Book Review: "The FN FAL Battle Rifle"

When I received a signed copy of my brother Bob's latest book "The FN FAL Battle Rifle," a book about the Cold War rifle known as the "right arm of the Free World," of course I was excited to read it.  Bob is a former active duty Cavalry Scout, Desert Storm vet, forestry worker, and still an avid shooter and gun collector living in Montana. Suffice it to say he has a passion for firearms and military history.


Since I'm not quite the firearms technician nor military historian that my brother is, part of me was a little worried I might find parts of a "biography" of a rifle a little dry. However Bob kept the book quite interesting and accessible to us laypersons while still providing plenty of detail for gun wonks.


For many American gunnies the Cold War was a face-off between the American M16 and the Soviet AK-47. However the 7.62x51mm NATO Fabrique Nationale (FN) Fusil Automatique Léger (FAL) eventually equipped over 90 Western nations around the world, earning it the aforementioned nickname. The history of the FAL is a history of every bushfire war that popped up during the Cold War. The FAL showed up in most of them, officially or not. The FAL's storied history reaches a crescendo during the 1982 Falklands War where both sides (the British and the Argentinians) used the FAL against each other. Bob's book chronicles the whole history.


First Bob walks us through the development of the FAL right after WW2. Besides the technical aspects of developing the new weapon there was the political quarreling behind adopting a new NATO standard rifle round. The book then provides a brief rundown of the adoption and modifications made by each of the major nations issuing the new FAL. There is a section running down the major accessories adopted for the FAL including magazines, optics, rifle grenades and bayonets.


In the next section Bob points out that although the FAL was (thankfully) never used for its intended role of repelling a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, "[i]t did, however, give excellent service in battle around the world in many smaller wars and numerous insurgencies." Bob gives a brief history of the FAL's major use in combat by the British army from the 1948 Malayan Emergency to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and by other nations in African and Latin American bush wars, the Arab-Israeli Wars, the Indo-Pakistani Wars, and Vietnam. The FAL still pops up in combat zones today.


The book then has a breakdown of the capabilities of the FAL's 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge as well as an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the FAL system itself. Bob also compares and contrasts the FAL with its two a main contemporary rival battle rifles the German G3 and American M14. The book is chock full of historical photographs, graphs, as well as several original historical battlescene paintings created specially for the book by British artist Steve Noon.


I thoroughly enjoyed taking the stroll down Cold War "memory lane" that "The FN FAL Battle Rifle" provided. I think anyone with a bit of interest in weapons and/or military history will enjoy it as well. I recommend you check it out.

Law Prof: Never Support a Law You Are Not Willing to Kill to Enforce

Yale law professor Stephen L. Carter had an excellent article at Bloomberg View. It's good advice for our lawmakers. Here's a few excepts:


"On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.


"I wish this caution were only theoretical. It isn’t. Whatever your view on the refusal of a New York City grand jury to indict the police officer whose chokehold apparently led to the death of Eric Garner, it’s useful to remember the crime that Garner is alleged to have committed: He was selling individual cigarettes, or loosies, in violation of New York law."


"I don’t mean this as a criticism of cops, whose job after all is to carry out the legislative will. The criticism is of a political system that takes such bizarre delight in creating new crimes for the cops to enforce. It’s unlikely that the New York legislature, in creating the crime of selling untaxed cigarettes, imagined that anyone would die for violating it. But a wise legislator would give the matter some thought before creating a crime. Officials who fail to take into account the obvious fact that the laws they’re so eager to pass will be enforced at the point of a gun cannot fairly be described as public servants."


Do yourself a favor and read this outstanding piece HERE.


HT to Christopher Peters for bringing this article to my attention.

Goodbye Tom!

That's the Ticket!

Unless you've had your telephone and television unhooked for the past four months, you know that the election is Tuesday. Like a growing number of Iowans I already voted by mail. Here are some of the people I was proud to vote for:

U.S. Senate:

Dr. Doug Butzier (L.)

Sadly, Doctor Doug passed away at the age of 59, Monday October 13, when the light plane he was piloting crashed. The good doctor was an emergency room physician and leader at Mercy Hospital in Dubuque.

Given his position, it might not be surprising that flaws in Obamacare and government interference in medicine are what helped convince Butzier to run for U.S. Senate. He believed that there should be a free market for healthcare, not “free” healthcare.  He pointed out: "When you receive anything for 'free,' that means that someone else paid for it.  You should not be forced to pay for or subsidize someone else’s healthcare.  Government involvement only lowers the quality for everyone and drives up the costs."Butzier also wanted America's veterans to receive quality healthcare in their own communities rather than going off to shoddy government run VA hospitals.

Dr. Doug also believed in extending the free market into the education system as well. He believed in curtailing the Constitutional usurpation of the federal government and was a supporter of Americans' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Although largely ignored by the media until his death, Dr. Doug Butzier stood out from his two mudslinging rivals for the Senate seat.

U.S. House Dist. 1

Rod Blum (R.)

Blum is owner of Digital Canal Software.  He is also a student pilot, real estate developer, and has written a conservative column for the Telegraph Herald. Blum is active with Liberty Iowa, a leading "Constitutional conservative" group, and is endorsed by the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.


