Webley Mark IV .38 S&W

Many of us, when we think of Webley revolvers, think of this iconic movie image, of Michael Caine and Stanley Baker playing Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead and Lieutenant John Chard in the 1964 movie Zulu, firing away with their Webley Mark VI in .455 Webley. Unfortunately for the movie, the iconic image is wrong. The revolver in question wasn’t introduced until World War I, thirty six years after the British Army fought the Battle of Rorke’s Drift. Nonetheless, the movie helped introduce more than a few people to the Webley, including me. When I noticed Century was carrying some Webley Mark IVs in their catalog late last year, I decided to grab one, since I had just renewed my C&R FFL. Delivered to my door a few days later. These aren’t very collectible revolvers, which their low price reflects, but they are in good condition, and should be a solid shooter, and a good introduction to the gun. The pistols are in .38 S&W, which is an older, than the .38 Special, and definitely more anemic than the man stopping .455 Webley. Unlike the Smith & Wesson designs, the Webley uses a top break reloading mechanism, where the entire barrel and cylinder can be moved away from the frame. This requires two hands to accomplish, so offers some obvious disadvantages to the more modern designs, but its’ still neat.

In the picture showing to the left, you can see the cross block safety that Century installed on these guns. That’s the main thing that kind of ruins these for collectors. Apparently it was done in order for Century to be able to import them under the ATF point system. Firearms explicitly listed on the C&R list can be imported by definition, without consideration to the point system (you can thank FOPA for that), but only the Webley Mark I is explicitly listed on the C&R list. These revolvers are C&R by virtue of the fact that they are older than fifty years. That gets it delivered to your door if you have a C&R FFL, but it doesn’t get you around the point system for importation.

In the picture to the right, you can see the origin of this particular pistol in Birmingham, England. I had wondered whether Century got these Webleys from one of the commonwealth countries, but I haven’t noticed any marks indicating that would be the case. I’m pretty sure that this Webley was never issued to any Commonwealth authority. It seems difficult to believe that it was imported directly from England, since I would imagine their export laws for pistols would preclude that possibility. In the picture to your left, you can see the proofs I am speaking of (click on the picture to see up close). Apparently all guns sold in the UK had to be “proofed” by one of several proof houses. This was one proofed by the Birmingham Proof House. The BV is the “Birmingham View” proof, indicating that the pistol passed visual inspection. The BP proof is a black powder proof mark, and NP is the “nitro proof” mark for certifying it will accept smokeless cartridges.

In the picture to the right, you can see up close how the Gun Control Act of 1968 forced Century International to butcher this pistol’s hammer. This would be a good collector piece otherwise. I didn’t even get a picture of the importer’s mark that was stamped on the underside of the barrel, something Bloomberg is demanding we make deeper and larger, in addition to adding a standardized extra serial number, further butchering imports and ruining them for collectors. You can see from the bit of serial number I didn’t Photoshop out, that it begins with A5, indicating a manufacture date of 1953. Had this pistol been imported into the United State prior to 1968, it would have been legal to import untouched, and an excellent collector piece. Thanks to our gun laws, it’s a shooter. I’m happy to finally have a Webley, and someday maybe I’ll spring for a collectable one. But for now I’m just happy to have something new to shoot.

NRA’s Position on the Motion for Divided Time

I spent about ten minutes talking with Chris Cox, Chief Lobbyist for NRA-ILA, about this Motion for Divided Time that was filed with the Supreme Court in McDonald, asking for ten minutes of the Petitioner’s time during oral arguments. Needless to say, it’s not often I raise a concern with NRA that I’m in a phone call with the head of ILA a few hours later, so NRA is taking the issue seriously, and taking blogger concerns about the motion seriously enough to give us that consideration. I will share with you what Chris did clarify with me, quoting:

NRA’s solitary goal in McDonald is to ensure that that our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms applies to all law-abiding Americans, regardless of the state in which they live. To that end, we fully support the Court incorporating the Second Amendment through either the Privileges or Immunities or Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The brief NRA filed last November presents a clear roadmap to the Court for incorporation under both a Due Process and Privileges or Immunities analysis.

We believe the Court should reach the same conclusion — that the Framers of the 14th Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the States — under either provision of the 14th Amendment. NRA, as a party to the case, has asked for the opportunity to participate in oral argument to ensure that all options for incorporating the Second Amendment are fully considered.

