No Need To Have A High-Capacity Magazine?

Fresh off the razor thin victory (50.45% to 49.55%) of Question 1 – universal background checks for firearms in Nevada, the anti-gun forces are ready to start the new year with their next gun control push, banning so-called ‘high-capacity’ magazines.

It’s worth noting Question 1 was sponsored by the national anti-gun / anti-rights groups at the cost of over $20 million. It was passed by one county and one county only, Clark County; the home of Las Vegas. Like so many areas around the country, a densely populated urban area has claimed the moral high ground for senseless laws.

What exactly is a ‘high-capacity’ or ‘large capacity’ magazine? According to the anti-gun elite, it’s any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Why 10? There really doesn’t seem to be any logical rational behind it. They point to the revolvers that typically held six rounds and say semi-automatic firearms are just a new deadly phenomenon.

Of the states that currently have bans on ‘high-capacity’ magazines, most have the limit set at 10, a couple at 15. New York, in a late night knee-jerk reactionary legislative session, set theirs to seven. You can still purchase and possess a 10 round magazine in New York, but you can only put seven rounds in it – unless you are at a shooting range.

What the fringe call ‘high-capacity’ magazines, the rest of the world knows as standard capacity. Standard magazine capacity has increased over the years as technology has improved. An original standard capacity Colt 1911 magazine holds seven .45 ACP rounds. Today a standard capacity Glock 17 magazine holds 17 9 mm rounds. Standard capacity for rifles and shotguns ranges from as little as three to 30, or more. Standard capacity depends on the size of the ammunition and the firearm it is made for. Just as technology has advanced cars, telephones, printing and every other aspect of our lives, firearm technology has advanced too. Capacity increased a whopping six times from the single shot muzzleloader to a six shot revolver. Today, semi automatic, magazine fed firearms are by far the most popular firearm for sport and self-defense.

Back in Nevada, the anti-gun elitists, emboldened by their victory in November are queuing up their next Second Amendment rights infringement. Clark County, Nevada’s Sheriff Joe Lombardo is now leading the fight to ban ‘high-capacity’ magazines in the state. Commenting: “I’m a very avid hunter, I was in the military myself, and there’s no need to have a high-capacity magazine for any practical reason,” He also came up with a new gun control fallacy: “It’s also not uncommon for guns to jam during magazine change-outs.”

It is very unfortunate that a veteran law enforcement officer and former US Army Lieutenant would take a stand like this. Instead of working to protect the rights and security of the residents of his state, he is working to make life safer for criminals. But as we are seeing more often these days, many chief law enforcement officials are politicians first, law enforcement officers last.

The photo that accompanies this article is from a Fremont CA home invasion burglary on August 28, 2016. It shows five armed men coming into the house, one carrying a handgun with a magazine extending below the pistol grip. Fortunately, the residents were not home at the time. Even if the resident was armed with a California 10 round magazine, he would most certainly have been killed in this encounter. In this burglary the homeowner was able to call the police while watching the burglary on the home cameras. Unfortunately they left before the police arrived and were not caught.

Burglaries and robberies with multiple armed attackers are far more common than ever. Yet the anti-gunners say you have no need to have a ‘high-capacity’ magazine. Apparently you have no need to stay alive either.

So exactly how will a ban on law-abiding firearms owners having standard capacity magazines make everyone safer? It won’t. Shockingly, criminals get the tools of their trade by criminal means. If it’s not available here, it’s available from somewhere else in the world. Everything from drugs, watches, handbags, cars and people are smuggled into this country every single day. Yes, guns are smuggled into this country too.

Limiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to effectively defend themselves under the guise of making everyone safer implies everyone who buys a firearm with a standard capacity magazine is the next mass shooter in waiting. The vast, Vast VAST majority of the 350 plus million personally owned firearms in this country are owned and utilized lawfully. They prevent crime and defend their owners an estimated one to two million times per year in the United States, with defensive uses of firearms outweighing felonious uses by 30-80 to one.

Nevada has only to look at what has happened in California to see their future. A ban on ‘high-capacity’ magazines with a grandfathered clause for currently owned ones will only be the first step. Then, a little time in the future, a new law will outlaw those grandfathered magazines as well. It will be just one in a long series of ‘common sense’ gun control measures which will do nothing to stop or prevent any crime, just systematically eliminate firearms from the law-abiding community.

Despite the ongoing optimism of the few remaining patriots in the state, California may be a lost cause. But Nevada doesn’t have to be. It’s still early in the game and if the Second Amendment supporters there get their act together now, they may be able to save their rights from being flushed down the toilet.


#oddstuffing, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #gunrights, #standardcapacitymagazines, #highcapacitymagazines, #Nevadagunrights, #mewe,

Veto Gunmageddon – Getting Your Rights Back

For those who are paying attention to California gun laws, it’s time to get your rights back.

A quick review: On July 1st, California’s Governor signed six draconian gun control laws, then quickly fled the country. After his return, he signed one more. ALL of these laws target law abiding firearm owners and their legally owned firearms. NONE target criminals or have anything to do with criminal behavior or making anyone except the criminals safer. The one bill presented to him that would have targeted criminal behavior, he vetoed. Welcome to Kalifornistan.

