Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Stuff



When Granda married Nana way back when, his wedding gift to her was a Colt single-shot derringer in .22 Short, serial number 86XXX D.

The diplomacy facilitator isn't Nana's, by-the-by -- it belongs to Your Humble Scribe and is being used for scaling purposes.

As I look at this tiny little pistol, I marvel at how things have changed. Granda ordered this pistol through the mail -- by way of Sears and Roebuck maybe. He carried it and the case -- shown above -- to church and gave it to his bride. Nana carried it until after the reception, when she took it home.

These days, you can't order this pistol through the mail. It's against the law.

There are places in these United States where the groom would get arrested if he took this gun and case to church, or his bride would be arrested taking it home. Manhattan and Baltimore come to mind, but there are more and more places where this simple gift -- this expression of love and devotion -- would net someone a criminal conviction.

*sigh*

We are told this is progress.

We are told that arresting a bride for the mere possession of this gift in public is civilization.

We are told that denying a groom the ability to buy this simple gift for his bride through the mail is a insignificant price to pay for the safety of living in this Modern Age.

I look back at the time in which Granda and Nana got married and I contrast it with Now -- and I have to wonder which time is actually civilized?

I think about the young groom who would become my grandfather getting this pistol by way of the postal service as a gift for his bride ... and I have to wonder why Now -- where this simple, logical act is a Federal crime -- why is Now considered more progressive than Then?

A small token of love -- from a more civilized time.

LawDog

37 comments:

Gay_Cynic said...

For every gain, a loss. Strangely, I don't see we've gained anything in this instance - our crime rate is higher, our persons less safe, and more persons are arrested, harassed, and imprisoned for reasons that frankly mystify me...

What could be more responsible and loving that giving your life-partner the means to effectively and independently at least have a shot at preserving their safety?

Hammer said...

The first gift I ever gave my soon to be wife was a pocket pistol.

Sad the way things are now.

Walt said...

"There are places in these United States where the groom would get arrested if he took this gun and case to church, or his bride would be arrested taking it home"

Only because there are those in your profession who would do the arresting...

At my weddding, three years ago, all of us in the wedding party were carrying the standard acessory to go with a Tuxedo, a Walther PPK

Anonymous said...

"We are told this is progress."

I've been known to borrow a line from Wilford Brimley when they filmed "Boys of Twylight":
"I stepped in some progress out in the horse corral this mornin'. It washes off."

"Only because there are those in your profession who would do the arresting..."

There's good cops and bad cops. A cop is only supposed to enforce the law. They don't make the law they're enforcing. On the other hand, cops come from the citizenry and they're like anybody else... a product of their upbringin'. They ain't all like LawDog.

"At my weddding, three years ago, all of us in the wedding party were carrying the standard acessory to go with a Tuxedo, a Walther PPK"

I hope, if and when I get married, to see a fair assortment of sidearms on belts and repeatin' Winchesters in the saddle scabbards in the crowd, if I and my bride don't just go git'r'done by the JP who owns the feed store.

mustanger98 on THR

Anonymous said...

LD, Your grandfather had good taste by my view of things. In 1976, my bride and I exchanged sets of Colts "Lord" and "Lady" #4 deringers in .22 short. I still have her and we still have the pistols. Andy Ford

LawDog said...

Only because there are those in your profession who would do the arresting...

Ah. And what of the twelve people on the juries -- the twelve citizens who aren't "in my profession" -- who cast the "Guilty" verdicts? The twelve citizens not "in my profession" who consistently convict those arrested?

And what of the hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of voters -- most of whom are not "In my profession" -- who elect, re-elect and elect again the politicans who make the laws?

The same voting citizens that not only refuse to punish their elected officials for passing the laws that those "in my profession" follow, but actively reward those elected officials by re-electing them time and again?

Or is just easier for you to blame those "in my profession"?

Strings said...

Since nobody else has said it, I think a Star Wars quote is appropriate:

"An elegant weapon, from a more civilized time"...

