Observations…

Mr North,

You were tried and convicted in an arms selling operation. Selling arms to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War in which we were supposed to be supporting Iraq, and then using the proceeds to fund Nicaraguan contras. While the selling arms part wasn’t your idea, you wrote a completely new plan that essentially made the entire thing from that point onward your responsibility. Selling arms to Iran directly, and diverting funds to Nicaragua in violation of the 1983 Boland Amendment.

And then you later tried to cover it up by destroying documents, getting your secretary to help you.

These are facts not in dispute.

Yes your convictions were later overturned due to the immunity Congress gave you for your testimony, which is why you weren’t sitting in prison. Unlike others involved who sat in jail until pardoned, a Christmas gift from George HW Bush in 1992.

The Iran-Contra Affair overshadows your decorations. Most who know anything about you know you only as the one who spearheaded what became, arguably, the largest international political scandal of the 20th Century. As a result the left and the media have been having a field day with this.

And while many say “we shouldn’t care what the left thinks”, bear in mind that nearly 19 out of every 20 gun owners are NOT NRA members, and your election as NRA president will keep that number very high. Because a significant portion of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters are libertarian or left-leaning, even “leftist”. The fact there are 100+ million gun owners in the United States should make that obvious. And there are only about… being generous… 5.5 million NRA members.

If you want to help the NRA, Mr North, resign. Your resignation as NRA president is really the only good thing you can do for the NRA right now. You should never have been chosen. Step down as NRA president and let the organization choose someone who doesn’t have your kind of history, your kind of infamy.

Let’s be realistic: optics matter, regardless of how much many might say they should not. And given the current situation in the wake of several high-profile shootings in the United States, there is much the NRA can do to improve how they are perceived. Which makes your election as NRA president all the more… surprising. It really makes me wonder if those with the voting authority at the NRA are not concerned or never considered the optics of this.

Upon learning of your election, I’ve actually considered canceling my only… 2-month old membership. And you being at the head of the organization is likely not going to bring many new people in, regardless of how fervently they support the Second Amendment. And many members may use your election as a reason to not renew or cancel. It’ll be interesting to see what happens to the membership numbers in the coming months.

So respectfully, Mr North, please do what is best for the National Rifle Association and its members and tender your resignation.

Let’s flashback about three years to when I wrote a review on the Alien Gear Cloak Tuck 2.0. At the time, I said it was the best value holster available and the most comfortable of the ones I’ve personally tried. Otherwise, though, I said it wasn’t all that unique among the other hybrid IWB holsters available: it was a plastic, molded shell bolted to a backing. Price was really the only thing that set the Cloak Tuck apart, coming in well below the better-recognized brands.

And the holster wasn’t without its drawbacks. First was the exposed hardware on the back, but Alien Gear fixed that with the Cloak Tuck 3.0. But I also mentioned the hardware coming loose, something that was a continual battle because I… kept forgetting to put Loctite on the screws.

One of the features of the ShapeShift 4.0 holster, that is also on the Cloak Tuck 3.5, are belt clips that don’t attach with screws. So they shouldn’t come loose. So seeing as my wife needed a holster for her Taurus PT111 G2 (that we bought brand new at Cabela’s for only $200), I bought one for my Glock 19 as well.

As of this writing, I’ve been using the holster for about 3 months. Let’s start with what’s unique about this. From the product page:

To improve on the award-winning Cloak Tuck 3.0, the ShapeShift IWB Holster is designed with a single mounting point, allowing the holster base to flex and conform to your side.

The typical hybrid holster – the Cloak Tuck included – is a plastic shell molded to a specific firearm bolted to a backing, either held on with screws or riveted to it. The stretch around your body combined with the pressure of your belt gives the retention on the firearm – basically a friction fit. But it also causes the shell to collapse a little when the firearm is not in your holster – e.g. when at a legally-mandated gun-free zone like a US Post Office.

This can make holstering your firearm a little tricky if you’re not in such a position the plastic shell is at its loosest. Such as trying to holster your firearm while sitting in the driver’s seat of your vehicle. It’s the one thing I’ve never enjoyed about using similar hybrid IWB holsters. Or at least ones with a wide profile. I don’t recall having that issue with my MTAC holster, which has a much slimmer profile than the more popular IWB hoslters.

