Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« The truth about terminal ballistics | Main | The California legislature prefers felons to law-abiding gun owners »

Legality vs. legalism

Posted by David Hardy · 9 July 2017 10:40 PM

A while ago, the military determined that using the Sierra Matchking bullet, with an "open point" as opposed to a hollow point, would not violate the Hague Declaration.

To the best of my knowledge, neither al-Quadea nor ISIS are signatories to that treaty. They can't be, since they are not nation-states.

The powers that be have tended to present the fight against them as rather law enforcement in nature: the objective is to "bring them to justice" rather than to kill them.

If that is the case, then domestic law enforcement is allowed to use hollow points (and every officer with any sense does so). Armed robbers, etc., are also not signatories to treaties. OK, why can hollow points be used against American criminals, but not against the enemy?

8 Comments | Leave a comment

Old Guy | July 10, 2017 9:01 AM | Reply

Gee - don't want those poor misunderstood children to be seriously hurt and maybe die would you? Who would we virtue signal about then? /snark

G.Asher | July 10, 2017 4:40 PM | Reply

Yeah. Virtue signaling. That's it. No, wait. That's not it at all. The reality is that if I get shot, I would much rather it be a solid core FMJ that hits me than any sort of hunting round. A hunting round is designed to inflict massive trauma, whereas a FMJ will just punch a little hole if it misses bone. The reality is that if we do it, it opens the door for them doing it, and I don't want it done to me or mine. People who fail to see the big picture and the consequences of actions are a mystery to me, but then again, Dunning-Kruger is a real, observable thing in my day to day life. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Figure it out.

old guy | July 11, 2017 8:30 AM | Reply

Using FMJ makes sense when in a war where both sides are following more or less the rules. I do not think that truly applies with the type of thing we are doing now. ISIS and the like are not likely to be following the "rules" and we truly do want to inflict the maximum damage to reduce they chance of the continuing. But that said there is a what goes around comes around aspect and part of me feels we should do what they do in equal measure.
That said I agree with the more recent rules of wipe them out,

Chuck | July 11, 2017 9:24 AM | Reply

I think is was Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders that said we need safer bullets.

"We need safer weapons and safer bullets" cira 1994.

Even Clinton got feed up with her and fired her.

Marcus Poulin | July 11, 2017 2:22 PM | Reply

We AREN'T a Signatory either.

Craig | July 13, 2017 8:37 AM | Reply

"The reality is that if we do it, it opens the door for them doing it, and I don't want it done to me or mine."

That was the whole idea behind the convention. To keep combatants from escalating into greater and greater atrocities.

So when ISIS starts off with beheadings, burning people alive, torture, mutilation; all the truly don't-play-by-the-rules garbage that the convention was supposed to prevent. HOW is OUR not playing by convention rules going to make them repentant and turn from their wicked ways?? In many war-like cultures playing "nice" is considered weak and an invitation for your opponent to double down on the atrocities.

I think you'll find that the convention states that it's "rules" only apply to signatories that abide by the rules. The 'stick' to the carrot is that if they don't, then their opponents get to let loose the hounds of hell on them.

Tying your hands behind your back is stupid and naive.

G.Asher | July 14, 2017 6:19 AM | Reply

In what way are the military's hands tied? Do you really think the difference between victory and defeat is based on the use of FMJ? That's crazy.

Anonymous | August 1, 2017 7:52 PM | Reply

It's more weighing the cost/benefit ratio, when you look at how much more expensive even basic hollow points are, plus deal with the pain of getting them through the required trials, and the idea they want to be able to swing immediately into a situation where it would be honored by both sides.

Leave a comment