These news laws are:

  •  Expands the definition of “assault weapons” and ban their sale or transfer (AB-1135, SB-880)
  •  Requires an ID and background check to purchase ammunition (SB-1235)
  •  Keeps records of gun owner’s ammunition purchases (SB-1235)
  •  Requires a background check to loan a firearm to someone other than a close family member (AB-1511)
  •  Bans possession of ammunition magazines that accept more than 10 rounds. (SB-1446)
  •  Makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly make a false report that a firearm has been lost or stolen (AB-1695)
  •  Requires a serial number on all firearms (AB-857)

Enter Carlsbad CA businessman Barry Bahrami and Veto Gunmageddon. Bahrami started Veto Gunmageddon to bring back the firearms rights to the law-abiding citizens of California. Seven referendums were created, one for each oppressive new law.

This is a referendum process and will be an up or down vote for the gun control measures signed this year. Each of these referendums needs 365,880 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. If the signatures are received by August 29, 2016, the referendums will be placed on the November 8, 2016 general election ballot. If the signatures are received by September 29, 2016, the referendums will qualify for the November 2018 general election.

A couple of facts about Veto Gunmageddon: This is a 100% volunteer run program. Unlike other state sponsored ballot measures where pay-for-signature staff is used, volunteers are coordinating and distributing all the materials and collecting all of the signatures. Donations are being accepted to help cover the cost to print and distribute the materials. Firearms retailers, ranges, sporting goods stores, restaurants, private businesses of all types and sizes around the state are lending their time and space to collect signatures. This is the epitome of a grassroots effort in action.

Right now this is our best opportunity to get our constitutional rights restored. The California legislature used every backdoor, underhanded, unethical, immoral and yes, very likely illegal tactic they could to cram these misguided measures through the Democratic controlled legislature. Dissenting voices were not allowed and complaints about the lack of transparency and improper legislative procedure fell on deaf justice ears. This is our chance to let our voices be heard.

I know many of the estimated eight to 12 million firearms owners in California are leaning towards or registered Democrats. The good news about these referendums is you can vote to keep your rights without having to give up your party unity.

Can the Veto Gunmageddon initiatives qualify for this year’s election? I sure hope so. This year’s general election is going to set the foundation for the preservation or destruction of individual rights for generations to come. It would be a shame to waste the chance to tap into a potential record setting voter turnout.

Can Veto Gunmageddon win? I wish I knew. As with any issue thrown out to the voters, November 8th could be a huge victory or crushing defeat. All I know is we MUST try. We MUST fight to restore our rights before we have no rights to fight with or fight for.

I urge each and every one of you to go to the Veto Gunmageddon website at, locate a petition site and sign all seven BEFORE August 29th. If you have the time and ability to do it, please consider hosting the petitions or volunteering your time to help gather signatures, or donating to the cause.

You MUST be a registered voter to sign as well as help collect signatures. If you are not registered to vote in California yet, you can register to vote online at:


#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #gunvote, #gunvoteca, #vetogunmageddon, #mewe,

21st Century Policing

Preface: Last week I (foolishly) accepted a challenge to write a 250 word essay on what the most important part of 21st Century Policing is and why. The incentive for this is two essay authors will be invited to have lunch with Santa Cruz County Sheriff Hart at the Shadowbrook Restaurant.

This is the verbose, Odd Stuffing version. A much slimmer, 248-word extract was submitted by this morning’s 8 am deadline.

The link to the Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing is at the bottom of the page.


The title implies a couple of things, the adoption of high tech tools and techniques and a new way of policing. Integrating the latest & greatest technology is essential, however I reject the premise that there is a need to once again reinvent policing. The key to effective law enforcement is the community. It always has been and always will.

Police have come a long way from the original officers walking a beat. Talking to people on the street and in their shops was normal. Information was shared, issues averted and crimes solved. Growth and progress made communities larger and more difficult to effectively patrol. Automobiles gave us greater mobility and the ability to cover distance quickly, but separated the officer on the beat from the community. With it, the simple task of building one-on-one relationships with the community was gone.

With the loss of casual contact, the most common interaction with officers is through some kind of enforcement action. Getting out into the public, on the public’s terms instead of at department-sponsored events, allows communication on a more personal level. Only by stepping out of the primary enforcement role and into that of being a member of the community, can that one-on-one trust be established.

Law enforcement agencies should be a reflection of the communities they serve, each one a little unique as its constituents. At the core is the officers themselves. Many agencies prefer to hire younger, less experienced recruits so they can be molded into the proper culture. While this approach helps with a consistent mindset, it ignores the true diversity of knowledge and experience within the community. With limited non-law enforcement life experience, it may also promote an ‘us vs. them’ mindset. Agencies themselves can reinforce this by promoting policies, practices and perks that separate the officers from the communities and only serve to drive a wedge further between them.

