It Is a Car Analogy

Arguments between pro- and anti-gun folks often end up at the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" chestnut. Once the argument gets to this, the car analogy is usually close to follow (warning: radically simplified argument):

Pro: Car accidents kill more people than guns every year. If it's all about saving lives, should we ban cars?

Anti: No, but maybe guns should take a cue from cars. To drive a car you need a license which must be periodically updated, and insurance; when you buy a car, even a used one, you have to register the car with the government in some form. Why not have these safeguards for guns?

I want to explore this so let's ignore the fact that there's no constitutional right to have a car. If there was such a right, though, it would probably be expressed as the right to a horse, or carriage, because even though the founders could not have possibly imagined the internal combustion engine, lithium-ion batteries, or hydrogen fuel cells, they'd have recognized the right to personal autonomy through private transportation. That's neither here nor there, however. The failure of the car analogy ("let's regulate guns like cars"), in my mind, is the fact that all of these safeguards in the car realm are due to the fact that the motorist wishes to operate his vehicle on public roads. The license, the tests, the mandatory insurance, the registration - it can easily be argued that this whole framework is in place because when I operate my motor vehicle - a multi-ton assemblage of metal and plastic capable of great speed - I am doing so alongside thousands of others. I am also doing so at, statistically, a significant risk of at least damaging my vehicle, or someone else's. The government has an interest in making sure I'm capable of doing this safely and that there is recourse (money for the injured party, taking my car away) if I do something stupid.

Imagine an auto racing hobbyist. His cars are fast, able to go from 0-60 in under 7 seconds and capable of an incredible top speed that you couldn't even hope to reach on a public highway with a production car. Most of the time his cars sit in his garage where he works on and tunes them. Every so often he'll get them trailered and take them to a private raceway where he drives them around the track, testing out the things he's done in the garage and making more adjustments. Maybe sometimes he'll compete against fellow racing hobbyists. His cars never touch a public road. Can you articulate a reason that these cars should be subject to the same regulatory framework as the car I drive to work? Indeed, if he limits all the driving he does in his life to taking his race cars around the track, should he even be required by law to obtain a driver's license? Given the time he puts into his cars, it would probably be prudent for him to insure them, but should he be legally obligated to insure them? Should he have to enter into the entire public road regulatory framework on the off chance that someone breaks into his garage, steals his car, and commits vehicular homicide with it, or crashes it into an occupied building?

Let's take the analogy in the opposite direction. Imagine that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgated some new automobile regulations. The first is a mandatory speed governor on all automobiles that makes no changes to the engine but causes the car to top out at 75 mph - after all, does anyone really "need" to go faster than that? There is also a new category of automobiles for regulatory purposes: let's call them "muscle cars." Any car with an engine displacement over 3 liters is a muscle car. A car is also a muscle car if it has at least two of the following features (one in New York): a spoiler, a hood or roof scoop, a large-diameter exhaust pipe, wheels over a certain diameter, or tinted windows. Owners of muscle cars are required to take certain steps to secure their muscle cars, such as disengaging the battery when the car is not in use. High-octane fuel is limited to 20 gallons per month and you need to show an ID when you buy it, so the transaction can be recorded. Depending on your locality you may need to obtain special permission from your regional NHTSA office to purchase a muscle car.

How do you feel about this?

The car analogy, while not perfect, fits better when you limit the discussion to CCW. A person who carries concealed is walking around in public with a loaded firearm on their person. He is not the racing hobbyist, he is the person driving his car to work every day - of course that driver should have to prove his ability to safely operate the vehicle in public. I realize that this can be viewed as an argument for 1.) more stringent CCW testing and other requirements and 2.) ending the "constitutional carry" policies in places like Vermont (where, essentially, the 2nd amendment is all the justification one needs for carrying concealed). If we're going to use car analogies, though, CCW at any rate seems a marginally better place for them than guns as a whole. 

Or perhaps we should quit with the analogies altogether - guns are unique things and you're always going to find something about them that doesn't fit into a framework established for something else.