The five "cornerstones" of Blum's campaign are: 1. Personal Responsibility 2. Constitutionally Limited Government 3. Fiscal Sanity 4. Free Markets and Competition 5. Sanctity of Life.

Iowa Governor

Dr. Lee Hieb (L.)

Dr. Hieb is a long time orthopaedic surgeon who served as an officer in the U.S. Navy. See has written numerous articles in professional journals, political columns and has a forthcoming book, Surviving the Medical Meltdown.


Hieb states she will use the following principles in governing Iowa: "1. I shall always vote to increase individual liberty. 2.  I shall sign and vote to restrain the power and scope and size of state government. 3.  I will fight to eliminate any tax which compels citizens to pay for things they find morally objectionable. 4.  I will legislate to push back the Federal Government from our border and exercise (for a change) our Tenth Amendment rights to state sovereignty."

Iowa Secretary of State

Jake Porter (L.)

Porter is a business and non-profit manager who has served on non-profit boards, managed several political campaigns, and has retail management experience running multi-million dollar department stores. One of the Secretary of State's most important duties is to oversee the state's elections. Says Porter: "We need someone who is independent of the two major political parties to act as a referee and that is the type of candidate I am." In addition to keeping the Secretary's office independent and transparent, Jake wants to make starting a business in Iowa easier.



Iowa Candidate Gun Grades 2014

Here are the candidate grades for Iowa's office seekers. The first grade is from Gun Owners of America, the second is from the National Rifle Association. I personally put more weight in the GOA grade. If GOA or NRA is in UNDERLINED BOLD type, that means that candidate is endorsed by that organization. NRA does not grade independent or third party candidates. An asterisk denotes an incumbent. Libertarians Party candidates are in red because they kick ass.

Federal Office

U.S. Senate:
  

Braley (D)   GOA: F    NRA: F

Butzier (L) GOA: NR    

Ernst (R) GOA: A     NRA: A

Smith (I) GOA: NR    

Congressional District 1:

Blum (R) GOA: A     NRA: AQ

Murphy (D) GOA: D   NRA: D

Congressional District 2:
 

*Loebsack (D) GOA: F   NRA: F

Miller-Meeks (R) GOA: B    NRA: AQ

Congressional District 3:

Appel (D) GOA: F    NRA: C-

Holder (I) GOA: NR 

Wright (L) GOA: A  

Young (R) GOA: NR   NRA: AQ

Congressional District 4:

*King (R) GOA: A  NRA: A

Mowrer (D) NR   NRA: C-

For the NRA's grades of candidates for state office click HERE.

Explanation of GOA Grades:

WHAT THE NRA GRADES MEAN

A+

A legislator with not only an excellent voting record on all critical NRA issues, but who has also made a vigorous effort to promote and defend the Second Amendment.

A

Solidly pro-gun candidate. A candidate who has supported NRA positions on key votes in elective office or a candidate with a demonstrated record of support on Second Amendment issues.

AQ

A pro-gun candidate whose rating is based solely on the candidate's responses to the NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire and who does not have a voting record on Second Amendment issues.

B

A generally pro-gun candidate. However, a "B" candidate may have opposed some pro-gun reform or supported some restrictive legislation in the past.

C

Not necessarily a passing grade. A candidate with a mixed record or positions on gun related issues, who may oppose some pro-gun positions or support some restrictive legislation.

D

An anti-gun candidate who usually supports restrictive gun control legislation and opposes pro-gun reforms. Regardless of public statements, can usually be counted on to vote wrong on key issues.

F

True enemy of gun owners' rights. A consistent anti-gun candidate who always opposes gun owners' rights and/or actively leads anti-gun legislative efforts, or sponsors anti-gun legislation.

?

Refused to answer the NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire, often an indication of indifference, if not outright hostility, to gun owners' and sportsmen's rights.

Convention of the States Discussion in Cedar Rapids

On Police "Militarization" Part 2

In the last post I posited that there is an obvious need for the police and the violent use of force. I  concluded that, while there probably should be some limits on police weaponry, the debate over specific "militaristic" equipment is less important than debating how and when it is employed.


As you can see in the accompanying infographic from reason.com, SWAT teams (the embodiment of militarized police) are being used more and more often. The approximate number of SWAT raids doubled from about 30,000 in 1995 to 50-60,000 in 2005. However you measure it, that's a hell of an increase.


While we all envision SWAT operations for reasons such as hostage rescue or active shooters, but as you can see, these types of operations only amount to about 7% of SWAT raids. Most raids are for search warrants, usually involving drug searches.



So the trend seems to be for violent SWAT raids to be used more often and for more mundane reasons. This trend is what concerns me. As both police and civilians become desensitized to this it may continue to spread until no-knock SWAT raids are the default answer for every police call.


Every interaction I've ever had with the police has been polite, professional, and non-threatening. I'd like my kids to become adults in a similar world, not one where any unpaid parking ticket can earn you a midnight home invasion with flashbang grenades and guns in your face.


Also, as a Second Amendment supporter, when I read stories about perfectly legal weapon permits being used as justification for SWAT raids, I get a little concerned.