Matt G said...

L.D., the truncheon doesn't show scale nearly as well as realizing that the cartridge lying in the bottom right corner of the box is a .22 Short!

I'll not get into the discussion as to whether cops are responsible for the laws they're charged to enforce.

Think I'll post my own wedding picture...

Anonymous said...

And I think things changed when those in LD's profession became “Law Enforcement” and ceased to be “Peace Officers”.

That is something quite lamentable that some retired and soon to retire “Peace Officers” and myself were discussing recently. The contrast between them and the militarized members of “Law Enforcement” being turned out of the academy are striking.

Mark@C said...

That was a more civilized time. Less crime. Not primarily because of a lower population, I think - but because a violent criminal was caught once or twice. Not 43 times.
Murder is already illegal. What, will they pass a law to make it double super illegal? No - the politicians will 'ban the gun', the bureaucrats will write new regulations (that only further restrict the law abiding), the DA will strut and bluster for the electorate, and the Chief of Police writes justifications for an ever-increasing budget - all career-enhancing moves.
Snake oil salesmen, whose stock-in-trade is legislation or lawyering. They are selling fear to the sheep, while citizens bleed.
An armed citizen is not a sheep. By the simple fact of his existence and willingness to take responsibility for his own safety, he is a threat to the authority and career of the paper brigade. Doubly so by removing violent criminals from the population on a permanent basis. Why, the DA could have gotten a dozen more convictions off that guy!
A stiff majority of police in the field (as opposed to the chairbound political hacks) support an armed citizenry. If for no other reason than it cuts down on their workload.
So give the 'Dawg a break.

/Rant Off

Tower Tales said...

Well said, mark and very true!
People don't realize it, but THEY have given the local, state and Federal Government the power to do as it wishes with almost total control.
A happier day will come when people wake up and vote those powers back into the hands of the people...failing that, there'll be a pogrom.

BobG said...

"Only because there are those in your profession who would do the arresting..."

A LE person is only upholding the law; the blame lies with the elected officials who pass the laws, and thus a good portion of the responsibility must be assumed by those who vote, either by casting a ballot or not casting one when needed.
Just my opinion.

Mattexian said...

Whilst I didn't get my beloved a gun when we started dating, I did get her a keyring of pepper spray.

LD, your story reminds me of the tale of a frontier preacher giving the new groom a Bible and a Bowie, saying the Bible was to save their souls, the Bowie to save their lives.

dracphelan said...

Unfortunately, gun control (like many other increases in governmental power) is an attempt to apply simple solutions to complex societal problems. We passed prohibition, entered a fiscal depression and violent crime went up. Rather than admit the increase in crime was caused by the first two (and other problems), we chose to attack the tools used in the crimes. To many people refuse to admit that violent crime is a societal problem caused by various problems.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, most citizens do not know about the principle of "jury nullificiation" where jurors can vote their conscience and say "not guilty" even if the "facts" at a trial show the defendant as "guilty." Go to the Fully Informed Jury Association website at http://fija.org/ . Pass the word to everyone you know. If enough jurors used jury nullification to negate bad laws, perhaps the so-called lawmakers would repeal some of the idiotic laws on the books.

As an example of where jury nullification is needed for a really *bad* law is in the case of Julie Amero, the schoolteacher who faces a possible 40 years in prison for allowing her students to view porn on a classroom computer. What a travesty of justice! I work in computer support, and let me tell you that it is just about impossible to keep spyware/adware/malware off Windows PCs, and that sometimes that spyware delivers porn popups on the computer screen. Her case should have had a jury say "not guilty" in the strongest terms.

The few times I had to go to jury duty, I printed off a bunch of literature and left it in various locations in the juror's room so other potential jurors could stumble upon it and learn about jury nullification. I think it's also criminal that judges will not inform jurors about that principle, and that they will try to exclude jurors who do know about jury nullification. So the solution is for everyone to know about it, then they won't be able to exclude anyone from the jury!