But this is where the ShapeShift stands out. It gives you an IWB holster that behaves like an OWB holster. Whether sitting in the driver’s seat or standing up at home, I’m able to holster and draw my firearm effortlessly. I don’t even really need to shift much to get the firearm back into the holster while sitting in the driver’s seat of my SUV.

The shell is half of what can be an OWB holster, part of the larger ShapeShift “system”, meaning it also completely covers the firearm like the MTAC holster. And Alien Gear gives you that other half as well with the IWB holster, so you can remove the shell from the backing and turn it into an OWB – some other accessories required, though the Starter Kit comes with everything to easily make it an OWB holster.

As described above from the product page, and shown above, the shell is attached to the backing only at the front side. This is a stark contrast from other IWB holsters, including the Cloak Tuck, which have bolts or screws around the entirety of the shell. This allows the shell to float free of the backing, meaning the shell isn’t deformed by being pulled around your body with the rest of the holster.

It also means friction force isn’t used to retain the firearm. Instead it relies on retention in the trigger guard, which can be tightened or loosened to make the draw as easy or difficult as you want.

And the floating shell is why I can holster my pistol effortlessly. As if I’m putting it into an OWB paddle holster on my belt. Regardless of whether I’m sitting in the front seat of my SUV or standing up and holstering my firearm before leaving for work. It’s as effortless in the former as in the latter. The shell’s shape is not determined by my position.

That is how IWBs should be. Why did no one think to do that before?

Now about the belt clips. Well there’s not really much to say. Again, from the product page:

Keeping this mantra in mind, the ShapeShift IWB Holster offers adjustable cant and ride height. Alien Gear Holsters made this possible with the invention of their unique, tool-less inside the waistband holster clips.

These clips remove the need for tools, eliminate the problem of loose screws and simplify the entire process of modifying cant and ride height.

To take them off, you rotate them so they are pointing completely down. This means they won’t come out when upright or nearly upright for attaching it to your belt. Which gives some peace of mind that you’re not going to take off the holster and find screws missing, or find one laying on the floor because it fell through your pant leg.

So… conclusions.

It’s currently going for 55.88 USD plus shipping. More expensive than the Cloak Tuck 3.0 and 3.5, but still less expensive than Crossbreed’s SuperTuck and White Hat’s offerings.

The value is definitely far greater than anything really anyone else offers. Alien Gear gives you the IWB holster as you’d expect, but also gives you the other side of the shell to make it into an OWB holster (again, additional accessories needed to use it).

Given my experience over the last few months with the Alien Gear, I don’t think I can praise it enough. The comfort is about the same as with the Cloak Tuck 2.0 I previously used without the frustration of the belt clip hardware just coming loose.

And it doesn’t collapse without your pistol, making holstering your pistol easy regardless of how you’re sitting or standing. Which looking back at the other holsters I’ve used, that is, again, how IWB holsters should be.

The Alien Gear ShapeShift 4.0 IWB holster just gets pretty much everything right. Again I’ve been using it for about three months, and I can’t think of… anything negative to say about it. A stark contrast from the negatives I could readily say about the Cloak Tuck 2.0 after only two weeks.

Note: Product images copyright Alien Gear Holsters, and used under the Fair Use provisions of 17 USC § 107 for the purposes of criticism and commentary.

Article: A Gun Nut’s Guide to Gun Control That Works: A federal license for possession of semi-automatic firearms could make Americans safer—and more free.

Self-described “gun industry insider” Jon Stokes penned an article for Politico expressing a simple idea: “federally issued license for simple possession of all semi-automatic firearms”. Not just semi-automatic rifles, which is the bane of all anti-gun advocates out there.

All semi-automatic firearms. This would basically mean needing a license to possess what most every gun owner already has: a semi-automatic pistol. Since every gun maker in the world makes them and there’s an enormous variety available.

This makes his scheme instantly unconstitutional given DC v. Heller, which asserted the individual right to keep and bear arms “in common use” – 554 US at 627.

