TN: Naifeh screws us twice in one day

The TN house Republican party needs their collective heads examined (or pulled out of their asses) for allowing this piece of crap to keep the job as Speaker. Again he used his position to keep the full House from voting on bills he personally doesn't like.

Owners' permit records will stay open to public

Naifeh's actions help reverse earlier passage

By THEO EMERY
Staff Writer

A proposal to make secret the names and addresses of Tennesseans who have handgun carry permits died in a whirlwind of political intrigue Wednesday, aided by state House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh.

First, freshman House member Henry Fincher engineered a vote on the bill while two of its opponents — two of his more senior colleagues — were out of the room.

In turn, Naifeh reversed the vote with the help of the House's newest member, Karen Camper, who had been sworn in only about an hour earlier.

The end result: The names and addresses of permit holders will remain public for now.

"When the majority party finds it doesn't have the votes it needs to accomplish what it wants to accomplish — in this case, trampling on the Second Amendment rights of Tennesseans — it massages the rules and finds a way to get it accomplished," House Republican Leader Jason Mumpower said.

The House Criminal Practice Subcommittee had a calendar of nearly 90 bills to consider Wednesday.

The group first approved the bill in question — voting to close the gun permit records — when two members of the committee who opposed the idea, Reps. Rob Briley and Janis Sontany, were out of the room.

When the two Nashville Democrats were gone, Fincher, a Cookeville Democrat, called the bill up for a vote, and it was quickly approved without debate.

A short time later, Naifeh arrived at the subcommittee meeting from the swearing-in ceremony for Camper, a Democrat recently appointed to fill a vacant House seat from Shelby County.

Naifeh added Camper to the subcommittee. The two then joined with the bill's opponents to reverse the earlier vote and banished the legislation until 2012.

The speaker afterward said he had not talked with Camper about the vote beforehand, and that they went to the committee hearing only because she had said she was interested in being on the House Judiciary Committee.

"That's just how it happened," he said.

Mumpower said the voting was not "the proper way that things should have been run."

Naifeh said that he would prefer not to have to cast committee votes as speaker, "but when it's a matter of importance, I do."

Publication spurred bill

The legislation was proposed after The Tennessean posted on its Web site a database listing the names and counties of residence of every handgun permit holder in the state. The Senate version of the bill is scheduled for a floor vote today.

This was not the first time that Naifeh had cast votes to kill gun legislation.

Two weeks ago, he dropped in on the same subcommittee to vote against several other gun-related bills. House rules allow him to make such votes as speaker.

And a year ago, Naifeh also brought a newly sworn-in House member to the House Agricultural Committee, where she cast a key vote that helped pass a cigarette tax increase.

Fincher defended his decision to call up the bill when Sontany and Briley were out of the room, saying, "We voted with the members that were in the room, as we have on every bill that we had a quorum with today.

"I'm a strong supporter of gun owner rights, and their confidentiality, and I believe that that is an important value to be upheld by the legislature," he said.

Fincher said he didn't take the reversal of the vote as a reprimand.

"I didn't take it that way. I think they had strong feelings on the bill, as did I. They had the votes."

Frank Gibson, director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, said that the gun permit records should be open to scrutiny and that the bill was initially approved in the subcommittee without any discussion or debate.

"There has to be some way for the public and the press to know whether the program is being properly administered and to ensure that permits are not given to people who by law are not supposed to be able to carry them," he said.

The chairman of the full judiciary committee, Rep. Kent Coleman, a Murfreesboro Democrat, said he was taken by surprise when Fincher called the bill up for a vote.

He said he didn't like the idea of closing the gun permit records, but he initially voted in favor of the bill in a parliamentary tactic, so that he could later make a motion to have that vote reconsidered.

Bill to allow handguns in bars dies

By THEO EMERY
Staff Writer

A bill that would have allowed gun owners to bring handguns into bars and other establishments serving alcohol died on Wednesday at the urging of House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh, the bill's sponsor said.

