The Legion

Today is National Purple Heart Day August 7. This is my Grandfathers Purple Heart from World War I. PURPLE HEART DAY Purple Heart Day, on August 7th, commemorates the creation of the oldest American military decoration for military merit. The Purple Heart honors the men and women who are of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. During the American Revolutionary War, the Badge for Military Merit decorated six known soldiers. General George Washington created the Badge of Merit in 1782. Washington intended the honor to be presented to soldiers for “any singularly meritorious action.” Its design included a purple, heart-shaped piece of silk bound with a thin edge of silver. Across the face, the word Merit was embroidered in silver. While the badge symbolized the courage and devotion of an American Patriot, no one knows who designed the award. Until Washington’s 200th birthday, the Purple Heart persisted as a Revolutionary War footnote. Through the efforts of General Douglas MacArthur, the U.S. War Department created the Order of the Purple Heart. Today the medal bears a bust of George Washington and his coat of arms. While an accurate and complete list of names no longer exists, National Geographic recently estimated that nearly 1.9 million service members have earned Purple Hearts since its creation. It is the oldest U.S. military honor still bestowed upon service members today. Until 1944, the Purple Heart recognized service members’ commendable actions as well. Then in 1944, the requirements limited the award to only those wounded or killed in combat. Purple Heart Firsts William Brown and Elijah Churchill received the Badge of Military Merit during the Revolutionary War when the award first replaced the Fidelity Medallion. Army General Douglas MacArthur received the first modern-day Purple Heart. Army Lt. Annie G. Fox received the Purple Heart during World War II for her actions during the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I check Powder Valley 9 or 10 times a day and missed those primers. When they come up they go fast. Glad you got them.

I ordered a set of Hogue rubber grips for the 29. I will let you know how they work with the speed loaders when I get them on the gun.

I picked up a speed loader for the Model 29 today and I can say it did work, but it was a tight fit.

Right know I do not know just got the gun yesterday. There are some grips that will not let you use a speed loader. I will let you know.

You are correct about the grips. They are some of the best looking and feeling grips I have had on any revolver I have owned in the past.

It took me awhile to find ammo for it, but was able to locate some. I have never shot a 44 magnum before so I am looking forward in the experience of this mighty handgun.

I have been wanting one of these S&W Model 29-10 44 Magnum's ever since I saw my first Dirty Harry movie. This gun has been at Guns and Ammo in Memphis for sometime. Every time I come into the store I take a look at it. Yesterday I bit the bullet and picked it up. Once I get it to the range I will give an update on how it shoots.

Today I picked up my new CZ Shadow 2 ACCU Optic RDS from CZ Custom Shop. I have not had a chance to shoot it yet, but will do a review in the next few weeks.