While the author points out that the Assault Weapons Ban attempt is “emblematic of gun control proponents’ consistent failure to understand how gun technology and the gun market actually work in the 21st century”, the entire idea of a Federal license to possess the most common firearm classification in the world shows a misunderstanding of how rights are supposed to work.

The entire history of gun control in the United States is a slippery slope so tall it makes Mount Everest look like a pile of sand in a sandbox. So despite the initial limitation that it would apply to semi-automatic firearms – again, the most common classification of firearms in the world – it would eventually be applied to ALL firearms.

You cannot say honestly that it would not.

Currently there is no census of firearms owners as well. This licensing scheme would change that. While it wouldn’t create a gun registry, a gun owner registry is just as undesirable, and likely just as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as it would be unconstitutional under the First to create a registry of or require licensure for journalists, or in any other way attempt to limit the legitimacy of certain types of media by definition of law.

You’re already in a ton of public and private databases that contain the most intimate details of your life. Everyone from Facebook to Google to Equifax to the Social Security Administration has a big, fat file on you.

This doesn’t justify the creation of yet another database of personal information. And it’s immaterial to the larger discussion.

Yes I’ve already got entries in numerous databases. There’s a big difference, though, between those systems and an ATF system that tracks firearm possession licenses. That is the singular objection that anyone proposing any similar idea must overcome, and the author fails to overcome it here. He instead just brings up the “well, so many other organizations already have your information”.

First private organizations may possess your information, but have severe limitations placed on how they can use that information under Federal and State laws and regulations.

And before the government can lawfully possess your information, they must have a legitimate reason for it. Like… taxation.

The Federal government has your information on file to enforce Federal taxation, in particular Federal income taxation. State tax authorities have that information for the same reason. That is why children are issued Social Security numbers from a very early age: that, or another tax authority identification number, are necessary to claim the child as a dependent to take advantage of certain tax deductions or credits, or claim certain other benefits under the law.

If you are a business owner, you know that you generally need a State sales tax permit as well. A permit to collect and remit State sales taxes. Imagine that! That permit, though, is actually a registration along with a tacit submission to the State’s audit authority as well. And that information is used to enforce taxation, specifically to make sure you are properly collecting sales taxes – the proper percentage, given State and local regulations, and on the proper items.

Your vehicle registration is the same way. So many anti-gun advocates talk about gun registration with “you have to register your car, too”. Yes, you register your car because you are required by State law to pay several classes of taxes on it, starting with property taxes. If the government was not taxing your vehicles, they’d have no reason to require registration.

That is why you receive a letter at the start of every calendar year from your county assessor’s office. And the same applies for marine craft, aircraft, and even livestock – if you’re in the business of raising and selling livestock, as opposed to merely owning a few horses, goats, etc., unconnected with any business operations.

And public schools have information on the parents and attendant children for enforcement of the law. Education meeting certain minimum standards is mandatory in every State. So the government tracks certain information for proper enforcement of applicable laws, whether by public or private schooling or home schooling.

In other words the existence of car registration and other government databases of personal information isn’t in any way a limitation on any rights, but about proper exercise of a government’s legitimate powers such as, but not limited to, its taxing authority. Part of this includes a government database of those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors, since those convictions are used as the basis for limiting rights and privileges under the law.

You wouldn’t need a license to own lots and lots of guns of different types under this scheme, either. You would just need a license to own semi-autos, just like you need a license to broadcast over certain parts of the public airways.

Oh dear God, not this argument again.

I’ll set aside that this is merely another way of saying “Since the Second Amendment isn’t unlimited, we can pass any gun restrictions we want (short of an outright ban), and they’re all perfectly reasonable because your rights aren’t unlimited.”

First of all, there aren’t many “different types” of firearms either. You have rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Semi-automatic is the only classification spanning across all three. Rifles can also be bolt action, lever action, breech load (though uncommon), or muzzle load. Shotguns can also be breech-load or pump action. And pistols can be muzzle load, breech load (e.g. Derringers), or revolvers.