The so-called "guns in bars" bill had been introduced and defeated numerous times in previous years. It was recently the butt of a segment on the Colbert Report television show, with video footage of Senate sponsor Doug Jackson, a Dickson Democrat, at a gun range shooting at an apple pie, a hot dog and a baseball.

House sponsor Joe McCord, a Maryville Republican, said a pre-hearing discussion Wednesday with Naifeh and fellow committee member Rep. Rob Briley made him "painfully aware" that the legislation could not be approved in its current form.

He told the committee that "responsible" legislation would require legal definitions of bars and nightclubs that don't exist under state law. Further study was needed to hammer out those definitions, he said.

"Over the summer, we are going to have to try to come up with a definition of nightclub or a definition of bar that currently does not exist in codes," he said. "That is the only way I think that we can accomplish the goal."

Naifeh, a Covington Democrat, appeared briefly in the House Criminal Practices Subcommittee on Wednesday, conferred with lawmakers and lawyers for several minutes, and then left.

He didn't vote on the "guns in bars" bill, although he could have. He is allowed to vote under House rules.

He later returned to the same subcommittee meeting Wednesday to reverse another vote on a bill that would have made private information about people who have state-issued handgun carry permits.

__________________
"If I was an extremist, our founding fathers would all be extremists," he said. "Without them, we wouldn't have our independence. We'd be a disarmed British system of feudal subjectivity."

The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment

The Six Things Americans Should Know
About the Second Amendment

by Richard W. Stevens

The text of the Second Amendment:

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

FIRST: The Second Amendment protects an individual right that existed before the creation of any government. The Declaration of Independence made clear that all human beings are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are created to protect those rights.

A. The unalienable right to freedom from violent harm, and the right to self-defense, both exist before and outside of secular government.

1. Torah: Exodus 22:2.

2. Talmud: Jewish law set forth in the Talmud states, “If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.” (Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994,2, 72a; The Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth. 1990, 58a, 62b).

3. Roman Catholic Doctrine: Christian doctrine has long asserted the right and duty of self defense. “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.” See Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, sections 2263-65 (citing and quoting Thomas Aquinas).

4. Protestant Doctrine: Individual has personal and unalienable right to self-defense, even against government. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex [1644]1982, pp. 159-166, 183-185 (Sprinkle Publications edition.) Jesus advised his disciples to arm themselves in view of likely persecution. Luke 22:36.

B. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1690) aimed at reforming Britain’s monarchy and parliamentary system and limiting the power of government, and profoundly influenced the Founders and all Western Civilization. John Locke explained that civil government properly exists to more effectively protect the rights that all individuals have in the “state of nature.” The individuals have the rights to life, liberty, and property. They give civil government the power over themselves only to the extent that it better protects those rights. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically declared that the ideas of John Locke’s Second Treatise were “generally approved by the citizens of the United States.”Jefferson mandated that Locke’s Second Treatise be taught in theUniversity of Virginia.

C. Christian religious thinkers, such as Samuel Rutherford (in Lex, Rex, 1644) argued that man’s rights come from G-d. Using Biblical principles and examples, they argued against the notion that kings ruled by divine right. To be legitimate authorities, all governments must uphold man’s rights and do justice. Otherwise, the people owe a lawless and tyrannical ruler no allegiance at all.

D. Cicero, Rome’s leading orator, had early argued that the right to self-defense was natural and inborn, and not a creation of the government.The right to use weapons was a necessary part of the right to self-defense — any view to the contrary was silly nonsense. [Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of A Constitutional Right (1984), p. 17, fn 76-77.]

E. The right to keep and bear arms simply implements the unalienable right to individual self-defense against aggression of any kind. The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people” (not the state) as a pre-existing right that government must respect.

F. The United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, indicated that the word “people” in the Second Amendment referred to individuals, not to states. [494 U.S. 259 (1990)] (This was not a holding or ruling of law, but an observation by the Court).