Again, NRA’s solitary goal in McDonald is to see the Second Amendment incorporated against the States, whether through the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

I did convey to him that while I understood and could appreciate NRA’s core concern, that I did not think this motion was the appropriate vehicle for expressing that concern. I still stand by that. But this gives you some insight into NRA’s reasoning straight from the top. For the reasons I’ve already outlined, I’m not going to stand on NRA’s side in regards to this motion, but nor am I going to accuse ILA leadership of trying to ruin the case, sabotaging the Second Amendment, or other such nefarious motives people like to attribute to them. I believe their concern is real, but the manner they chose to raise it was inappropriate. I’m also cognizant of the fact that if it wasn’t for the groundwork laid by NRA and the people close to it over the past several decades, we never would’ve won Heller.

Over the three years I’ve been blogging, I’ve gotten to know a number of people at NRA. A few of them well enough that they’d be folks I’d be comfortable inviting out for a drink if I were in town, or inviting them to my house if they were in town. Meet a dozen people at NRA, you’ll get a dozen different perspectives, a dozen different sets of skills, strengths and weaknesses. I no longer think of NRA as a monolithic entity — some giant brain in Fairfax of singular thought and mind — either to be loved or hated, promoted or resisted. It’s an organization made up of people as distinctive and individual as you see on the many gun blogs around the Internet.

But most importantly, NRA is made up of us, the membership, volunteers, and donors, in addition to the staff and board members. If you’re going to set out to be a voice cheering NRA when you think they do right, and to try to convince and influence them when they do wrong, you have to first start with a realistic view of what NRA is, and what NRA is not. Next, you need to get involved, and for that there are many paths one could take. Get to know any board members in your area if you can. Get to know some staff. Become an EVC, or help out your EVC. Run a few local matches at your club. Get involved with a local club. Keep your membership current, become a voting member, and for God’s sake, vote in Board elections, and encourage your friends to vote too.

Every once in a while, NRA is going to do something we don’t agree with, which is inevitable, and understandable. The question is whether that disagreement is going to be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, or whether you will have a real voice. NRA is a membership driven organization, ultimately, but in order for that to work, members have to be involved to a greater degree than just receiving the magazine, and paying their 35 dollars every year.

Some Political Reality for the 8th District

Bitter did an excellent job of covering the candidate forum in our Congressional district last night, which highlighted all the folks who are lining up to challenge Democrat Patrick Murphy for his Congressional seat in 2010. I was disappointed that the Second Amendment received no consideration in the questioning of each candidate, but let’s face it, that’s not really the hot issue right now. We do have a wide selection of free market oriented candidates, but I think we need to be cautious, and make sure we’re supporting someone who can actually win. In determining what formula you need to win, it’s worthwhile to look at the district as a whole. Some facts:

  • The 8th District Congressional seat flips more often than many. In the past 30 years, it’s flipped parties four times. Prior to that, it was in Republican hands from 1923 to 1977. This is not a seat either party can take for granted.
  • Democrats enjoy a healthy registration advantage over Republicans in our district. Republicans can only win by two means, turnout, and carrying large numbers of independent voters. In 2010, turnout will probably work in the GOP’s favor. But I’m going to be looking for a candidate that can carry independents.
  • Because our district is a swing district, I’m not too keen on a candidate who’s going to agree to term limit himself. If we can get a conservative or moderate Republican in that office, I want to keep him there as long as he can stay. Let’s not go through this again in a few years. The GOP class of 1994 had several Congressmen who made this mistake.

I’m not a rigid believer in politics by the numbers, because so much goes into winning an election, but ultimately it is about getting enough votes to win, and in our district that’s going to mean carrying independents in large enough numbers to overcome the GOPs registration disadvantage. When I hear a candidate say they want to abolish the department of education, or get rid of the home mortgage tax deduction, I might be sympathetic, but those aren’t winning issues. Murphy is going to be tough to beat, even in 2010. He has a strong support base, and a lot of money. I want a candidate that can not only beat him, but hold off strong Democratic challengers. After last night, I’m concerned we don’t have that candidate. I can see why the County GOP might want to tap Fitzpatrick again. But given that Fitz lost to Murphy in 2006, I don’t think that’s him either. The GOP in Bucks County desperately needs some new blood, and unfortunately for us, it takes time to incubate talent at the local level, before someone with experience and ambition agrees to step forward. Last night we were long on ambition, which is good, but short on political experience, which is necessary. I am optimistic, because 2010 will be a hell of a year for the GOP, but my optimism is guarded.