Semi-automatic firearms are, say it with me, the most common firearm classification in the world. This means you’re talking about requiring licensing for more than 90% of firearm owners in the United States. Again, this is unconstitutional given DC v. Heller.

And do you know why broadcast licenses are necessary?

First and foremost, it’s to regulate (in other words, “make regular”) the public airwaves and prevent multiple broadcasters on the same frequency in the same general area. Anyone who has tried to setup a WiFi access point in an apartment building knows the difficulty here, since you have a set number of channels on the 2.4GHz and 5GHz band, so getting a reliable WiFi setup when you have apartments all around you also trying to use WiFi can be… interesting.

Imagine three broadcasters in an area – e.g. a country, pop, and hip-hop station – all trying to broadcast on the same frequency in your metro area. None would get through clearly unless you were close to an individual station’s broadcast antenna.

And part of that regulation is also about broadcast power. Your local radio and on-air television stations generate continuous high-power radio waves. Radio waves can generate interference with numerous devices. So the FCC regulates access to the public airwaves, and disallows use of certain radio frequencies, to minimize this interference to acceptable levels. Acceptable levels being that which electronics manufacturers can reasonably account for, control for, and protect against.

That is why you have the FCC Part 15 statement on virtually all electronic devices sold in the United States:

This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.

As an example of the kind of cross-talk interference that can occur, back during the Cold War, the Soviet Union operated the Duga radar, a high-power (10MW) missile-launch detection system that operated by sending out a pulse at 10Hz in the shortwave radio bands. It was nicknamed the Russian Woodpecker. Quoting Wikipedia:

The random frequency hops disrupted legitimate broadcasts, amateur radio operations, oceanic commercial aviation communications, utility transmissions, and resulted in thousands of complaints by many countries worldwide. The signal became such a nuisance that some receivers such as amateur radios and televisions actually began including ‘Woodpecker Blankers’ in their circuit designs in an effort to filter out the interference.

There was also a group who tried jam the Woodpecker, called the Russian Woodpecker Hunting Club. The Duga radar has not been operational in about three decades as of when I write this.

The license to broadcast on the public airwaves isn’t a limitation on your free speech rights. It’s more akin to regulating traffic on a road. Only there are a lot more lanes and you’re granted exclusive use of one of those lanes in a general area. And the license is merely one additional layer on top of a speech medium with significant barriers to entry – the cost of the broadcast equipment, and the cost of powering and operating it, any licensing and costs associated with content, etc.

Plus the broadcast license is about regulating the airwaves, not regulating what’s on the airwaves. Though the FCC has come under fire for attempting to and actually doing the latter by threatening the licenses or instituting fines against broadcasters for violating certain “decency standards” – e.g. the Janet Jackson “nipple slip” that became the inspiration for creating YouTube.

The First Amendment, and much of the Bill of Rights, was inspired by actions of King George III and the British Parliament, including the Stamp Act of 1765 which literally taxed paper. A license to possess semi-automatic firearms, again the most common firearms classification in the world, is akin to a license to purchase and possess paper, or a license to create and operate a blog or Facebook page. And attempts to ban certain firearms is akin to banning books or implementing and enforcing “obscenity” laws.

And it is that which those who continually try to propose licensing schemes for firearms must acknowledge. You are talking about turning a constitutional right into a government-licensed privilege. This was demonstrated with Illinois wherein the State of Illinois revoked Travis Reinking’s firearms ownership license merely at the request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. No Court order, of which I’m aware. No due process. Just merely a request from Federal law enforcement and suddenly Reinking was an illegal firearm possessor under the law.

In other words, licensure becomes a “kill switch” on a right unless there are safeguards in place wherein the license can only be suspended or revoked by court order, and only in response to proper adjudication in a Court of Law per the Fourteenth Amendment. And all licenses must be issued on a “shall issue” basis unless the person has been properly adjudicated in such a away as to legitimately deny them their Second Amendment rights. Meaning Illinois’s firearm licensure laws are, themselves, unconstitutional.

Unfortunately not even concealed carry permits carry such protection in most States. For example several years ago, James Yeager released a video online in which, expressing his frustration at the political climate and proposed gun control ideas, he said he might “start killing people”. Not long after that video was released, the State of Tennessee suspended his concealed carry permit.