SECOND: The language of the Second Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from “infringing” on this right of the people. There is nothing ambiguous about “shall not be infringed.” (See Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2d ed.1983, p. 941.) The language of the Second Amendment is about as clear as the First Amendment’s prohibiting Congress from infringing the right to freedom of speech, press, and religious expression. There is no logical reason to read the Second Amendment as a weak statement, while treating the First Amendment as a strong protector of rights.

A. The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right and should be read broadly because it implements the right of self-defense. Self-defense is the ultimate right of all individuals to preserve life. The rights to a free press, free speech, assembly, and religion are extremely important — but none of them matters very much if you can’t defend your own life against aggression. None of them matters very much when an evil government is fully armed and its citizens are disarmed.

B. Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the U.S. Constitution refer to Congress’s powers concerning the state militias. Clause 15 empowersCongress to “call forth” the state militias into national service for specific purposes. Clause 16 empowers Congress to organize, arm and discipline the state militias, and to govern the militias while they are in national service. The Second Amendment confines Congress’s power by guaranteeing that the Congress cannot “govern” the militias right out of existence and thereby disarm “the people.”

THIRD: The Second Amendment refers to “a well-regulated militia.”The right of the people to form citizen militias was unquestioned by the Founders.

A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]

B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]

C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]

D. There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase “well-regulated” means well-trained and disciplined — not “regulated” as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]

E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.

F. The Third Amendment: Expressly restrains the federal governmentfrom building a standing army and infiltrating it among the people ...and at the people’s expense ... in times of peace. The Third Amendment runs against the idea of a permanent standing army or federalized National Guard in principle, if not by its words.

FOURTH: The Second Amendment begins with the phrase “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” Some people argue that this phrase limits the right to keep and bear arms to militias only ... which they say means the National Guard. Very recent research shows, however, that it was the style of writing legal documents in the late 1700’s to include a preamble. The Constitution has a preamble, the Bill of Rights has a preamble — yet people don’t argue that the Constitution is limited by the preamble. Professor Eugene Volokh at the UCLA Law School has examined numerous other state constitutions of the same general time period, and observed this kind of preamble language in many of them. (The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N.Y. Univ. Law Rev. 793-821 (1998)). The preamble states a purpose, not a limitation on the language in these government charters.

A. Examples:

• New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 contained a preamble for the freedom of the press: “The Liberty of the Press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.”

• Rhode Island’s 1842 state constitution recited a preamble before its declaration of the right of free speech and press: “The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty...”

• New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 also contained a detailed preamble and explanation of purpose for its right to a criminal trial in the vicinity where the crime occurred.

• The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution and the 1786 Vermont Constitution, all contained preambles or explanations of the right of freedom of speech and debate in the state legislatures.

• The New Hampshire Constitution also gave an explanation, right in the text, for why there should be no ex post facto laws.

B. The Second Amendment falls right within the style of legal drafting of the late 1700’s. The “militia” clause emphasizes the individual right to keep and bear arms by explaining one of its most important purposes. The militia clause does not limit the right.

FIFTH: Before the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment, many states enacted laws that made it illegal for slaves and for free black people to possess firearms (unless they had their master’s permission or a government approval). [See list, with sources in law reviews, in Gran’pa Jack No. 4 ]

A. The Second Amendment did not protect black people then, because(1) it was understood to limit the federal government’s power only and (2) black people were not considered citizens whose rights deserved to be protected. [Dred Scott decision, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Judge Taney observed that if blacks had the privileges and immunities of citizenship, then they would be able to freely possess and carry arms ... unthinkable to Southern slave owners.) [Halbrook, pp. 98, 114-15]

B. The Second Amendment was designed by people who did not want to become slaves to their government, but they were unfortunately and tragically willing to permit private slavery in some states. Now that slavery is abolished,however, all citizens of all races should enjoy the Second Amendment’s legal protection against despotic government.

