun can probably identify the magazine showing here as being to an M11 submachine gun. We selected this magazine for a few reasons.
One, there’s a factory design that’s made from all plastic, which gives us a starting point. Two, Jason has a legally owned M11 submachine gun.Three, it would be really cool to make a magazine that can keep up with a full auto cyclic rate. Since we’re still prototyping, and have not moved into testing, this might prove yet to be rather cocky. In truth I’d be happy to have one that keeps up on semi-auto.
But there are some difficulties here. The plastic M11 magazine is made from a molded thermoset polymer. These types of polymers form rigid cross-linked polymer chains during the curing process that while less flexible and more brittle, also tend to be fairly strong. MakerBot’s Thing-o-Matic extrudes ABS, which is a thermoplastic. Thermoplastics are less brittle, but also not as strong, and certainly more prone to flex. Â On top of that, there are issues with the extruded printing technique. All of these mean it’s probably going to be impossible for our printed magazine to have a capacity that’s identical to the factory magazine because of the need to have thicker walls due to the limitations of our material and printer.
To the left you can see a CAD drawing of our current prototype. Due to the size limitations on the printer’s build area, it requires the magazine to be broken down into three different sections to be printed, and then glued together at the end. In the drawing you’ll notice there are round disks over or under some of the parts. This indicates the parts in question are to be printed standing up, and the disks are intended to stabilize the part during the printing process. After the print run is finished, the disks can be cut away with an X-ACTO knife.
Showing above on the right (click to embiggen) a printout of an early prototype magazine. You will notice, if you look carefully, exactly how the printer extrudes. It builds layer on top of layer of strands of melted ABS that are fractions of a millimeter thick, resulting in the texture you see in the photograph. Unfortunately, these ridges provide a rough enough surface to encourage the magazine to hang up and jam. They can, however, be sanded out, but that’s painstaking work.
In further posts I will be talking about my follower design, and maybe I’ll see if Jason wants to come on and speak of some of the difficulties with doing the magazine body, and some of the steps that had to be taken to make it all work.
Anti-Gun Amendments Defeated
We’ve gotten beyond this hurdle, and now it’s on to final consideration, which will happen in April.
NRA Calling for Hearings into “Fast and Furious”
In a letter dated today to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, and Ranking Member Charles Grassley, and House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith and Ranking Member John Conyers, NRA is calling for a Congressional investigation and hearings on Operation Fast and Furious.
Bias? What Bias?
From the Washington Post reporter James Grimaldi:
The controversy highlights the difficulty ATF agents face in complex cases against increasingly sophisticated gunrunning rings, said former and current government officials. Because of weak gun laws and investigative limitations imposed at the urging of the gun lobby, many gunrunning cases end with little more than paperwork violations against buyers who procure guns for others. Such so-called straw purchaser cases rarely amount to more than charges of lying on federal documents.
Not only bias, but ignorance. Is Mr. Grimaldi aware of what the penalty is for lying on those documents? The crime is to be found in 18 USC 922(a)(6):
It shall be unlawful for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;
Penalties can be found in 18 USC 924:
(2) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
It’s unlikely you’ll do 10 years for robbing a bank in this country, so I think to characterize the crime here as “little more than paperwork violations,” is ignorant at best, and deliberately disingenuous at worst. These are serious federal crimes, and despite what Mr. Grimaldi would have you believe, neither NRA, or the vast majority of gun owners, have ever voiced objections to using these laws to prosecute criminal traffickers of firearms. In fact, we’ve encouraged the law to be used in this manner.