Gun Control Ideas

We all know that something is going to happen soon to the gun laws in this country. I don't know what it is, but here are a few ideas I've had of things that a.) most gun owners would likely be ok with and b.) may actually help.

The first and probably best option is expanding NICS in several ways. I've written about NICS before - the National Instant Criminal background check System, operated by the FBI and staffed by three contracted call centers' worth of phone answerers. There is a fascinating video here showing how it all works. This system is robust and it does the trick - I believe I read that since its inception its been responsible for turning down 700,000 gun purchases - but it could be better. A surprisingly even-handed CNN article indicates that Seung-Hui Cho of the VTech shooting had been previously diagnosed as mentally ill, which is exactly the kind of thing that should be showing up on a NICS check and should be leading to a denial - but a lack of funding has largely prevented states from reporting these sorts of things. Not only should the funding be increased, but some kind of standard should be developed for precisely what should be reported - I think all states should have to report the same things to the system.

This will raise HIPPA-type issues but I think mental health should be a stronger consideration when one purchases a firearm. It remains to be seen what the threshold is - I, for example, saw a clinical psych for a couple of months for help with some nervous habits, and plenty of people seek therapy for what amounts to just having someone to unload personal issues on and talk things out. Should this throw up a flag? Should psychiatric/therapeutic help be divided up into different "classes" that lead to different red flags? What about drug rehab? What about prescription of psychoactive drugs? There's a spectrum, of course - mild sedatives for the occasional panic attack all the way up to heavy antipsychotics. Maybe if someone in treatment wants to buy a gun they should have to talk it out with their care provider first, and if the psych agrees they're no risk then it can be formally reported and change the "flag" in NICS. Of course the issue here is since we're talking about a constitutional right, someone deprived of that right would need notice, a hearing, an appeal procedure, and other procedural due process necessities. I'm beginning to think that this would require an entirely new or at least heavily altered mental health care infrastructure, but we're changing health care radically in this country anyway so this actually might be a fine time to implement this kind of sweeping change.

I also think that I, as a private citizen, should be able to access NICS if I am privately selling my firearms. If NICS is receiving more funding than this should be free or perhaps a small ($5 at most) fee for access. I am almost inclined to think this should be mandatory (if it's mandatory it should be free). If I sold my gun to someone and it ended up being used to kill kids or theatergoers, even if I was able to show that the sale was lawful and thus escape legal liability, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. At present there's nothing stopping a resident of most states from disposing of his guns to a fellow resident, with no FFL and thus no background check necessary. Personally, if I did sell to someone, I'd ask to see the person's CCW, or do it through an FFL, just to make sure I wasn't selling it to someone who shouldn't have it, but access to NICS would make this easier. An option for private civilians (not just FFLs) to access the NICS and run a background check on private buyers would essentially close this "gun show loophole" that politicians talk about (that doesn't really happen at gun shows anymore) and would help prevent the horrible possibility I described above. 

Something I read indicated that Wal-Mart is apparently pushing for (or at least ok with) a new code of conduct for gun retailers. This code includes not selling the gun when NICS doesn't come back with a report - apparently now, if it's the 3rd day of a NICS check and nothing comes back, it's assumed that the buyer is legit and the retailer has the discretion to sell it. This is something that could stand to be fixed. If it also takes an improved/expedited procedure for people who are victims of identity theft or have common names to identify themselves to NICS, then so be it, but this 3-day thing strikes me as a bad idea. Maybe someone with a NICS horror story can tell me why this is ok, but I don't understand it.