SIXTH: Several Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that theSecond Amendment does not confer an individual right, but only a collective right of states to form a militia. The federal court decisions cite United States v. Miller as precedent. The 1939 Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller, did not make that ruling. Even in Miller, where only the prosecution filed a brief and the defendant’s position was not even briefed or argued to the Court, the Supreme Court held that the federal government could only regulate firearms that had no military purpose. [307 U.S. 174 (1939)] [See JPFO special report about Miller case]

A. Nowadays, gun prohibitionists want to illegalize firearms unlessthey have a “sporting purpose.” The “sporting purpose” idea was part of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. JPFO has shown that the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 imported much of its organization, content, and phrasing, from the Nazi Weapons Law. [See ... Zelman, Gateway to Tyranny]

B. In contrast, even under the U.S. v. Miller case, the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear military firearms. Learn how the federal courts deceptively and misleadingly employed the Miller decision to deny the individual right to keep and bear arms in Barnett, Can the Simple Cite Be Trusted?: Lower Court Interpretations of United States v. Miller and the Second Amendment, 26 Cumberland Law Review 961-1004 (1996).

C. A federal judge recently struck down a federal “gun control” statute as unconstitutional in United States v. Emerson, 46 F. Supp. 2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999). In his scholarly written opinion, District Judge Cummings exten-sively reviewed the law and historical foundations of the Second Amendment to conclude that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right. The Emerson decision remains pending an appeal in the Fifth Circuit as of this date.

Before a government can become a full-blown tyranny, the government must first disarm its citizens. The Founders of this nation, from their own experience, knew that when government goes bad, liberty evaporates and people die ... unless the people are armed.

CHALLENGE TO AMERICANS

As you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

(1) Look at the enumerated powers of the federal government;

(2) Look at the express limitations on federal power as set forth in theSecond, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments;

(3) Ask yourself, where does the federal government get any power at all to regulate firearms?

(4) Ask yourself, why don’t the high school and college textbooks devote any time to the history, philosophical basis and practical meaning of the Second Amendment?

And then consider that law students and future lawyers likewise have received precious little education about the Second Amendment.

Realize, too, that the judges know just about as little. Then imagine how little the average American knows — based on the average public school coverage of the Constitution.

The protection of our sacred right of self-defense against both petty criminals and oppressive government — the right of civilians to keep and beararms — is in your hands.

The Bill of Rights Sentinel, Fall 2001, pp. 31-33

Join JPFO America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership

- The Liberty Crew

Jerry McEwen...Hero

Mr Jerry McEwen was killed on Tuesday, 18 December attempting to stop a purse snatcher. Mr McEwen was just a normal man, who saw someone robbing a elderly lady and didn't stand idly by and do nothing, he didn't break out his mobile phone and tape a video for YouTube. He did what true men do...he stepped up to the plate and tried to help. Unfortunately...he paid with his life. I didn't know the man...but he is what American men once were...and hopefully can be once again. It's not known if Mr McEwen ever saw the knife. We'll never know if that would have changed his mind. I doubt he would knowingly rush a thug armed with a knife..but he just might have.

Attempting to take on a robber/carjacker/mugger one on one isn't a good idea...even if you're armed. The best thing to do it to try to get a good description of the suspect, car and license plate number. That DOESN'T mean that you won't be seen trying to be a good witness. If that happens..you're in the same boat as Mr McEwen...now what do you do....you protect yourself. Like I posted on TGO( http://www.tngunowners.com/) I'm not going to stand by while some little old lady is getting jacked, but I'm not going to draw down and drop him either. I'll try the good witness thing...if he wants to stop me from doing that...well...he made his choice and so will I.

From the Metro Police website:

Ex-convict Robert Williams, who has a history of violent offenses, is being sought for Tuesday afternoon’s murder of Jerry J. McEwen outside the Kroger store at 61 E. Thompson Lane. Also being sought is Williams’ presumed girlfriend, Stephanie Lynn Hudson, who drove Williams away from the crime scene. Arrest warrants have been issued charging both with criminal homicide.

McEwen, 54, of Coarsey Drive, was fatally stabbed in the chest as he attempted to stop Williams, who had just robbed a 60-year-old woman of her purse in the Kroger parking lot. The robbery victim fell to the ground during a struggle with Williams. She was not seriously hurt. Williams and Hudson fled the scene in Hudson’s 1991 maroon and silver Ford Explorer.