-- Garry K

Jim w. said...

Chronology...
Those .22 derringers were made around 1960.
Nana is nearly 100 and was therefore about 53 when that gun was built.
Was she Granda's second wife and not your Grandma?

LawDog said...

Hmm.

I'm going to be very irritated if "Nana's Wedding Pistol" turns out to be a story spun by my Granda.

Investigation is required.

David said...

Once upon a time "society" understood the concept of "responsible adult".

Desertrat said...

Jim W, Henry Deringer started his thing long before 1960. Try 1852. The later-made small single-shots were generically labelled "derringer".

Derringers and "purse pistols" were fairly common items for ladies and even those who might have been considered as less than genteel. A certain amount of equality existed long before Lone Wolf Gonzaullas' famous comment: "God created all men equal. Sam Colt made them all the same size."

Gonzaullas, a Texas Ranger Captain, helped bring Texas into the modern era of law enforcement. Among other things, he started the forensics lab of DPS.

But, like many, he thought of himself as a Peace Officer.

Art

Jim w. said...

Art, we are not talking here about a Henry Deringer percussion pistol, nor yet a Colt-Thuer No 3; the gun illustrated is a Butler Colt No 4 .22 Short made 1959-1963 according to Fjestad.

Rabbit said...

My dad bought a set of those (Lord and Lady derringers) right around the time I was born. I still have them, although they went through the fire at the old family place several years ago. One of them was the first firearm I ever fired, at about age 3 or 4. I recall it well.

We also knew Ranger Gonzallus. He was assigned to my hometown during the Boom. I knew him after his retirement, and he knew me. Dad owned several pistols he acquired from him, some of which I now have.


Regards,
Rabbit.

Zylogue said...

I believe a part of the issue is the proliferation of media outlets. The old saying of the 'squeaking wheel gets greased' is particularly important when looking at how our society has changed. The anti-gun lobbiests would accept this as progress. They squeaked and they got greased. The res of us got shafted, with out consideration of lubricant.

The Pagan Blacksmith

Stanley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rorschach said...

History lesson, How many know when and why the prohibition on mail order guns was instituted?

Heres a hint...

School book repository in Dallas...

Ring any bells now?

Anonymous said...

"Art, we are not talking here about a Henry Deringer percussion pistol, nor yet a Colt-Thuer No 3; the gun illustrated is a Butler Colt No 4 .22 Short made 1959-1963 according to Fjestad."

I've seen recently made copies of the old Colt derringer in .22short. I'm wondering how the BS-caller can tell the difference. I'd say he's either ignorant or a troll. Since both types are quite common, It's hard to tell which in some cases.

mustanger98 on THR

Kristopher said...

Yes ... that design is older than the poster thinks it is.

As for Peace officer / LE officer:
If you got a problem with bad laws, take it up with the politicians that created them ... use one of the four boxes on those same politicians to fight that culture war.

The police will be on the side of whoever wins, afterwards.

Alex said...

"At my weddding, three years ago, all of us in the wedding party were carrying the standard acessory to go with a Tuxedo, a Walther PPK."

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks about Tuxedos that way.

Jim w. said...

Mustanger 98 says: "I've seen recently made copies of the old Colt derringer in .22short. I'm wondering how the BS-caller can tell the difference."

Do you suppose it is because Lawdog says: "COLT single-shot derringer in .22 Short, serial number 86XXX D?" Which is in the serial number range published for the Colt reissue.

Or is it maybe the Colt registered trademark horsie in the lid of the case?

kristopher says: "Yes ... that design is older than the poster thinks it is."

This poster thinks the DESIGN goes back to 1875, but the GUNS of that era were .41s. What we have here, guys, again, is a 1960s licensed reproduction (Colt didn't actually make the derringers.) from the 1960s. I am old enough to remember when they were new on the market.

Butler kept the tooling and sold guns without Colt trademarks after that. I have one listing for them in 1978.

Anonymous said...