The Feds: Assault-Popping The Constitution


While so far we've only discussed REAL cops, the trend toward "militarization" is active with the U.S. Federales as well. Unlike local cops, B.S. regulatory agencies like the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Education and the IRS can't say they are arming up to protect us from violent predators in our communities. More likely these arms will be used to shove unpopular edicts down the people's throats.


While federal agencies are arming up, the feds are encouraging local cops to do the same. The Depts. of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security all have grant programs to provide weapons and equipment to local police for the perpetual wars on drugs and terror. I'm going to focus on the DOD's "1033 Program," which gives free military equipment to local law enforcement, but most of the arguments against it work on the other programs as well.  So, why should we end the 1033 Program?


Firstly, it's unconstitutional. If you read the powers granted to the United States government by the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, arming local police isn't one of them. Ironically. while arming the militia IS a constitutional power, the 1033 Program which can give defense equipment to local cops is NOT authorized to give any to State Guard (militia) units. (Congressman Joe Wilson and a few others have introduced the State Defense Force Improvement Act which would give State Guard Forces access to extra military equipment several times, but it has not passed.)


Secondly, we can't afford it. No organization that is $18 trillion in debt should be giving anything away to anybody. This equipment could be auctioned off to police departments and private citizens rather than given away. Police departments could still get equipment at fire sale prices and the money could toward balancing the budget.


Thirdly, even if you agree with the basic premise of the 1033 Program, since it is a federal program it only takes about one sniff to find waste, fraud, abuse, and general insanity. Some counties sheriff departments have "received enough [musical] instruments to start their own marching band, if they wanted to" from the program.  The defense department has given local police bouncy castles, $16,500 ice cream makers, $11,000 pizza ovens and much more. Yes, the U.S. military is giving local cops $3,500 popcorn poppers (to keep you safe), just as the Founders of our great nation envisioned. Unless these are dangerous "assault poppers" that only specially trained police can be trusted with, I think they could hit the auction block.


The 1033 Program should be suspended immediately. While local cops do need equipment, they need to figure out how to get it without federal giveaways funded by placing our children in debt. Budgets are always tight, but if state and local governments do some soul-searching on what their purpose is, they can cut the frivolities and focus on core functions like police.


In conclusion, there is "militarization" of our police in this country. What weapons and tactics are appropriate and how much is "too much?" I don't know. But in a free state it's a good debate to have sooner rather than later.

On Police "Militarization" Part 1

Discussion about the militarization of law enforcement is everywhere right now after the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri. It can be a contentious topic.


On my Facebook page I posted a link to an ACLU petition calling for an end to the federal military equipment giveaway program to local police. A local police friend of mine took offense to the link saying he had enough of the "hate the police" rhetoric. I took offense at being accused of hating cops. Looking at it now though, the link says things like:  "[T]he police, armed to the teeth, treat us like the enemy, especially if we're black, young, poor or homeless. Tanks are rolling through our towns. What will it take for police to start protecting communities of color, not waging war on them?" That is "hate the police" rhetoric so, I guess I brought that on myself.


Despite all the racial language that came out of Ferguson, it seems that it probably wasn't as simple as the liberal media's narrative of another saintly black youth being wantonly gunned down by a cackling white oppressor. Whatever happened in Ferguson, the debate over the "militarization" of police didn't begin there and shouldn't end there.

In Defense of "Militarization"

Although I'm a libertarian with "concerns over militarization" of police, if there's an active shooter at my kids' school I want well-trained local cops to be able to respond with potent weapons and grease the bastard before he can hurt my kids. If there were violent riots and looting in my city I would want the police trained and properly equipped to quell it.


In the case of violent looting, I would be quite angry if my city government could support frivolities like municipal golf courses but not be able to protect my family and my property from bands of marauding pillagers, one of the chief reasons why governments were implemented among men to begin with. While I think any free citizen worth his or her salt should be at least somewhat prepared to defend himself and his community, the community will obviously be more productive if those who are skilled at building houses, programming computers, etc., don't have to spend all their time standing guard over what has already been produced, rather than producing more.


There is an obvious need for police and, when necessary, the violent use of force. As early libertarian writer Rose Wilder Lane said, "The need for Government is the need for force; where force is unnecessary, there is no need for Government." But in America we rightly have enduring worries about a standing army ruling over us. Therein lies much of the concern over militarization of our police. So, how do we even define "militarization?"


PoliceOne.com recently had a good series of essays dealing with police militarization written by police officers that raise some valid points. In one,  Lt. Dan Marcou explains the definition thusly: "Apparently one person’s militarization is another person’s protective equipment. Kevlar, helmets, vests, and armored personnel carriers are not aggressive, but protective. They stop bullets. The defensive weapons law enforcement carries during the operations are no more deadly than what the criminals are carrying today. SWAT has been an ever-evolving, reactive response to the threats modern officers face."


In another, Don Deaton writes: "All too often, accusations of 'militarization' are based more on perception than facts (how police 'look' instead of what they actually do). Many critics never consider that the use of military-inspired technology and equipment has pervaded almost every aspect of American life. If law enforcement has become militarized, then the same is true for trauma medicine, aviation, video games, deer hunting, satellite television, GPS navigation, and those giant SUVs the soccer moms drive.