Williams, 52, was paroled from the state prison system on May 15, 2007 and registered with the Metro police department as an ex-con on May 21, 2007. Williams was convicted in 1983 of assault with intent to murder, armed robbery, and two weapons offenses in Madison County. He was convicted in 1984 of assault with intent to murder in Hickman County. He was sentenced to 38 years and is on supervised parole until the year 2013. Williams had been paroled twice previously, in 1998 and 2000. Those releases were revoked in 1999 and 2001. He was convicted of weapon possession by a convicted felon in Shelby County in 2001.

Hudson, 36, registered with the Metro police department as an ex-convict in November 2006. She received a ten-year sentence for multiple forgery convictions in Marshall County in 1999.

Anyone seeing Robert Williams or Stephanie Hudson, or knowing their whereabouts, is urged to contact the Emergency Communications Center at 862-8600 or their local law enforcement agency. Williams has been known to use the names Roger Williams, Shaheed Rasta, and Rasta Shaheed.

Robert Williams

Stephanie Huson

2nd Admendment gets its day in court?

The supreme court is going to hear the case of the DC gun ban early next year...just in time for the elections. A ton of people are happy that SCOTUS is going to finally hear a 2nd Amendment care. I don't understand it. Too many people think they can "interpret" the smallest Amendment to the Constitution to mean something other than what was intended.Now...I'm not the brightest bulb in the lamp when it comes to law...but follow me on this:None of the other Bill or Rights are even considered to be a "collective right" just the shortest one. What if each of the Bill of Rights were "interpreted" to be a collective right. What if they put the same restrictions on freedom of speech as they did on guns.Just think about that for a minute. In places like Vermont and Alaska, you'd be able to speak your mind. In Tennessee, you'd be able to speak your mind, but not where is was posted a "No Speaking Zone" You couldn't speak out if there was alcohol being sold for on premise consumptionIn Illinois you'd have to license each and every word you wanted to speak.In NYC...no talking at all, unless you've got connections to the ruling political class. they'd send teams of speech police to other states in order to get people to write books they could take back to NYC and hold press conferences to talk about how evil the word are and how the surrounding states need to implement New York style speech control laws.
The 2nd Amendment is pretty simple to under stand:A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
See the commas.....I wish I had a time machine and could go way and whisper in the founding fathers earspsssst....a long time from now...people are going to get stupid..trust me. take out everything but the last part.
happy Thanksgiving everyone...be thankful for everything you have, and remember the men and women that are fighting to keep you safe.

There still is Customer Service

About a month ago I sent my Nighthawk Customs GRP Bobtail back to the factory to have ambi safetys installed. Yes...I know the 1911 guys are launching themselves at the screen right now screaming about how easy it is to install ambis. Nighthawk wants to do ALL the work on their guns themselves. Hand fitting, the right finish,etc. I have installed ambis on other 1911s, it isn't that hard as long as you drop the mainspring out of the way (found that out the hard way)
According to the shop (Guns and Leather, Greenbriar Tennessee) is should only take a few days. After the 1st week, I asked the shop to call and check on the status; that's where the fun begins:
1. They misplaced it..but they have it in hand now (at least twice)
2. The abmis had to be permakoted
3. They misplaced it...again
4. It's ready to be shipped...the next day.
5. (a week later) It's ready to go out the door...again
6. (a few days later) it's shipping tomorrow
I FINALLY get the GRP back...along with a bill for 147.00. I e-mailed Nighthawk before sending it in, and was quoted 80.00. Ben (one of the sales staff at Guns and Leather) didn't feel right about that after all the trouble, so he was going to check with the owner, Dennis and get back to me. I came home and posted over at M1911.org to vent a little bit.
Dennis didn't have to call Nighthawk...they called him. Evidently someone at Nighthawk called him the next morning and told him "we've got a unhappy customer" Poor Dennis didn't have a clue. I wasn't upset at G&L, I was ticked at Nighthawk. After dropping over 2K on a gun, I felt like I was getting shanked a bit, not to mention the delays.
They told Dennis to get in touch with me and do "whatever it takes" to make me happy with Nighthawk again. They also told him to wipe out the bill for installing the ambis.
Wow...just wow. I couldn't believe that level of customer service still existed. I didn't bring it up with the intention of doing anythign other than griping a bit.
Nighthawk really stood up for their mistakes, and went above and beyond to make it right. Remember when great customer service was the norm? Evidently Nighthawk does, and still lives up to their reputation as a great company to deal with.