The 8th District Circus Candidate Forum

Last night, we gave up a couple of hours to civic duty in the name of being educated voters. The local Tea Party organization, Kitchen Table Patriots, did an absolutely swell job at pulling together a great event that served as a fantastic way to weed out the serious candidates from the not-so-serious candidates. Just about everyone in attendance – and they filled a large school auditorium – could walk away feeling like they had a choice of key candidates.

But that’s not very fun to report, so in comes the snark. And some interesting observations about Patrick Murphy via his sleazy staffers who kept violating the rules to disrupt those around them.

General Observations
These kinds of events are very hard on candidates, especially if they don’t have any formal public speaking experience or haven’t been trained to really rally an audience. While my criticism will mostly be snark, it also pales in comparison to what Patrick Murphy’s deceitful little followers will say. Not to mention, if some of the candidates had more confidence, they could have better sold their most controversial plans. I have two very specific examples of this winning over audience members with one candidate and costing support to another.

The moderator, Steve Highsmith, did a fantastic job at keeping the event running smoothly. He was friendly and engaging without getting boring and monotonous with the same questions for each candidate. Since there were 9 candidates each getting 12 minutes, that was serious work.

There were some crappy questions. Like the “Yes or No: We should weaken Roe v. Wade.” What does that even mean? You’re talking about one of the most hotly debated legal questions of our time, it’s hardly a yes or no answer. They also asked candidates to take an ATR-esque pledge on taxes that all save one agreed to. I will say now that there were no questions or remarks about the Second Amendment.

One big surprise of the evening was a question about medical marijuana. They asked it in the context of 10th amendment, and whether or not candidates agreed with President Obama’s executive order to not go after those growing & distributing medical marijuana in states that have legalized it. Half of the candidates agreed! Holy cow! The old woman in front of me was in great distress every time someone agreed, so I took extra joy in each answer. It was wrong, but I laughed inside each time she shook her head disapprovingly. I was tempted to say something controversial involving drugs, alcohol, and sex in front of her for kicks, but I figured after the crazy controversy of medical marijuana, her heart could probably only stand so much… Continue reading “The 8th District Circus Candidate Forum”

A Favor to Keep Friendly Relationships

NRA is throwing its support behind an effort to improve the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, which allows retired and off-duty police officers to carry their firearms nationwide. I know this is not hugely popular among some of the grass roots, and even I have some reservations about whether it’s constitutional, but it’s important to keep law enforcement rank and file on our side. Remember the last time we lost support of the Fraternal Order of Police? It was the early 90s, and I don’t think too many of us need a refresher on what happened then. Consider this a favor in order to keep friendly relationships. I’ll support law enforcement in this, as long as the FOP keeps supporting us, especially on the Tiahrt issue, which MAIG and Brady are directly opposed to, and which the FOP favors.

Harold Ford Now Anti-Gun Enough for NY

Harold Ford, based on NRA grades, was never a gun owner’s best friend. But as a C rated candidate in Tennessee, that’s not nearly anti-gun enough for Manhattan. Via Dave Adams at @VSSA, we find out that Ford is now declaring that record to be not representative of his new views.

I remain committed to promoting gun safety and handgun control, and I look forward to working with Mayor Bloomberg and Newark Mayor Corey Booker and their coalition to reduce handgun violence in cities across America.

Purple Menace

Great Satan Inc has a rifle that would make Mayor Bloomberg’s stomach turn. Not only is it purple, in defiance of Mayor Mike’s crusade against colored guns, but the thumbhole stock makes it an evil assault weapon under some definitions, including New York City’s, I believe. The magazine that goes into the firearm is illegal in New York City (limited to 5 rounds).

That’s what Mayor Mike means when he speaks of common sense laws to fight illegal gun trafficking.

More Pain in the Gun Control World

Days of our Trailers has done a good job of covering this last week, first with some of the local Illinois groups also merging, and consolidating under umbrella groups, like we saw with CeaseFire New Jersey merging under a peace group umbrella. Also, he’s found that Joyce is cutting VPC’s funding by a fairly significant amount.

It’s going to be painful days ahead for the gun control movement, as their funding dries up. This does not mean the gun control movement is going away, or that we can declare “Machine guns for everyone!” and wrap this whole thing up in a few years. The gun control movement is reinventing itself, as it has many times throughout its history. Expect more groups appearing under the MAIG model. Not necessarily with mayors, but in terms of rebranding their same gun control proposals as a crusade against “illegal guns” and “illegal gun trafficking.” Will it be any more successful than the current banner they march under? Who knows. We can’t take any chances, however. I will say this, MAIG has shown themselves to be smart enough that when the pendulum swings back, it’s going to swing hard. Our job is to make sure it never swings back.