"The last time I checked," Deaton continues," my actions as a police officer — including those undertaken while using a helmet, body armor, rifle, and armored vehicle — were still governed by state law, case law, and department policy, all of which were enacted by lawfully elected representatives who were put in place by the citizens of a constitutional republic." Deaton may be a bit Pollyannaish here with the constitutional republic stuff. Recent academic study indicates what most people feel in their gut, that America is more of an oligarchy with We the People having little or no real influence (especially at the national level). Nonetheless his main point holds true.


Police Chief Joel F. Shults, Ed.D. brought up an interesting point about preserving the Posse Comitatus Act (which forbids Federal troops from conducting domestic law enforcement). He writes: "As counterintuitive as it appears at first glance, I contend that if local law enforcement cannot obtain and use low-level, military-grade assets for high-risk operations, we will open the door to federal military force as our first response to major threats." (I contend that active and decently equipped State Defense Forces would provide another buffer before federal military involvement, but that's another topic.)


So why do the police have all this interest in defensive equipment anyway? Sgt. Glenn French writes: "The fact is, more American police officers have died fighting crime in the United States over the past 12 years than American soldiers were killed in action at war in Afghanistan. According to ODMP.org, 1,831 cops have been killed in the line of duty since 2001. According to iCasualties.org, the number of our military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan is 1,789.  Cops on the beat are facing the same dangers on the streets as our brave soldiers do in war."


Although being a cop is surely dangerous and stressful (and not something I want to do), the counter-arguments to Sgt. Frenchs' is that many of those police deaths came from automobile accidents that won't be prevented with machineguns or flashbang grenades. According to a recent article by the Foundation of Economic Education, "[p]olicing doesn't even make it into the top 10 most dangerous American professions" and policing would have a murder rate "comparable to the average murder rate of U.S. cities[.]" The 1930's and 1970's were statistically far more dangerous times to be an American police officer. The article concludes that police work "just isn't unusually deadly or dangerous—and it’s safer today than ever before. The data do not justify the kinds of armor, weapons, insecurity, and paranoia being displayed by police across the country."


Iowa police officer and trainer Corey D. Roberts writes in his own essay: "Law Enforcement has to prepare for and respond to the current threat not the 'threats' of a TV show from the 50s. The fact that law enforcement is better equipped and has more training is because we don't live in Mayberry anymore. The threats are greater than ever and it doesn’t take long on the street for an officer to realize that the dangers are very real."


Roberts also asked rhetorically on my Facebook page: "What liberties are being taken by a police force who has the same equipment or better than the gangbangers who are looting? How is a piece of equipment infringing on your rights?" This seems to be paraphrasing the old gun-rights slogan, "Guns don't infringe upon rights, people do." He has a point. Whether a policeman is carrying an old Brown Bess or a modern AR-15 is far less important than how he uses it.


The debate over specific equipment is less important than debating how it is employed. Sure there should be some limits on police equipment. I think even the most militant cops aren't pushing for main battle tanks or weaponized aircraft. Most of us probably agree that they don't need artillery or crew-served weapons. I don't believe the debate over individual weapons and body armor will be an intelligent one since it will largely be propagated by the media who makes the teeth itch of anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of weapons.


My main concern over the militarization of police is over how and why "militarized" police are deployed. Also, I have concerns about the federal government's role in arming the local police. I'll discuss these problems in the next post.

What Would An Iowa State Defense Force Look Like?



Although I'm probably the only one in Iowa who cares about this, I'll keep banging on about the need for an active state defense force (SDF) or "state guard," such as 22 other states and Puerto Rico already have.

 

In previous writings I've stated that since SDFs are funded and administered entirely by the state, they would be immune from the inevitable federal cuts when the federal government teeters into bankruptcy.  Also there is no risk that they might be deployed overseas when a disaster springs up here at home. A state guard can tap into several pools of volunteers that the National Guard cannot. As unpaid volunteers, a state guard can be operated at comparatively little expense. Lastly it could be made to conform to the requirements for the state militia as laid out in the Iowa Constitution.

An active Iowa State Guard would provide Iowa a security and response force all its own into an uncertain future where numbers of it National Guard troops may be cut by federal austerity measures or deployed out of state on federal missions when a catastrophe strikes at home. It would increase the state's ability to fend for itself until (or if) outside help arrives in a catastrophic disaster as well as the age-old, though presently unlikely, roles of quelling insurrection and repelling invasion.

Historically, state defense forces were organized as light infantry or military police. Nowadays most state guard units are unarmed support units such as civil affairs or medical units designed to assist the state's National Guard in peacetime and provide relief during state disasters. While these are certainly important duties, the traditional role of the state militia, armed defense, is still important and may be more so in the future.

There are many local civilian relief agencies that do great work during a disaster but none of them  provide armed security to backup local and state police forces to maintain order. In a truly catastrophic emergency (think Hurricane Katrina, a nuclear detonation or long-term grid-down situation) police agencies can quickly find themselves overwhelmed. Iowa has a population of 3,000,000 and has about 8,000 cops statewide (most of whom are local police and couldn't be deployed where needed). The IANG currently has about 7,200 soldiers on the books (many of whom are no doubt support staff), minus those deployed elsewhere or eventually cut from service, and may take several days to mobilize. A state guard would provide a relatively low-cost force to help fill in the cracks.