https://wreg.com/news/bill-to-carry-guns-without-permit-passes-tennessee-house-committee-vote-despite-pleas-from-memphis-leaders/ MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A bill that would allow Tennesseans to carry guns without a permit passed its first hurdle in the state capitol, after the Memphis police director told lawmakers it would be detrimental to the city’s safety Memphis Police Director Michael Rallings went to Nashville to express his concern to lawmakers, but it didn’t work. “With masks and guns, it will appear to be the wild, wild West,” Rallings said. The bill would allow Tennesseans 21 and older, or a military member between 18 and 20, to go armed without a permit. It sparked hours of discussion Tuesday in the House Judiciary Committee, where it ultimately passed. Shelby County Crime Commission President Bill Gibbons said he’s nervous about what it could mean for convicted felons. “They will be emboldened to carry firearms even more and openly, because they know there is no basis for police to stop them and ask if they have a permit,” Gibbons said. Rallings also addressed lawmakers, saying he believes permitless carry will increase violence at a time when violent crime is up 5% in the Bluff City, aggravated assaults and shootings up 8% and murders up 30%. He said 90% of the murders so far this year were committed with firearms. He also told lawmakers he thinks it will endanger the lives of your men and women on the MPD force. “I fully believe in our Second Amendment right; however, I am against illegal guns,” Rallings explained Wednesday. “By moving forward with this law, we are going in the wrong direction.” Rallings released a further statement Wednesday, saying: I went before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, standing up for the safety of all the citizens of Tennessee. I am not against guns, and I fully believe in our Second Amendment right; however, I am against illegal guns and guns that are being used to kill kids and law-abiding citizens. We are losing too many lives to gun violence. By moving forward with this law, we are going in the wrong direction. The last thing Tennessee needs is gun legislation that will allow the permitless carry of handguns, concealed or unconcealed, without a permit. We have a permit process in place. We should leave the system as is which requires training and a background check. Maintaining these guidelines is crucial for everyone’s safety. Kat McRitchie with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America said it’s extremely frustrating to see the legislature take up bills that she says are not essential bills in this coronavirus pandemic. “The permitting system is our mechanism as citizens, to demonstrate what responsible carrying looks like,” she said. But others disagree, like state Rep. Bruce Griffey (R-Paris). “I do not think it’s proper for this legislative body to tell a law abiding citizen that you have to go do something extra to protect yourself, your family and your home,” Griffey said. The bill also contains a part that would stiffen penalties for stealing a gun, making it a felony and mandating a six-month sentence. Gibbons said the crime commission would support that part of the bill. Supporters of the bill feel like it will only be a around a $3 million loss for the state. Gibbons felt like that was too optimistic and thinks it’s going to be more around $20 million. The bill has more hurdles to cross before it becomes law. It next goes to House Finance Committee.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alito-dissent-gun-supreme-court The Supreme Court on Monday refused to decide on the constitutionality of a controversial New York City gun law that has since changed, ruling in an unsigned opinion that the case is now "moot" because of the changes in the law. The court's move to even hear the gun rights case despite a perceived procedural issue previously drew veiled threats from Democratic senators who filed a brief in the case, saying "[t]he Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'" The statute in question initially restricted the transportation of firearms outside city limits -- even when licensed, locked and unloaded. The city's statute was later amended after the Supreme Court agreed to review it and New York state passed a law overruling the original version of the city's law. The court heard arguments over the original measure anyway. "After we granted certiorari, the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city, which is the precise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint," the unsigned opinion read. "Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule is therefore moot," it continued. The Supreme Court sent the case back down to lower courts for undefined further action. But Justice Samuel Alito issued a lengthy dissent in which he not only disputed whether the case is moot, but tore into the original New York City law as clearly unconstitutional. Alito argued that the New York gun owners who sued over the original law didn't get "all the prospective relief they seek" because there was still a lack of clarity in the new version of the law on what travel restrictions actually apply to gun owners. Gun owners under the new law are told they have to bring their guns directly between their homes and gun ranges they wish to practice at with only "reasonably necessary" stops. "But the meaning of a 'reasonably necessary' stop is hardly clear," Alito wrote. "What about a stop to buy groceries just before coming home? Or a stop to pick up a friend who also wants to practice at a range outside the City? Or a quick visit to a sick relative or friend who lives near a range? The City does not know the answer to such questions." Alito also noted that if the Supreme Court ruled the original law was unconstitutional, then the gun owners on the case could seek damages from the city for the violation of their rights. On the actual merits of New York City's now-replaced law, Alito made clear he thinks it violates the Second Amendment. "This is not a close question," he wrote. "If history is not sufficient to show that the New York City ordinance is unconstitutional, any doubt is dispelled by the weakness of the City’s showing that its travel restriction significantly promoted public safety. Although the courts below claimed to apply heightened scrutiny, there was nothing heightened about what they did," Alito said. Alito continued, scolding the city over its arguments. "In sum, the City’s travel restriction burdened the very right recognized in Heller," Alito said, referring to the landmark gun rights case. "History provides no support for a restriction of this type. The City’s public safety arguments were weak on their face, were not substantiated in any way, and were accepted below with no serious probing. And once we granted review in this case, the City’s public safety concerns evaporated." Alito's dissent was joined in its entirety by Justice Neil Gorsuch and in part by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued his own opinion, straddling the fence between the unsigned opinion that refused to rule on the merits of the New York City law while also agreeing with Alito that lower courts are not sufficiently protecting the Second Amendment. "I agree with the per curiam opinion’s resolution of the procedural issues before us—namely, that petitioners’ claim for injunctive relief against New York City’s old rule is moot," Kavanaugh wrote. "And I share JUSTICE ALITO’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court." While the case is a defeat for gun rights advocates, there may be a silver lining for those who wish to see the Supreme Court reinforce Second Amendment rights in the near future. With Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch all putting their names on opinions raising concerns about infringement of gun rights, there appears to be a large enough contingent of justices with a desire to boost such rights to force the court to hear future cases on the issue -- likely without the messy procedural issues in the New York case. The Supreme Court agrees to hear cases under the "rule of four," meaning that if just four justices want the court to accept a case, the court will hear it. The dissenting and concurring opinions from conservative justices got the attention of at least one gun-control group. "We remain concerned that a number of Justices appear to have an appetite to expand gun rights at the risk of Americans’ rights to enact the gun laws they want and need," Brady United President Kris Brown said in a statement. "Brady remains determined and vigilant in our fight for Americans’ right to live, and self-determination on public safety issues, a fight which is far from over." But other gun-control advocates saw the case as a victory, pure and simple. "Today’s decision to dismiss the case as moot is a victory for the rule of law and common-sense, constitutional gun safety laws. It’s yet another loss for an NRA and gun lobby that are in disarray and at odds with the majority of Americans who want the government to keep them safe," Hannah Shearer, the litigation director at the Giffords Law Center, said in a statement. "This case is not moot," Alito concluded. "The City violated petitioners’ Second Amendment right, and we should so hold."