The Nighthawk Talon II

I figured the best way to express myself today was with my first video blog. Don't expect too much :-)
The grips didn't really show their true nature in the video, so I'll have to get some stills posted. They are a very attractive gray/black mix of G10.

Addition to the armory

I went shooting last week with one of the trainers from HGR Firearms. He was interested in testing out the 1911 style of pistols. He's a Glock shooter, and a damn good one at that. I took out my Kimber Ultra Raptor and my Kimber Pro CDP shown here with her new Kimber magwell for faster reloads


The Ultra series from Kimber is their ultra short 3 inch series, the Pro series are the 4 inch or Commander style of 1911. I tried the Ultra series for concealed carry, but I like using a 230 grain load. A nice big heavy show bullet. That round coming out of a 3 inch 1911 is...snappy is the only word I can use to describe it. By the end of the session, both of us agreed that a 3 inch 1911 isn't for us, so it went into the "trade in" file. We went back to the retail area and I started looking. I was interested in a railed 1911 for home defense. If you've got a pistol setup with a light, that's one less thing you've go to grab if something goes bump in the night. I looked at a HK USP Tactical model with ambidextrous controls, a Sig Sauer Elite P220 and a Springfield Operator. Al in .45 all railed pistols. Now, I've owned HK,s Sigs and Springfields before so they're all good pieces. I couldn't make up mind to save my life...so I left empty handed. I thought about it all night, but couldn't make a decision.

I went back out Friday and ran a few service calls...then back to the shop to make up my mind. Guns and Leather in Greenbriar TN is also a authorized dealer for Nighthawk Customs; a manufacturer of HIGH END custom 1911s. I walked in the door and what do I see but a used Nighthawk Customs Talon II 1911. Someone had ordered it with a bobtail, custom diamond black finish, and a ambidextrous safety. The previous owner took it home, put her in the safe and never touched her again until he traded it in for a Browning over and under shotgun. she had never been fired;so to me it was new as new can be. They have had it for a while, but I never thought about buying it..until Friday. the only thing it was missing was the rail...butr my HK is railed..so that requirement was already filled. i quickly filled out the forms, paid for her and waited for the TBI to do their magic..and waited...and waited. Tennessee has what they call the Instant Check system. It works very well...when the servers aren't overheating. We got all that figured out and down to the range again.


For those who don't shoot; it's a great stress release. No matter what kind of day I've had, a good session of punching holes in paper makes it better. Doing that with a custom 1911 makes it that much more relaxing. 100 rounds out of a new pistol is usually OK, nothing to brag about. I expected it to be a bit worse than usual actually seeing as the new piece was a bobtail. I've never shot a bobtailed pistol before. It feels completely different in hand. I expected this to be a hindrance; it wasn't. The bobtail makes a 1911 point even more naturally for me. Right out of the holster, right on target without trying. I am not a bullseye shooter. I don't try to put all my rounds in a single hole. If the groups are too tight, then you're shooting too slow. I go for COM (center of mass) shots. If they're all COM on the target I'm happy. with the Nighthawk COM double taps are almost too easy. The trigger reset is quick and easy to feel; the steel frame is a bit beefier than the CDP but not too bad. I've been carrying her all day today around the house with no real problems. I didn't pay sticker for her, but I could have bought two Kimbers for what I paid for her. But...she's as close to affordable 1911 perfection that I've found so far.