But what would such a force look like? Below is one possible option for an Iowa State Guard company-size unit that could fulfill the disaster relief mission as well as the more traditional armed defense mission. One could be formed at Camp Dodge (HQ of the Iowa National Guard as well as Iowa's emergency operations center)  and if deemed a success, another one could formed elsewhere in the state. If that one succeeded another could be formed. Let's take a closer look at the company.

Table of organization for the author's proposed State Defense Force company.
(The word "Men" is used for space concerns. Soldiers might be either gender.)

Security Platoon:

 

Organized along the lines of an Army light infantry rifle platoon, this would have three squads of 9 to 11 soldiers. Each squad would have a squad leader and two fire teams of four or five soldiers. It would also have one headquarters squad consisting of a platoon leader, platoon sergeant and a radio operator as well as two machine-gun teams of three soldiers each. The platoon would train in the use of small arms, small unit tactics, riot control, first aid, and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense.

Weapons would depend on what the state could afford to scrounge up (and what they felt comfortable entrusting the SDF with). Normally, infantry squads would be equipped with M16s or M4s, as well as one M203 grenade launcher and one M249 light machine-gun per fire team (2 per squad). The two platoon-level machine-guns are normally M240 medium machine-guns.

If on a truly shoestring budget, state guard members could be required to provide their own rifles (although perhaps restricted to standard military calibers of 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO). This was how state militias were originally armed in this country. Perhaps a cheap supplemental weapon would be to have one tactical shotgun per fire team. This would give a lethal close-quarters and guard duty weapon as well being able to fire numerous types of less-than-lethal rounds in a riot control mission. Platoon-level MG's could be replaced with 2 or 3 well-trained sniper teams.

 

Emergency Response Platoon:

 

This would be comprised of a three-person headquarters section and four Emergency Response squads modeled after the 10-person "Citizen Corps" volunteer Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). Each squad would have a squad leader, an assistant squad leader/safety NCO, as well as the following two-soldier teams: Fire Suppression Team, Search and Rescue Team, Medical Triage Team, and Medical Treatment Team. Unlike the community based CERTs, State Guard ER Platoons and Squads would be quickly deployable around the state.

 

Like in a CERT, all members would be cross-trained in all roles of the squad. Civilian CERTs receive about 20 hours in training and that curriculum could be used for the Emergency Response Platoon. In an environment of civil unrest the Platoon leader and senior NCOs could wear sidearms and/or a two-soldier armed Security Team could be added to each squad to guard supplies and personnel.

 

Engineering Support Platoon:

This platoon would have the equipment you might want see rolling into your town after a major disaster: light excavating vehicles, chainsaws, water pumps, or generators. More importantly it would have the men and women who could operate and maintain them. These wouldn't necessarily have to be former combat engineers, there are plenty of Iowa farmers, mechanics and construction workers who could lend their expertise. In a defensive mission the platoon could be put to work digging bunkers, trenches, or tank traps and building other necessary structures.

Headquarters Platoon:

This is the administrative center of operations for the company. In addition to the company commander and his senior leaders, this platoon would contain communications, clerical, and supply personnel, as well as an armorer and a nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) specialist.  A few medics and a field kitchen (for the militiamen as well as for disaster evacuees) would be great.  If the state could swing it, a couple of mortar teams would add huge combat capability to the company.

Thoughts on Training & Uniforms:

No doubt many people who would volunteer for an Iowa State Guard would have prior service in the active duty military. That training should be taken into account. For other enlistees a "basic training," perhaps as simple as an overnight weekend, might be required.

Active National Guard and Reserve units typically meet for drills one weekend per month and two weeks during the summer. For the unpaid volunteers of a State Guard, perhaps that could be cut down to four quarterly musters per year, with some additional training times available on nights and weekends to fit around their busy schedules. When you're asking people to do something just out of the goodness of their hearts it's best not to put too many obstacles in their path.

The State Guard Association of the United States (SGAUS), a non-profit organization advocating for the advancement and support of regulated state military forces, offers its "Military Emergency Management Specialist" (MEMS) certification. This is comprised of three qualification levels: Basic, Senior, and Master. Perhaps these could be required of officers and senior NCO's.

Necessary to secure Geneva Convention protections in a full-blown national invasion by another nation state, uniforms could be as simple as a distinctive armband. However, there's something attractive about the idea of putting on a nice-looking uniform. Just ask any military recruiter. Supplying volunteers with a decent uniform may be one of the few tangible benefits they'll receive for their service. It would no doubt be worth the cost not to scrimp on it.

While the unpaid volunteers of an Iowa state defense force would probably not be mistaken for the Marine Corps Silent Drill Team, they wouldn't need to in order to be a valuable asset in times of catastrophe.

Iowa News Shows Its Anti-Gun Bias

What if some big city gangbangers lead police on a high speed chase until they crashed in a nearby small town and then fled on foot and the pursuing deputy got injured, so two country boys decided to pursue the five suspects themselves and captured the bad guys at gunpoint and turned them over to the police? That would be a pretty interesting story, right? Especially in Iowa where the big news usually involves the butter cow at the State Fair.


Well apparently not to most Iowa news reporters. The old adage in reporting is, "If it bleeds, it leads." Apparently the new maxim in reporting is: "If it casts gun owners in a positive light, bury it."