I have a friend whose main problem with the way things currently work is that he, someone who's never owned a gun, hardly ever fired one, and doesn't quite know how they work would could walk into a store today and walk out with something very powerful. I don't quite know the solution to this, but he brings up a strong point. Not everyone grew up hunting or shooting, and not everyone is motivated enough to watch youtube videos, internalize the four rules, and otherwise do their individual part to become an educated firearm owner. Classes make sense, but you shouldn't condition the exercise of a constitutional right on what amounts to paying money (see poll taxes and the recent debate on voter ID laws - though it is true that many states condition even the ability to buy a gun on licenses, fees, and sometimes even classes). I think what would work better is incentivizing classes with something more than "it'll make you a better shooter." What if the major firearm manufacturers offered a discount on their products for taking an NRA (or state, or any other provider) safety course? To expand on this idea, if it was required to be done before the gun is purchased (rather than a mail-in rebate type of thing), it would provide one more point of contact between the prospective buyer and someone who could evaluate that person. Say someone takes an NRA class and acts strangely, constantly interrupting with weird questions about how to take down a moving target or what kind of bullets best penetrate body armor. There could be a way for the instructor to report this - of course, asking a few odd questions shouldn't disqualify someone outright, but it might be the kind of thing that would serve as a "tipping point" to a denial finding on the NICS when taken together with other red flags.

These ideas all have in common the emphasis on refining and toughening the background check system - an existing infrastructure that's proven and works - and making it work better. They also have in common that they in no way restrict the types of firearm one may own, and have nothing to do with magazine size. They also, admittedly, assume that someone of the type to shoot up a school or theater will buy their firearms legitimately. Cho would have been stopped by a more robust NICS, but Lanza stole his guns from his mother, who may well have passed an improved NICS with flying colors. There's no way to get guns out of the hands of criminals who intend to use them, even by a radical civilian disarmament - what criminal would give up his guns? To truly eradicate gun crime we must eradicate the criminal (not literally), a topic far beyond the scope of this blog.

CZ P-07 Duty 9mm review

I am very, very happy with this gun.

I picked it up from the FFL on election day and since then I have shot it several times in three different states. I have put a few different types of ammo through it, field stripped and cleaned it twice, and painted the engraved parts of the magazines with white nail polish. I feel like I can now discuss the firearm in some detail.

Specs

The CZ P-07 is a hammer-fired DA/SA pistol with a polymer frame and metal slide. It is chambered in 9mm and has a capacity of 16+1 (16 in the magazine, 1 in the chamber; however, the springs in the mags are strong and I have yet to get more than 15 in there). It comes with Glock-style sights - the rear looks like |__| and the front is a single dot - and it has an accessory rail under the barrel for mounting lights or a laser. Size-wise it is similar to a Glock 19 and other "compact" pistols. One unique feature is the decocker, which comes installed, can be easily converted to a thumb safety. The parts to do this are included, which is very nice of CZ.

Field stripping is somewhat more complex than, say, a Glock. One side of the slide has a visible notch, as does the corresponding side of the frame. One hand is used to pull the slide back slightly to line these notches up; the other hand (and a punch, in my case) is used to pop out the slide lock. The slide can then be easily pushed forward. The firearm then disassembles into the slide, recoil spring and rod, barrel, and frame for cleaning.

The box comes with: the firearm, two 16-round magazines, cleaning brush and patch rod, lock, parts for installing the safety, and various pieces of paper (instruction manuals, test-fire reports, warranty card, etc).

How Does It Shoot?

Not like a compact, or like a polymer frame, that's for sure. Owing to the structure of the firearm, particularly the slide, shooting this gun is easy and has the feel of a heavier and larger piece. The slide, uniquely, rides inside of the frame - I am not a gun physicist but I believe this is the reason that it shoots so nicely (something to do with "bore axis"). Recoil is minimal and I have found it very easy to ride the recoil and re-position my shot quickly and accurately. You really have to try it to feel how minimal the recoil is - from the way it handled I thought it was a metal frame when I first shot it at the range as a rental.

Ergonomics are extremely important and the P-07 does not disappoint in this area. My hand can get really close into the beaver tail and I find it easy to have a strong grip on the gun. There is good stippling on the sides of the handle and ridges on the rear, all of which contribute to a strong grip. The magazine release is easy to reach and can be shifted over to the other side for leftie shooters. On the polymer frame, just below the slide and next to the slide lock, there is a stippled strip - this seems intended for the thumb of the non-trigger hand, and helps with a "thumbs forward" grip - a very clever feature. These strips are on both sides and are visible in the photos.

