Gun Nuts Media

A few bloggers that I know of, as well as myself, have Type 03 FFL licenses; or as they’re referred to in the vernacular, a C&R license. As you probably know, C&R stands for Curio & Relic, which is a specific class of firearm as defined by the BATF. Sebastian gives a pretty good explanation of what exactly a C&R gun is – basically it’s a gun that is either A) on the list, or B) more than fifty years old. I’ve talked a wee bit about C&R in the past, and now that I’ve had my license for a while there is plenty more to talk about.

One of the big things about C&R guns is the old “collect or shoot” question. Some firearms that are classified as C&R are quite valuable, and there are plenty of people who purchase C&R firearms for the collector value, and never really shoot them. That’s fine, but it’s not my cup of tea. While the historical and collector appeal of certain guns is still there for me, my primary goal when purchasing C&R firearms is to have more guns to shoot. Sitting there and looking pretty isn’t really a concern.

Something neat about being interested in C&R guns as shooters is that you will sometimes get really good deals. For example, an old Colt revolver that’s been reblued has lost a lot of its collector value due to the reblue process. If you’re lucky, that means it gets priced lower and you can snap it up. Similarly, guns that have barrels shortened, or different sights installed can also loose a lot of their collector value; again that should lower the price on the C&R market.

I’ve had a couple of people ask me about using a C&R gun as a carry gun. If you can find one that works for you, go for it. The biggest issue with that is since you’re probably dealing with a gun that is 50+ years old, make sure it is in perfect functioning condition before you carry it. Now that I’ve said, the CZ-82 in 9mm Makarov was recently classified by the ATF as a C&R. This is a thoroughly modern, and recent manufactured pistol. If you were going to get a carry gun via a C&R license, that would be my first recommendation. If you’re leaning more towards the revolver side of things, the C&R market is littered with old S&W’s and Colts. If you pick carefully, you could quite easily get a fine functioning .38 Special.

The other “fun” thing to do with C&R guns is make projects out of them. There are some guns available that are in “almost” functioning condition, or are pretty beat up, etc. You get an old wheelgun for $100 bucks and then you can tinker with it; if you damage it beyond repair it’s not like you just broke your $1000 CQB Tactical Destroyer. Or, if you’re like me, you’re scheming ways to buy an old Smith for $150-$200 and then it off to Bowen Custom and have all sorts of fun things done to it. Sure, it would tank the “value” of the gun, but I’ve always wanted a Bowen customized S&W.

The long and short of it is that C&R is a fun, and often inexpensive hobby. While the major drawback is that the ATF can audit your records at any time, it is really, really cool to have guns shipped directly to your house.
–

In terms of the blogworld, something that happened in May of this year might as well have happened a million years ago. So you can imagine my surprise when I found a new comment on this post, which I wrote in the wake of the murder of a New Hampshire police officer, and the subsequent righteous drilling of his murderer.

The comment was written by this guy, who, judging from his blog seems to think that the shooting of Liko Kenney was premeditated, and then covered up. In his comment, he linked me to this article in the Boston Magazine, which recounts several of the previous run-ins that Bruce McKay (the cop) had with Liko Kenney (the murderous scumbag) in the past.

While the article in the Boston Magazine does not paint either man in a very positive light, it does present the fact that they had a history together; it also manages (because it’s a Boston magazine, I guess) to get a jab in at the 2nd Amendment and present a conspiracy theory all in the same article. Here’s the 2nd Amendment jab:

In backwoods New Hampshire, there is no Second Amendment debate. Many of the firearms its residents own are rifles and shotguns, for hunting. But plenty are handguns, for killing.

It’s pretty typical fare from a Massachusetts writer, I can’t say as I’m surprised. He manages to not only imply that only backwoods people like firearms, but then explicitly states that “handguns are only for killing”. Not only is it wrong, it’s downright insulting. I guess if handguns are for killing, I must be doing something wrong with mine.

However, the conspiracy theory part is so bad it’s almost laughable. If you remember the case details, Kenney was shot by a civilian, who was cleared of wrongdoing by the DA and the police. Now, the civilian was no choirboy himself, however to suggest the following seems pretty ridiculous.

Bill Kenney is among those who theorize that Floyd was an informal backup for McKay, operating on a kind of buddy system.

Floyd being the civilian that shot Kenney, of course. I…don’t understand conspiracy theories like that – it’s like the person has some sort of defect in their brain that causes them to ignore things like facts and the truth. It doesn’t make sense to me.

However, beyond those two issues, the Boston Magazine article seems to present things in a reasonably fair light. Kenney had a past of defying authority, and McKay was a hard-nosed cop. There are thousands of stories where a scofflaw runs into a hard nosed cop from all over the country, and it is unfortunate that this one ended tragically.

Now; however let us move back to the blogger who originally brought my attention to this matter. A casual perusal of his blog shows repeated attacks on McKay’s character, insinuations that McKay was a closet homosexual who abused prisoners, and in general an entire slew of rather undignified remarks. I get the impression that blogger is trying to defend Kenney’s brutal murder of Corporal McKay as somehow justified, based on the specious evidence that McKay was a “bad cop”.

I fail to see the point in all of that, especially after the fact. To me, it shows a general lack of character, especially in the light of the circumstances. We’ve discussed the tactical situation in the shooting, but the meat of the matter is that Kenney shot McKay in the back four times. From a self defense standpoint, backshooting people is rarely if ever justified. At that time he was shot, McKay didn’t present a credible threat to Kenney, yet Kenney went ahead and shot him in the back. No matter what spin you put on it, or however many ad hominem attacks you level at McKay; shooting him in the back wasn’t justified.

And that’s my problem with this whole thing. The shootings were a tragedy, absolutely. No matter which way you slice it, two people lost their lives. However, dragging McKay’s name through the mud in some kind of misguided effort to vindicate the man who shot him in the back doesn’t even make sense.

Unless you honestly believe that the whole thing was premeditated by Floyd and McKay to murder Kenney but went wrong resulting in McKay’s death. Of course, if you believe that, well…you’re an idiot.
–

The mindset behind editorials like this. The author is concerned about her and her husband’s safety. She asks if they should buy and gun, and eventually comes to the conclusion that they shouldn’t, out of fear for the safety of their granddaughters.

She then relates her personal story of how she was almost shot with an “unloaded” gun. Unfortunately, it seems that she took the entirely wrong lesson away from that long past incident. Instead of taking to heart the tremendously important value in teaching your children the dangers of firearms and safe firearms handling, she came to the usual “guns am bad” conclusion.

The op-ed concludes with the following mind boggling quote.

In our house, we’ll remain unarmed.

Defenseless is better than discovering someone we love dead.

Seriously? The concept of being defenseless actually leaves me with a sick feeling in my stomach. I have a home alarm. I use it, as well. But I certainly don’t bet my life, or the life of my family on the hope that Brinks will get the law to my house in time.

People. If you have guns in your house, and children, you need to teach your children to not play with them. And especially, to not ever point them at another person. Ever. To counter the personal story from the op-ed, allow me to share my personal experience.

My father had guns in the house. I knew where the guns were, and where the ammo was. Sometimes, if I was home alone, I’d go and look at them. The thought of picking one up and pulling the trigger? Never even crossed my mind. Sure, I thought they were cool; but I also knew that you didn’t go around playing with guns. By the time I was eight I knew to treat all guns like they were loaded.

One of things I’ve been meaning to do is write the partner series to the Self-Defense articles (Part 1 and Part 2) – the partner articles being about home defense. I’ll start on those tomorrow, part one will focus on non-firearms related options for securing the safety of your home.
–