For those of you who don't have press cards stuck in the bands of your fedoras, here's the scoop. According to Cedar Rapids CBS2/FOX28 news (to my knowledge the ONLY mainstream news agency to include the armed civilian good guy aspect of this story):

Five men are in jail after a very scary car chase.
The Linn County Sheriff's office says it all started with a shots fired call in Cedar Rapids and ended with a car crashing into a child's playhouse.
Deputies say, around 7 Wednesday night, they tried to stop a vehicle that matched the description of a car involved in a shots fired call.
They say the driver of the car wouldn't stop so officers chased them all the way to solon.
The chase ended after the car crashed into someone's yard plowing through a child's play house.
That's when the five men got out of the car and took off running; two neighbors saw the commotion and decided to help.
Tim Moore and Scott Eastwood say the five men threw drugs and a gun down in his yard as they ran across the highway.
During the chase, the deputy who was chasing them fell so Tim and Scott got into a truck and continued to chase the men.
The men were eventually caught when the neighbors confronted them and held them there [at gunpoint] until back up arrived.

The video of the newscast is a little more in-depth and contains interviews with Scott Eastwood, the permit-to-carry holder, and his neighbor Tim Moore who apprehended the five suspects. The story focuses quite a bit on the armed good guy aspect of the story. I highly recommend that you watch news video to get a full feel for the story.


The important thing to note here is that if it wasn't for CBS2/FOX28 (who share a news room) we might not know at all that the suspected bad guys were apprehended by an armed civilian permit-to-carry holder. None of the other news outlets even mentioned it.


KWWL news (Waterloo) reported:  "Five occupants of the vehicle took off on foot, and was [sic] later arrested by police officers." KCCI news (Des Moines) stated simply: "The five males in the truck tried to run from the scene, but they were soon captured."


The "Iowa City Press-Citizen" wrote: "The occupants of the vehicle fled on foot and they were pursued by the Linn County deputy who initiated the chase," [Johnson Co. Sheriff's Office Capt. Gary] Kramer said. With the help of some Solon residents, who alerted officers to the suspects' location, the five individuals were arrested a short distance away on Sutliff Road, Kramer said." [Emphasis added.]


"The Gazette" of Cedar Rapids, which normally is so fascinated by permit-to-carry holders that it periodically publishes their names and addresses when they apply for or renew their permits, yawned from the page: "[F]ive people were apprehended near where the truck crashed after they tried to run from the scene."


We've seen this many times on the national scene, when school shootings or other shooting sprees are stopped by armed civilians. The national news media usually just report that bystanders "subdued" or "disarmed" the gunman, never mentioning that they did so by pointing their own weapons at him.


If an Iowa permit-to-carry holder someday overzealously pulls his pistol on an innocent person or accidentally shoots himself in the leg you can expect a lot of media attention on THAT gun owner. If you're a supporter of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms just remember: No news is good news.

Black Rifle (Bam-Ba-Lam)

Semi-automatic rifles, variously called "sport utility rifles," homeland defense rifles," or "modern sporting rifles" by those who enjoy and support their use, and often derisively labeled "assault weapons" by those who wish to ban them, are among the most popular guns on the market today. The AR-15 style weapon is the most popular among them. Americans own about 5 million ARs with about 500,000 more hitting the private market each year.


With numbers like that there should be plenty of gun owners in need of training on how to maintain and safely shoot the AR platform. Recognizing this market, Corey D. Roberts and the rest of the crew at Tactical Insights LLC defense training have stepped in with their new "Black Rifle" Operator Course. Since the stated goal of the class is to "provide skills and knowledge to every student, from the new rifle owner to the experienced shooter" I decided to sign up for the class.  The debut class was June 7th.


Most of the 14 or so people in the class had .223 caliber M4-style ARs with 16" barrels and collapsible stocks. There were two oddballs. One guy had an AK-47-style rifle and I had a full-size .308 caliber AR with 20" barrel and solid stock. Thankfully nobody engaged in any Freudian speculation on why I needed the big battle rifle. (I'm just taking the advice of Boston T. Party, Fred, and Bob Cashner. Honest!)


The first three hours of the class were in the classroom. Roberts and Ryan Evans, a police officer and certified armorer, headed the class. There was an overview of the AR-15 and AK-47 systems, with definitions, capabilities and explanations of their respective ballistics. Students were walked through field-stripping their weapons followed by some shooting fundamentals. All in all the classroom section of the class was a good "basic training" for AR owners.


The next five hours were on the shooting range. Students practiced shooting from various standing, kneeling and prone shooting positions that one doesn't always see at the shooting range. We shot at moving targets, from under and around barricades and practiced shooting while on the move. It was a good day of practice using the AR platform in close quarter battle drills.


I thought the class was a great learning experience sure to provide new AR-15 owners and seasoned shooters with increased proficiency. If you've got a "black rifle" you might want to check it out.

IGO & Iowa Right To Life Primary Voting Guides

On Tuesday, June 3rd Iowa's two big-box political parties will hold their primary elections to determine who will represent them on the November general election ballot. As usual, interest groups are beginning to rate the candidates. Here are some key ratings from Iowa Gun Owners and Iowa Right to Life.