I am admittedly not a trigger connoisseur, but the trigger feels nice. There is an audible and tactile "click" when it resets, and the single-action feels right, between a hair trigger and requiring too much force, perhaps leaning toward easy. I rarely fire the gun double action so I will not comment on that.

I have run Federal range, Federal red box stuff from Wal-Mart, Winchester white box, CCI brass and aluminum case, PMC, and Federal Hydra-Shok hollow points in 115 and 124 grain, and the gun has shot them all. My first trip out to the range with it I had a few strange failures, but none since.

What's Not to Love?

Some issues - the spring is heavy and as a result it can be somewhat difficult to pull the slide back. I realized this for sure last week when I shot my P-07 alongside my brother-in-law's M&P9 - the M&P's slide is far easier to rack. There is heavy serration on the rear of the slide, but every once in a while I'll hold it wrong and it will slip out of my fingers, a rather uncomfortable feeling. The size of the gun and the heft of the slide no doubt require such a heavy spring, but it's absolutely worth your time to hold it and manipulate the slide before you buy. The slide lock is also somewhat stiff and weird. It is usable, and in my time with it I haven't found a lot of need to lock back the slide regularly, so this isn't much of an issue, but be aware. Field stripping the gun is difficult and awkward to me, but I suspect this will improve with practice.

This is not CZ's fault but market penetration is not nearly as high as Glock, S&W, or the other larger manufacturers. You won't find holsters that fit the P-07 at Walmart, for example, and I have found approximately one set of aftermarket sights. Be aware of this if aftermarket parts and customization is important for you. A Ruger 10/22 this ain't.

At the End of the Day

I went looking for an affordable gun from a reliable manufacturer that felt good in the hand and was easy to shoot. I did enough research and test fires that I didn't feel like I was flying blind or taking a chance with this one, but it was still my first handgun and I think I would have been bummed out if I got something that didn't feel extremely right for me. This gun feels extremely right for me. Do your research and shoot everything you can if you're in the market for a gun, but the CZ P-07 Duty has fully lived up to my expectations.

Glamour Shots

Slide open, magazine inserted. Thumb stippling visible in front of slide lock, decocker is behind slide lock. Lanyard loop at bottom of handle visible.

Slide closed, with magazine. Hammer back in single action position. "CZ-USA, Kansas City, KS" visible. 

More Ignorant Nonsense in the News

A couple of articles caught my eye and angered up my blood recently.

1. Justice Stevens Speaks to Brady Campaign on October 15

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2012/10/justice-stevens-you-have-constitutional-right-call-911-not-own-gun

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens apparently spoke at a Brady Campaign event in the middle of last month. A couple of his remarks are worth discussing. 

“The Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or the use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years.” -Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. (emphasis mine)

If you're reading this, I would expect that you know that automatic weapons were used at precisely none of these shootings. I would also assume that you are at the very least familiar with the distinction between semi-automatic and automatic weapons. It's a very big distinction.  One one side are the things you can (in free states) walk into a store and buy that day, and on the other side are firearms that are incredibly limited in supply, very expensive, and subject to a number of federal regulations and taxes. You, dear reader, are now more educated than a former Supreme Court Justice on the matter of semi-auto and automatic weapons. 

This mistake is made all the time in the media and by our less-educated friends, and it appears that even the men and women who represent the pinnacle of our judicial system are not immune. This mistake is dangerous, because it makes guns out to be scarier than they are. Think of all the people who mistakenly believed that Holmes of the Colorado shooting had an automatic rifle, just because of how it looked, and filled our Twitter and Facebook feeds with incredulous shouts of "this crazy guy can just buy an automatic weapon at Wal-Mart!!!" It's very easy to disabuse people of this belief, since it's so very wrong, but when it persists it leads to people banning things they don't understand (aka an "Assault Weapons Ban").

Another thing Stevens said:

"Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell phone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not used to using.”

The article notes that he said this to laughter from the Brady Campaign. I'm not even going to waste time dissecting this. This is something that someone who does not care about you or your rights would say. I dare Justice Stevens to look this woman in the eye and tell her that she only had the right to dial 911. Imagine what would have happened to her and to her baby if she weren't armed. The attitude of "you don't need a gun, just call the cops" and the flippancy of Stevens' remark disgusts me and it should disgust you too.