..

This happened in May 5, 2019, but the footage was released today. On May 5, 2019, the plane was en route su1492 from Moscow to Murmansk. 27 minutes after take-off he was forced to return to Sheremetyevo airport due to technical problems on board. During the landing, the airliner suffered damage that caused a fire, which caused the plane to partially burn down. As a result, 41 people out of 78 aboard were killed.

https://www.guns.com/news/2020/04/13/priorities-virginia-governor-signs-5-anti-gun-bills-into-law 04/13/20 2:58 AM | by Chris Eger Virginia Governor Ralph Northam on Friday signed the vanguard of a phalanx of gun control legislation into law, to the cheers of anti-gun advocates. Northam, a Democrat who ran for office with the endorsement and support of gun control groups backed by billionaire former New York Michael Bloomberg, took advantage of a narrowly shifted blue polarity in the state legislature to get the package of bills to his desk. The measures include a so-called “red flag” gun seizure law, expanded background checks on all gun sales, a law penalizing gun owners who had their firearms stolen, and rationing handgun sales to one per month. Although the bills were muscled through Richmond on largely party-line votes against grass-roots efforts by thousands of gun owners, Northam said he was, “proud to work with legislators and advocates on these measures, and I am proud to sign them into law.” The new laws include: Senate Bill 70 and House Bill 2 expand background checks to include firearm transfers between individuals. As noted by the NRA, “Under this extreme legislation, even lending a brother your rifle for a deer hunt or letting your daughter borrow a handgun for self-defense could land otherwise law-abiding Virginians with a felony conviction and up to 5 years in jail.” Senate Bill 240 and House Bill 674 establishes Extreme Risk Protection Orders, the sort of “red flag” law adopted in 17 other states that allow police to request guns be removed from individuals thought to be a danger. The order, which could last for as much as 180 days, would require the individual to petition the court to have their gun rights restored. Senate Bill 69 and House Bill 812 restricts handgun purchases to one a month. Violators could face as much as 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. House Bill 9 requires lost or stolen firearms are reported to the police within 24 hours of discovery. Gun owners who fail to do this could face a civil penalty of up to $250. House Bill 1083 restricts access to firearms to youth under 18, with the punishment being up to a Class 6 felony under Virginia law. Northam’s signature on the bills was acclaimed by national anti-gun groups such as the Brady Campaign, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Everytown, Giffords and Moms Demand Action. “We fought hard with local lawmakers and advocates to get this done,” noted Giffords. “On July 1, these bills become law. This is why elections matter.” At least two other bills sent to Northam were forwarded back to state lawmakers for proposed changes. While a ban on most semi-auto firearms and federally-registered suppressors was only narrowly defeated by lawmakers after some Democrats crossed the aisle to oppose it, Northam said on a press call last week that the measure would return. “I will not stop and that piece of legislation will be introduced again to ban assault weapons [from] our streets,” promised the Governor. Meanwhile, the Commonwealth has seen a huge jump in gun and ammo sales over the past several months. This, said House Republican Leader Todd Gilbert in a statement, proved that the bills were not popular among Virginia residents, and Northam’s joy at their passage defied common sense. “To take a victory lap on such a controversial issue at a time when Virginians are buying firearms at a record pace to protect themselves and their families is counterintuitive,” said Gilbert. “To do so at a time when we need all Virginians unified in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic is counterproductive. It was clear from the moment these bills were introduced that they would impact law-abiding gun owners far more than criminals. It’s an unfortunate last chapter in the story of Michael Bloomberg’s efforts to reshape Virginia.”

That is the first thing that came to my mind also.

Here is the latest update on the GlockStore coming to Nashville.

It looks like MSSA in Arlington, TN is open. This is the message on their web page. Please note that the MSSA will be open for business at 8:00 AM as of April 6th, 2020.

I saw that happen on several occasions during Marine Corps boot camp.

"Can You Find the Pug in the Picture"

..

Two Guys With A Plan???