Iowa Gun Owners, which bills itself as "Iowa's ONLY no compromise gun lobby," recently emailed its "2014 Iowa Gun Rights Primary Voter Guide!" to supporters. This guide included the candidate survey results in the key State House and State Senate races that IGO is focusing on across the state. Here is the relevant portions in IGO's words:

State Senate Races:
In Senate District 19 (Ankeny) Senator Jack Whitver is in a primary with Brett Nelson. Senator Whitver has surveyed 100% in this race promising to co-sponsor all of Iowa Gun Owners’ legislative priorities if re-elected.

Brett Nelson has refused his survey. We don’t know if he’s willing to support gun control or not but we do know where Senator Whitver stands.

In Senate District 27 (Hampton area) we’ve received signed surveys from both candidates seeking the GOP nomination. Sadly, both Shawn Dietz AND Timothy Junker have put down at least one anti-gun answer on their surveys.

Dietz refuses to help fix Iowa’s pre-emption problem, thus allowing you to get criminally charged for carrying a firearm in parts of Iowa that prohibit your carrying them there (i.e. Iowa City and many cities in Eastern Iowa.)

Junker is adamantly opposed to the idea of doing away with Iowa’s unconstitutional permit to purchase handguns, a relic of a bygone era of “Jim Crow” laws that have been largely phased out across the county.

In Senate District 29 (Dyersville area), long time IGO member James Budde has surveyed 100% pro-gun! More, Budde has pledged to LEAD in the gun rights fight by sponsoring gun rights legislation in Des Moines.

Budde’s going to adamantly fight against Bloomberg’s Universal Registration too.

However, despite our best efforts, James Heavens, also from District 29, simply won’t fill out the survey. We have no idea if he’s planning to ‘make a deal’ with gun-grabbers in Des Moines or not – since he’s unwilling to tell gun owners where he stands.

Senate District 39 (Washington area) is a three-way primary as Senator Sandy Greiner is retiring. IGO members in this district have been busily trying to get a survey from all three candidates for some time.

But as of this writing, Royce Phillips is the only candidate in this race who is willing to tell gun owners where he stands.

Not only did Phillips answer the survey but he did so with 100% pro-gun answers – giving us a reason to believe that he’ll fight to stop gun control at every corner if elected. Michael Moore and Bob Anderson have refused to survey at all. We simply don’t know if they’ll vote pro-gun or anti-gun if elected.

State House:

In House District 15 (Council Bluffs) we have vastly different candidates running.

John Blue has surveyed 100%. No hesitation, no wavering, he’s been clear all along that he’ll fight against gun control and for Constitutional Carry if elected. We’ve talked with John and he seems very serious about the 2nd Amendment in our conversations with him.

Troy Arthur has returned the survey as well, but unlike John Blue, Arthur’s survey was very disturbing.

Troy Arthur will not support Constitutional Carry and he will not support repeal of the unconstitutional ‘permit-to-purchase’ either!

More dangerous, however, was Arthur’s answer on mental health legislation. Gun grabbers are using mental health legislation to come after gun owners, especially vets, by having them declared unfit to possess a firearm.

The key is the word ‘declared.’ This can be done by virtually anyone. Hundreds of thousands of vets have lost their rights this way according to Gun Owners of America. Hundreds of thousands!

On the other hand, if someone is ‘adjudicated’ defective it means that the individual was given a chance to appear in a court of law, have counsel present, produce evidence, confront the opposition’s evidence, and more.

In other words, adjudication implies you have rights, declaration means someone can arbitrarily decide to seize your gun rights. Troy Arthur supports the idea of you simply being declared prohibited. No due process, no lawyer, no rights, just the end of your gun rights.

Thankfully, John Blue is opposed to this radical attack on the 2nd Amendment!

In House District 39 (Johnston area) we have received multiple surveys as this is a 3-way primary. Representative Jake Highfill and Taylor Egly have surveyed 100% pro-gun. Jerry Kinder has REFUSED to survey in this race at all.

It’s important to note that Rep. Highfill, in his two years in the House, has co-sponsored all of the legislation put forth by Iowa Gun Owners.

In House District 47 (Boone) we have a Democratic primary with a reportable difference that voters should know about.

Hans Erickson has surveyed 100% in favor of your gun rights. Constitutional Carry, Stand Your Ground, Pre-Emption reform – Hans Erickson supports all of these concepts and more.

Mark Trueblood has not returned our survey, although IGO members in the district say that he may have dropped out of the race, which may explain this.

In House District 60, Rep. Walt Rogers has failed to return his survey. We’ve spoken to Walt about gun rights, at length, this past legislative session. You see, when Constitutional Carry legislation came to the House for a vote in 2011 Walt voted “NO!”

Now Walt is in a leadership position in the House, and insiders have reported that Walt’s more concerned about maintaining that leadership position that he is about fighting for your gun rights. This pattern of behavior is what makes his refusal to survey this time around all the more concerning.

Thankfully, Jason Welch, who is running against Rogers, has surveyed 100% pro-gun. More, Jason Welch has promised to SPONSOR key pieces of legislation for IGO. We appreciate his support for the 2nd Amendment.