No due process. No Court order. Just an arbitrary action by the government.

* * * * *

There is one objection the author does not address: the need to pay additional fees and navigate additional bureaucratic red tape to exercise a constitutional right. Along with the racial disparities in how laws are enforced. As has been pointed out time and time again, gun control laws are going to be disproportionately enforced against impoverished minorities for numerous reasons.

So taking on another level of fees to obtain a license to purchase and possess the most common firearm classification in the world will disproportionately affect minorities. Unlicensed possession of said firearms will likely be a felony, not a simple misdemeanor, meaning you risk locking more minorities up in jail on felony charges. Felony convictions come with numerous impairments both in law and society.

So this would basically set up a system that creates more crimes and criminals. That’s the opposite direction we should be going.

Plus as Elliot Rodger already showed, more gun control laws won’t stop mass shootings. Laws alone won’t stop mass shootings, as we saw with the Tennessee Waffle House shooting. Since laws don’t stop crimes from happening. Only prescribe consequences for said crimes after the fact, provided those crimes can be demonstrated to have occurred beyond reasonable doubt in a Court of Law.

Which is why it’s laughable that in response to an anti-gun objection to his proposal:

OK, but if we don’t have a gun registry and we do away with FFL transfers for license holders, then what’s to stop a license holder from selling a gun to a non-license holder?

he responded with this:

The law is what will stop them. As gun controllers are always fond of reminding people like me, criminalization is a deterrent.

It isn’t the deterrent it needs to be in order for such laws to be effective.

Most gun crimes are committed by one particular racial demographic in the United States. Yet gun control is only proposed when people – particularly children – of another demographic are targeted. So in many ways, the issue is very black and white, respectively.

Plus the continuous demand for more gun laws is tacit admission that all the other laws we currently have on the books – and there are a lot of them – haven’t done jack for violent crime, homicide, and suicide in the United States. And they largely have not, will not, and cannot.

I’ve shown that gun laws are not correlated with violent crimes. That looser gun laws doesn’t mean more violent crime, and it doesn’t mean less violent crime in general either. Same with that stronger gun laws don’t net less violent crime. But there is an exception wherein looser gun laws do mean less robberies in metropolitan areas. And stronger gun laws do not translate into lower suicide rates.

So this whole licensure idea, like the ideas of requiring gun owners have liability insurance, is just another idea intended on throwing more fees and bureaucratic red tape in front of the Second Amendment. And it will ultimately not do anything to curtail violent crime in the United States.

In continuing the analysis of gun control laws and violent crime, let’s turn our attention to robbery rates. Source for the robbery rates comes from the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2016, Table 3. And this time I’m grouping the States by their grade from the Giffords anti-gun group for 2016.

Now the Giffords group gives States a letter grade, ranging from A to F. California is the only State with an A, and half the States (25) have an F rating. Numerically for any trend calculations, I substituted the letter grades for these numbers: A = 2, A- = 3, B+ = 4 … D- = 12, F = 13.

One of the leading arguments in favor of concealed carry and the right to bear arms is the ability to defend yourself and others. The idea of the shop keeper with a shotgun behind the counter, for example. And the carrier of a concealed weapon using that to deter a mugging on the street.

I’ve already shown that gun control laws largely do not affect violent crime overall. Robbery, however, is different.

For this analysis, I grouped together all States with similar letter grades into one grouping to eliminate situations wherein only one or two States had a particular grade. For example California is the only State with an A, so I grouped it with all States with an A- rating. This provided five groups.

That’s a pretty steady progression on the mean and minimum robbery rates based on grade level. As the gun laws loosen, the risk of being a robbery victim steadily goes down.

Now two things to point out. The 215.6 robbery rate – Nevada – is an obvious outlier looking at the data. Without it, the range goes up to 171, which is Maryland. But the overall mean and median don’t drop much: 78.8 and 79.2, respectively.