2. Cook County Gun and Ammo Tax

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-guns-chicago-taxbre89u1fx-20121031,0,5833878.story

A few weeks ago Cook County, Illinois - the home of Chicago, the anti-gun utopia where gun control has completely eliminated crime, racism, and unhappiness - mulled the idea of instituting a tax on guns and ammunition. This tax would help pay for the costs of providing healthcare to Chicago residents injured by gun violence. Healthcare costs for those injured end up being in the area of $50,000 per person, so this is a definite budget issue.

Since Cook County regularly shits on the 2nd Amendment rights of its inhabitants, it figured that they wouldn't mind being shit on a little more. The proposed tax was an extra $25 on a gun and 5 cents per bullet. As the article shows, they have somehow had given up on the bullet tax. Think about a box of .22LR that contains 550 rounds - the tax would be more than the bullets!

But the gun tax appears to be going strong. So this is how it is? The law-abiding citizens of cook county already have to jump through incredible hoops if they want to even keep a gun in their house, nevermind concealed carry (remember IL is the last holdout in that regard), and now they have to pay a little extra because low rent gangbangers can't stop shooting each other with their illegal weapons? Not to get political, but this is redistribution most foul. It is Chicago favoring its criminal element at the expense of trod-upon law abiding citizens who only want to protect themselves from that same criminal element! 

------

It's the election today, as I write, and since I'm fed up with politics and trying to avoid the news for the next few days, you have my word that I'll stop being political here for the foreseeable future. Next update will be a range report and photos of the CZ P-07.

How to Buy a Gun on the Internet

Yes, it's possible. With a major credit card (or a check, or money order) you can order a gun on the Internet. I was surprised too. I'm going through it now, so I thought I'd write about it.

Ordering a gun online is not an identical experience to picking out a book on Amazon and having it show up at your doorstep two days later (exception: a Curios and Relics license, to be defined later). An intermediary is required to stand between you and the online dealer. This intermediary is a Federal Firearms License holder, whom I will abbreviate as an FFL. Any brick and mortar gun store or pawn shop that deals in guns will have one of these licenses. So will small, one-man operations, like a guy who does gunsmithing work out of his home - if he wants to receive guns in the mail to work on, he'll have an FFL. The FFL does the transfer - the gun goes from its point of origin to the FFL, who handles a few administrative duties and then sends you on your merry way with your internet gun.

What are these administrative duties? The exact same things that happen when you buy a gun at a shop - filling out an ATF Form 4473 and waiting for the FBI NICS background check to clear. Buying a gun online, therefore, is not a way for a felon or someone adjudicated incompetent to pick up a piece "no questions asked." You still have to hit the streets for that - perhaps the streets of Chicago, or New York City.

Buying a gun online is also not a way for a law-abiding citizen to get around state or local regulations. Bud's Gun Shop, the online retailer where I bought my CZ, is extremely clear that it, for example, will not ship magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds to the states that forbid such things (MA, CA, etc.). I have no idea if a smaller operation would do so, but if they did they (and you, the recipient) would be breaking state and quite possibly federal law as well, which I do not recommend.

The FFL will charge for his time - all FFLs charge a transfer fee. The average seems to be $25. I found a guy who does it for $10. I have a feeling that if you went to a gun store they'd charge you a good deal more than $25, since you're taking away their business. I recommend sticking with the home businesses, or maybe a pawn shop.

In many states, face to face transfers (as long as both parties are residents of that state) with no background checks are entirely legal. This is when I, a private citizen, meet face to face with another private citizen in order to strike a deal that involves one party disposing of a piece of property and the other paying for it. In a nation that values private property rights, this strikes me as entirely appropriate and nothing to be worried about or scared of. Some jurisdictions require a record be kept of the transaction, like a bill of sale. I think that even when this is not required, it's a good idea. I would also consider asking the purchaser to produce a CCW or some kind of proof that he's not crazy. This concept is often described as the "gun show loophole," even though from what I have heard most gun shows these days are just filled with retail operations who charge full (or higher) price and who will run all the checks on you. The internet has apparently stolen all the good deals from the gun shows.