In House District 61 (Waterloo area) we have a 3-way Democratic primary that you should know about as Brad Condon answered 6 out of 9 questions with arrogantly anti-gun answers. He wasn’t just anti-gun, he’s proud of it!

Andrew Miller answered the survey too, but thinks it’s ok for a single ‘mental health professional’ to take gun rights away from Iowa’s veterans on their own volition without any basic due process rights!

Miller actually called our office wanting to make sure we highlighted how ‘good’ he is on the 2nd Amendment and basically argued that anyone who’s even accused of being ‘mental’ should have their gun yanked immediately. Andrew, consider your race “highlighted.”

Timi Brown-Powers refused to survey in this race.

In House District 84 (Mt. Pleasant area) incumbent Dave Heaton is hoping that the voters will forget about his vote against Constitutional Carry in 2011 as Ralph Holmstrom is primarying him to be the GOP nominee in this district.

Heaton has refused to complete his candidate survey whereas Ralph Holmstrom has surveyed 100% pro-gun!

Finally, in District 91, Rep. Mark Lofgren, no friend to the 2nd Amendment whatsoever, is retiring from that seat to run for Congress (voters beware, Lofgren is ducking his federal survey while Matt Waldren has answered 100%) creating an open seat race between Mark Cisneros and Gary Carlson.

While Gary Carlson is refusing to tell gun owners where he stands on the 2nd Amendment, Mark Cisneros has been extremely up front about his pro-gun views in signing his survey 100% pro-gun.

(Cisneros actually surveyed twice for us, as his original survey was misplaced by a volunteer in our office. Cisneros was very sincere in his support of the 2nd Amendment when we spoke to him.)

Iowa Right to Life describes itself as "the largest pro-life organization in the state of Iowa united in our value for human life and the common belief in each individual’s fundamental right to be treated with dignity and respect." Here is their voter guide:

The Entire List of Candidates Iowa Right to Life Believes Best Meet Evaluation Criteria:

(Where multiple candidates are listed for a particular race, they are in alphabetical order)

 

Governor and Lieutenant Governor

Governor Terry Branstad

Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds

 

U.S Senate

Sam Clovis

Senator Joni Ernst

Matt Whitaker

 

U.S. Representative District 1

Rod Blum

Steve Rathje

U.S. Representative District 2

Matthew Waldren

U.S. Representative District 3

Robert Cramer

Joe Grandanette

Matt Schultz

Monte Shaw

David Young

Senator Brad Zaun

 

U.S. Representative District 4

Congressman Steve King

State Senator

District 1:    Senator David Johnson

District 3:    Senator Bill Anderson

District 5:    Tim Kraayenbrink

District 7:    Senator Rick Bertrand

District 9:    Jason Schultz

District 11:  Art Hill

District 13:  Senator Julian Garrett

District 15:  Crystal Bruntz

District 19:  Senator Jack Whitver

District 23:  Jeremy Davis

District 25:  Senator Bill Dix

District 27:  Shawn Dietz AND Timothy Junker

District 29:  James Budde AND James Heavens

District 39:  Royce Phillips

District 41:  Senator Mark Chelgren

District 47:  Senator Roby Smith

 

State Representative

District 1:    John Wills

District 2:    Rep. Megan Hess

District 3:    Rep. Daniel Huseman

District 4:    Rep. Dwayne Alons

District 5:    Rep. Chuck Soderberg

District 6:    Rep. Ron Jorgensen

District 7:    Rep. Tedd Gassman

District 10:  Mike Sexton

District 12:  Brian Best

District 15:  Troy Arthur AND John Blue

District 16:  Rep. Mary Ann Hanusa

District 17:  Rep. Matt Windschitl

District 18:  Steven Holt AND Dillon Malone

District 19:  Rep. Ralph Watts

District 20:  Rep. Clel Baudler

District 21:  Rep. Jack Drake

District 22:  Rep. Greg Forristall

District 23:  Rep. Mark Costello

District 24:  Rep. Cecil Dolecheck

District 25:  Rep. Stan Gustafson

District 26:  James Butler AND Eric Durbin

District 27:  Rep. Joel Fry 

District 28:  Rep. Greg Heartsill

District 29:  Patrick Payton

District 30:  Zach Nunn

District 37:  Rep. John Landon

District 38:  Rep. Kevin Koester

District 39:  Rep. Jake Highfill

District 43:  Rep. Chris Hagenow

District 47:  Rep. Chip Baltimore

District 54:  Rep. Linda Upmeyer

District 55:  Darrel Branhagen

District 57:  Ryan Kilburg

District 60:  Rep. Walt Rogers

District 63:  Rep. Sandy Salmon

District 64:  Craig Johnson

District 67:  Rep. Kraig Paulsen

District 68:  Ken Rizer

District 71:  Jane Jech

District 72:  Rep. Dean Fisher

District 75:  Rep. Dawn Pettengill

District 79:  Rep. Guy Vander Linden

District 80:  Rep. Larry Sheets

District 82:  Jeff Shipley

District 84:  Rep. David Heaton AND Ralph Holmstrom

District 91:  Mark Cisneros

District 92:  Ross Paustian

District 94:  Rep. Linda Miller

District 95:  Rep. Quentin Stanerson

District 96:  Rep. Lee Hein

District 97:  Norlin Mommsen