Lawdog,

How do you reconcile the fact that you are in a position where you are the one required, or sworn, to uphold laws such as these with which you disagree? I know you didn't personally write those laws, and most likely voted against those who did, but you're still stuck in between them. I don't envy your position any more than I envy that of anyone else who's in a country where the laws themselves are wrong, but how do you deal with it, in your profession?

Ulises from CA said...

"The diplomacy facilitator isn't Nana's, by-the-by -- it belongs to Your Humble Scribe and is being used for scaling purposes."

And the stories it could tell, I bet!

I hope that all y'alls fine with your new arrangements. Peace.

We are told many things in life. Most of these are, as you put it, "bushwa". As for the rest, trust but verify.

As one of my college professors exclaimed," You must be a history major. You're always looking for empirical evidence!" This is a good thing. Your Gramps was quite the romantic: he gave his wife power to be free & power to stay that way.

No wonder she's approaching her second century.

Glenn Bartley said...

Granda must have loved and trusted garndma a lot to give her that! He must be/have been one nice man and she one nice lady.

Walt said...

'Or is just easier for you to blame those "in my profession"?'

No, not at all, but lets go back a week or so to the excellent post from munchkinwrangler you linked to. That was the one that in essence said there are two basic ways to get people to do something, the use of persuasion or the use of force.

In the 'legal system' the police are the force component. In the wedding scenario you mentioned If there was no arrest, there would be no Grand Jury or Trial Jury involved.

There are a lot irrelevant laws on the books. Many have heard of the local ordnance from long ago in some town that required an automobile to be preceded by a man with a flag. It may still be on the books, but it is irrelevant because the police do not enforce it.

Anonymous said...

"There are a lot irrelevant laws on the books. Many have heard of the local ordnance from long ago in some town that required an automobile to be preceded by a man with a flag. It may still be on the books, but it is irrelevant because the police do not enforce it."

Sure there are a lot of irrelevent laws... the one about automobiles being preceded by a flagman; not sure but I think it was superceded by headlights and blinkers. And then you get laws that aren't enforced just because they sound like somebody got bored and said "let's pass some laws". Like in Perryville Alabama it's illegal to sleep in church. And they also made it illegal for a chicken to lay an egg between 8pm and 6am or something like that. And then there's a couple of places that passed a law that says if two trains meet, they're both to pull over on the sidetrack or something and neither shall move till the other has passed. What kind of sense does that make?

mustanger98 on THR

Matt G said...

Well, for what it's worth, this post inspired me to post my own wedding picture at my blog.

And old ladies sometimes spin some lovely, romantic yarns about things that, if they didn't happen, should have happened. It's quite possible that Granda did in fact give his ladylove a derringer, and then years later presented her with a new one. Seeing as how the first one would have been presented in the 1920's, and the .22 Short in the picture is about half a century old, it's kind of hard to know.

thebronze said...

Nice truncheon!

Anonymous said...

"And old ladies sometimes spin some lovely, romantic yarns about things that, if they didn't happen, should have happened. It's quite possible that Granda did in fact give his ladylove a derringer, and then years later presented her with a new one. Seeing as how the first one would have been presented in the 1920's, and the .22 Short in the picture is about half a century old, it's kind of hard to know."

I've been thinking some more on this, but I'm not real clear on where outside of those books I don't have, where to find the info... What chamberings were the Colt derringers available in in the 1920's? Were they produced then?

You know, from a guy's point of view, even in this day and time it'd be nice to wind up married to a lady who would appreciate a gift like a fine handgun- or rifle or shotgun for that matter- of some sort and know how to use it.

mustanger98 on THR

Anonymous said...

lawdog: Voting citizens can be fooled, and deceived. They can also be ignorant and they can be wrong.

Those who step up and take the Oath that little old thing called the Constitution do so in the full knowledge and understanding of its meaning, or else they are liars, committing perjury.

The Constitution and the Oath were designed as a safeguard against foolish voters. This is a republic, not a democracy. - Lyle