Note on Curio and Relic licenses. A C&R license is a particular type of FFL that allows an individual the ability to receive in the mail certain types of firearms, as defined by federal regulations and the ATF. One thing that puts a firearm into the C&R category is its age - if it's 50 years old or more, it's a C&R. If you're interested in WW2 firearms, for example, and a C&R holder, you can buy all kinds of things off of the internet without having to find an FFL to do the transfer - it can be sent right to you. There are restrictions, of course, but considering that guns made in 1962 and before are still popular and useful, a C&R FFL can be a worthy investment.

Barack Obama and Guns

Well here we go, after years of "Barack Obama is the most gun-friendly president in years" and "he's not going to touch your guns, what are you in the tea party or something?" the President has finally said things outright that indicate what he'd like to do in his second term.

I say "what he'd like to do" because what a president can do is severely limited based on things like Congress, what his priorities are, and the national mood. This goes for everything as well as guns, and it's why I personally don't put a ton of stock into specific promises that Presidential candidates (or incumbents) make. Instead I think about important things that Presidents actually can do, like appointing Supreme Court Justices; I also think about things like "if the President had unlimited power to mold the United States into whatever he wanted, what would it look like?" 

At the 2nd Presidental Debate the other day, Barack Obama said a couple of things about guns. One is that he'd like to push for a new Assault Weapons Ban like we had under Clinton. The other, though it was more of an observation, was a recognition that the shootings that happen every day on his home turf of Chicago aren't carried out with "assault weapons," they're carried out with cheap handguns.

This is tough. On the one hand I'm happy that he recognizes that "assault weapons" (I'm putting it in quotes because it's a bullshit term invented by politicians to make modern rifles sound scarier than they are) are used in an extreme minority of crimes. But this brings up two questions: 1.) why, then is he still pushing for an AWB and 2.) what is his solution for this "problem" of "cheap handguns?"

I cannot think of a position in support of an AWB that is not unconstitutional, overbearing, or insulting in some way. ARs are not used in the hugely overwhelming majority of crimes. The AWB regulated guns based on cosmetic features and the fact that they're "scary black guns" that look like guns soldiers use. Do I have a "need" for an AR-15 rifle in 5.56? Perhaps not, but it is nobody's business to tell me that I can't have something that the Constitution says I can. Maybe I'll just use it for putting holes in paper, maybe it'll gather dust in my rack, or maybe I'll use it when the Chinese send paratroopers into the cornfields - what business is it of yours? When was the last time you petitioned the government for a redress of grievances? Do you need that right?

"The founders didn't imagine Bushmaster AR-15s with 30-round magazines and EOTech holographic sights." That's right, they didn't. They imagined the citizens of their new republic in possession of the exact same weapons as the military. They drew no distinction between military and civilian arms - they had just been through a war won in no small part due to a civilian 'militia' in possession of tools that gave them a fighting chance against the army of an empire. This is a better argument for undoing the restrictions on full-autos than anything else. The founders didn't imagine Twitter, either - heavens, someone's "hate speech" (put in quotes for the same reason as "assault weapon") can be instantaneously broadcast to people all over the world! Better put some restrictions on it!

As for handguns - Obama recognized publicly that cheap handguns are the weapon of choice for Chicago's criminal element. In an ideal world, this would lead to a public repudiation of Chicago's onerous handgun ownership requirements and the state of Illinois' refusal to join the other 49 and allow some form of concealed carry. The President would publicly acknowledge that in Chicago the criminals are the only ones armed on the streets, and that it is at least worth a shot to legitimize concealed carry for the law-abiding citizen in the hopes of instituting a deterrent effect, as well as make it easier for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms to keep in their home.

This is not my ideal world, though, and I have no doubt that this will be another call for more laws. DC v. Heller is happily on the books and is a basis, however shaky, for the unconstitutionality of total handgun bans - meaning that he will probably limit it to empty platitudes, as is his wont as President. But don't you think that if he had the ability - if he had the magical power to make whatever laws he wanted - he'd push for some kind of restriction? Based on the things he's said and the kind of things he believes in?