The role of officers has also become more complex over the years. Officers are now expected to play the role of social worker, mental health, drug and marriage councilor, medic, educator, facilitator, consultant, guardian and warrior – all potentially within a single shift. The publics mandate for multidisciplined officers demands a far higher level of commitment to officer training and agency support than ever before.

The final report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing outlines six pillars for a modern, model law enforcement agency. These topic areas are: Building Trust and Legitimacy, Policy and Oversight, Technology & Social Media, Community Policing & Crime Reduction, Training & Education and Officer Wellness & Safety.

While a great piece of reference material with the full weight of the President of the United States behind it, it didn’t see any breakthrough ideas in it. The concepts of trust, transparency, technology, community policing, training, and so on have been around for a long time. The two main issues for agencies wanting to implement any of these recommendations are time and money.

Law enforcement is expensive and can range anywhere from 10 to 50% of a community’s budget. Every department is challenged by maintaining their current level of service with less funding, even as the community demands more services from them. Core functions such as patrol/enforcement and investigations are forever short staffed. Pulling personnel for other activities, even vital community relationship programs, which will have a positive impact on crime prevention, can have a ripple effect through the agency. Shifts and functions need to be covered with less people or left open. Grants can provide short-term program relief but not long-term operational support. Short of tax increases for larger budgets, the priority will always be for core enforcement functions.

This leaves agencies with difficult choices to make. To make gains in one area usually means cutting another. However, there is another possibility. When the walls between the agency and communities come down, additional options for cooperation and collaboration with the public and private enterprise emerge. Untapped resources for solving the community’s problems are available, when the agency is part of the community again.


#oddstuffing, #21centurypolicing, #whatsoldisnewagain, #bluelivesmatter, #mewe,

Gun Confiscation Made Easier

This week the California legislature made progress on new ways to deny residents their Second Amendment rights by moving forward on a number of new anti-gun bills. None have anything to do with reducing crime or punishing criminals. All are aimed at taking gun rights – and guns, from law-abiding citizens. One of the most dangerous is AB 2607, an expansion of California’s unique in the nation Gun Violence Restraining Order law. This Bill would add employers, coworkers, mental health workers and employees of secondary or postsecondary schools to the list of persons who could deny you of your Second Amendment rights without due process.

For those who are unaware of how we got here, California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order law came in the aftermath of the Santa Barbara murders of six individuals – three stabbed, three shot plus an additional 14 injured – by a disturbed college student who killed himself as police tracked him down.

The perpetrator had posted a number of disturbing videos online. Disturbing to the point where his family contacted the police about them. Six law enforcement members, four deputies, a university police officer and a dispatcher in training spoke with him outside his apartment. While typically two deputies are sent on welfare checks, officials said they sent a bigger response because they “were familiar with (him*)”. Before, during or after the 10-minute conversation with him, none of the law enforcement there, or at the two departments, looked at any of the videos or checked to see if he had firearms registered to him; an easy check in California. Shortly after the visit, the perpetrator took down the videos so as not to be discovered. He carried out his plans 30 days later.

According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco, “The fact of the matter is our gun laws are so weak that when someone openly exhibits that violent behavior, they can still access guns.”

Hours (emphasis on HOURS) after the Isla Vista shooting, Nancy Skinner, a California state assemblywoman from Berkeley, drafted a bill that would create a system for “gun violence restraining orders” in which relatives, friends and intimate partners could ask a judge to temporarily block someone who is exhibiting violent tendencies from getting a firearm.

I’m going to make a comment here which may not go over very well with some people and for that, I apologize. While the internal departmental reviews concluded the officers acted appropriately, I say the California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order law is a political knee-jerk overreaction that came into being from an inadequate police response.

Six law enforcement personnel on scene, plus however many in dispatch in two departments, were aware of the videos and nobody thought to look at them. While the officers may not have had the “right” to search his room, nobody thought to ask for consent either. We’ll never know if the information from a firearms registration search and the videos, combined with the family’s report would have lead the officers to do a more in-depth interview or search. But summarily rejecting the investigatory value of that information and advocating a ‘we need more laws’ attitude is an insult to all officers who do the job.

Having succeeded at getting their foot in the door with a new way to strip you of your rights, California wants to extend this no due-process tool to a larger group. Any of your managers, coworkers or employees can say you are a danger to yourself or others – real or imagined – and your rights and firearms will be taken away. Consider the power anyone at your company will have, someone who didn’t get a promotion, got a bad evaluation or just doesn’t like that you own firearms. While making a false report is a misdemeanor, nobody will ever be able to prove or disprove what was said in a private conversation.

The burden of proof then falls on YOU to dispute the accusations to get your rights back and your property returned. The costs, not counting your own time, will easily be in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars over months to years for legal expenses and costs associated with getting your firearms returned.

If you don’t live in California and think this will never happen where you live, think again. California likes to believe they lead the nation in rights smashing laws. Depending on how the elections go in November, this could very well affect you next.

If there is ever a time to get involved, it is now.


#oddstuffing, #gunconfiscation, #2ndamendment, #firearmsrestrainingorder

* I don’t find it necessary to carry on the legacy of psychopaths by continuing to name them.