And then there’s the fact that A and B States do not have robbery rates going below 50.0 robberies per 100,000. The highest-graded State with a robbery rate below 50.0 is Iowa at 36.6 and graded at a C. And that’s the only State above a D with that low of a rate.

The States with the five highest robbery rates are Nevada (215.6, C-), Maryland (171, A-), Delaware (142.7, B-), California (139.6, A), and Illinois (139.3, B). The States with the five lowest robbery rates are all States scored at F: Wyoming (10.1), Idaho (12.7), Vermont (17.0), Maine (20), and North Dakota (23.9).

In short, you infringe on someones’ right to bear arms through onerous gun control laws, and you make the law abiding more likely to be robbery victims.

But this isn’t the end of the story. As I’ve pointed out before, the FBI further divides the violent crime rates – robbery included – by “Metropolitan Statistical Area”, “Cities outside metropolitan areas”, and “Nonmetropolitan counties”. Here the numbers definitely show that robbery is a metropolitan problem.

Cities outside metropolitan areas:

These States did not have data available for this: Hawaii (A-), New Jersey (A-), Rhode Island (B+), Delaware (B), Indiana (D-), and Arizona (F).

Not nearly as clean a progression here. The numbers show though that you’ll tend to have lower robbery rates in the States rated at C. For all other grades, it’s a mixed bag, though some D and F-rated States do have lower robbery rates than A and B-rated States, and the highest rates are seen with D and F-rated States.

Overall, though, it’s about all over the place. The R² score was 0.0078, meaning no inference can be drawn about how well a State is rated versus that State’s robbery rate.

The five (5) States with the highest robbery rates in this group for robbery rate are Georgia (F, 111.3), California (A, 115.3), North Carolina (D-, 134.8), Mississippi (F, 142.4), and South Carolina (F, 150.2). The five (5) States with the lowest robbery rates are Wisconsin (C-, 10.2), Wyoming (F, 10.9), Idaho (F, 12.5), Michigan (C, 13.1), and Utah (F, 14.8).

Note as well that all States with a robbery rate under 25.0 are all graded C+ or lower with the exception of Massachusetts, which is graded at an A-. Of all the States with a robbery rate that is below the average for “Cities outside metropolitan areas”, all but 4 are graded at C+ or lower.

Metropolitan Statistical Area:

Here the correlation seen from the combined rates in the first table are a little more prominent. On the average and minimum values, we see a clear downward progression as the grades go from A to F. The R² score 0.0222, which basically means while States graded lower have a tendency for lower robbery rates, there isn’t really any predictive value that can be garnered here. The most we can say is that States with looser gun laws tend to have lower robbery rates in their metro areas.

This is reflected by the fact the five (5) States with the lowest robbery rate in this category are all rated F: Idaho (15.1), Wyoming (16.7), Vermont (24.8), Maine (25.1), and North Dakota (36.6). Indeed 7 of the 8 States with the lowest robbery rates in this category are all rated F, with the loner being New Hampshire rated with a D.

The five (5) States with the highest robbery rates in this category are Illinois (B+, 154.9), New Mexico (F, 173.5), Maryland (A-, 174.3), Alaska (F, 211.5), and Nevada (C-, 235.8). California comes in at No. 8 when sorting States by their robbery rates in descending order.

Nonmetropolitan counties:

These States did not have data available for this: Massachusetts (A-), New Jersey (A-), Rhode Island (B+), Delaware (B), Idaho (F), and Arizona (F).

This is very similar to what was observed with the “Cities outside metropolitan areas” chart, with States rated at a C being the overall best States in this group. But the D and F-rated States again show a tendency to have lower robbery rates than A and B-rated States given the minimum values. The R² value is 0.0068 – virtually no predictive value. In part due to how infrequent robberies are in non-metro/rural areas.

The five States with the lowest robbery rates in this category are Wyoming (F, 1.25), Iowa (C, 1.61), South Dakota (F, 2.62), Nebraska (D, 2.75), and Minnesota (C+, 3.58). The five States with the highest robbery rates in this category are Florida (F, 24.4), Mississippi (F, 26.2), California (A, 33.0), Hawaii (A-, 33.6), and South Carolina (F, 41.7).