Look, I'm not one of these guys who thinks that as soon as Obama wins (if he wins!) he's going to unleash all his secret crypto-Marxist security forces, take everyone's guns away, and install electric motors in our cars. That's nonsense and it won't happen. But I don't like the idea of a President who is so willing to impose policy based on fear and emotion (the basis for most liberal policies), and I don't like the idea of a President who thinks that more laws are the answer when it comes to guns. 

I'd like to return to my earlier point about Supreme Court justices. This is an extremely important thing that Presidents do, and it doesn't get a lot of press. Obama appointed two Justices in his first term - Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Both are liberals, and Kagan has zero experience on the bench - she has worked in politics, including a time as President Obama's solicitor general, and has held high posts in legal academia, and now she'll be on the Supreme Court for decades. At least two and perhaps more justices will likely retire in the 2012-2016 presidential term - think about how the court would look over the next several decades with a couple more fresh, young Obama appointees (SCOTUS Justices serve for life, remember) versus Romney appointees. Think about how DC v. Heller was a 5-4 decision - one vote away from doing away with the 2nd Amendment - infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms - for the entire population of the District of Columbia. Think about what this means for other spheres of American life. The Supreme Court is extremely important, and it the next president has a major opportunity to affect its leanings for decades. This is huge. 

I'm not over the moon about Romney. Detractors will point out that he is the reason for Massachusetts' own brand of right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-infringing. But to me there is a difference between being the Governor of one of the bluest states versus being the Chief Executive of an entire country while being beholden to the Republican party. In my opinion, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, Romney's the man. 

What's next?

The collection is already taking on a mind of its own, yearning to grow.

I have my .22 rifle (and my Mosquito, though it's already starting to gather dust in favor of the rifle), and I'm looking ahead to my next purchase. The rifle handles fun range time or plinking, and now I'm looking to something for protection. This will be a 9mm handgun, specifically a CZ P-07. In this piece I will explain why I'm going with a handgun and why specifically the CZ.

THE HANDGUN

Handguns/pistols (if there's an actual distinction I don't know it, so I use both terms interchangably) need little introduction and are common choices for self-defense or home defense. They are small; maneuverable; a full-size semi-auto with a stock magazine can hold as many as 18 rounds of ammunition; and they do the job. Rimfire handguns exist (my Mosquito is one) but any kind of serious defensive use of a handgun will use a centerfire cartridge. As mainstream semi-automatic handguns go, the main choices are 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. Handguns intended for CCW will fire these or perhaps .380. When you expand the search out to revolvers, you get cartridges like .38 Special, .357 Magnum, and .45 Long Colt. There are also handguns that fire more exotic cartridges like 10mm or 5.7.

Semi-automatic handguns can be divided based on how the gun activates the cartridge and initiates the chemical reaction that results in the bullet leaving the barrel. Many handguns (and all revolvers) have a hammer, mostly exposed but some carry models have it hidden (to avoid clothing snags). This is the thing that people always cock back in movies to emphasize their point. Cocking back the hammer may turn the trigger into a "single-action" rather than a "double action" - this means that less pressure is required to drop the hammer and have it strike the cartridge and fire the round. I believe this depends on the gun - some guns are double action only, some guns do not allow you to pull the hammer back, and some older revolvers require the hammer be pulled back before every shot. Semi-autos with hammers usually have external safeties as well as a "decocking" lever, which allows the user to put the hammer down without actually firing the gun.

Some types of semi-autos - Glocks and their imitators - have done away with the external hammer in favor of an internal "striker." These newer guns, possibly due to mechanical reasons stemming from this choice, often also do not have external safeties (i.e. a switch you click to turn the safety on and off). Glocks, for example, have a switch in the middle of the trigger, so when you pull the trigger and there's a round chambered it WILL fire. They compensate by building multiple internal safeties into the gun, to the point where you can drop it out of a moving car and it won't accidentally discharge. Smith & Wesson's M&P is similar (a hinged part of the trigger acts as the safety), and Springfield's XD has a pressure switch on the back of the handle that accomplishes the same thing.

The venerable revolver is still a popular choice as well. Far more mechanically simple than a semi-auto, a wheelgun is the best choice for reliability and ease of maintenance; it also allows for use of cartridges that have real stopping power. A .357 Magnum, for example, is not at all fun to shoot - it's one of those things that you feel all the way into your teeth when you shoot it, and if you stand behind someone shooting one you'll feel a shockwave on your face. That kind of firepower will end a threat in fewer shots than even a .45 ACP. Certain revolvers can also fire multiple cartridges - a .357 revolver will also be able to shoot the cheaper and much more fun to shoot .38 Special, owing to the similar dimensions of the cartridges and the mechanical simplicity of the gun.

9mm is, in my opinion, the best choice. Since I'm not interested in a revolver or any of the more exotic pistol cartridges, my choice is between 9mm, .40, and .45, and 9mm wins for a few reasons. Most important is cost - cheaper ammo means I'll practice more which means I'll be a better shot. Recoil is also more manageable than the bigger cartridges, which contributes to the "fun factor" of practicing and also means my wife will want to practice with me more, which is very important. Also I don't believe that I'm really sacrificing anything by going with 9mm - "stopping power," despite engendering hundreds of gigabytes' worth of internet arguments, doesn't change too much among the 3 major rounds. When you're dealing with one of these three - as opposed to .357 mag or one of the other big ones - the most important factor is shot placement if you're looking to immediately end a threat. And the only way to proper shot placement is practice, which is most affordable with a 9mm.

OK, so a 9mm handgun it is. Now what kind? 

This kind: the CZ P-07. http://www.cz-usa.com/products/view/cz-p07-duty/

I will break down the reasons I'm going with the CZ P-07, in no particular order.

1. Reliability/Reputation. CZ has been around for a while. They produce the CZ-75 (of which the P-07 is a more modern, polymer-framed variant with a redesigned trigger) and have been doing so for decades - this gun is one of the most heavily used firearms among police departments and armed forces around the world. CZs have a reputation for being well-built and those who own them swear by them.

2. Size/weight. The P-07 is a polymer-framed variant of the 75, which means it's lighter than its metal-framed progenitor. It is not so light, however, that the shooter is terribly bothered by recoil (I thought it was metal-framed when I first used it, as I felt way less recoil with it than with an M&P or Glock). This is doubly impressive when one considers the size of the gun - it is smaller than "full-size" guns like the Glock 17, yet my experience is that the recoil is less with the P-07 than the 17. This means it will do well as a carry gun if I decide to carry concealed, but not at the expense of being easy and fun to shoot at the range.

3. Aesthetics. It looks cool. I'm only human and having a cool-looking gun, while not the sole criterion, is nice. As a bonus, since the USA division of CZ (they're based in the Czech Republic) is in Kansas City, Kansas, the gun will say on its side "CZ-USA KANSAS CITY, KANSAS" which I think is kind of neat.

4. Cost. This gun retails for about $450. M&Ps go for about $550, and Glocks and Springfield XDs are usually above $600. While I would probably go for an HK if money was no object, that's not the world I live in at the moment. Cost isn't everything - otherwise I'd get a $200 Hi-Point - but the P-07 by all accounts appears to be an extremely well-built and reliable firearm for a terrific price.

One final note. I didn't decide on this gun just by watching YouTube videos and reading feature lists - I went to the range and shot it, a number of times. I also shot Glocks, XDs, M&Ps, HKs, and other CZ models. All the nifty features and advertising copy don't mean anything if the gun isn't a good fit for your hand, or if you can't work the slide, or if the sights just don't work with your eyes, etc. There's no substitute for actually putting some rounds through it. Rental guns might be dirty and poorly-kept and not represent the gun's potential, but actually shooting the gun is still essential before purchase. Be it at a range, borrowing your friend's, or seeking out an owner in your area on the internet, do everything you can to actually put the firearm in your hand and make some holes in paper with it.