Gun Safety vs. Gun Control

Despite what you’ve heard, gun safety and gun control is not the same thing and the two cannot be used interchangeably.  They are in fact, completely opposite. So when you hear someone talking about ‘gun safety’, you need to step back and figure out who they are and what they are really referring to.  Simply put, one assumes you are a responsible law-abiding person; the other does not.

Gun control is pretty easy to understand. It’s the government wanting to limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase, posses and use firearms.  Sadly, the reasons they tell you don’t even matter since their intentions have nothing to do with it.  They tell you it’s about public safety and that you, your family and your community will be safer if you don’t own firearms, or certain types of firearms, ammunition and accessories, or can only have the precious few they currently approve of IF they are unloaded and locked up in your home. They tell you having less guns will mean less crime and that this is the only way for you to feel safe.

Of course there’s a big difference between ‘feeling safe’ and actually being safe. What they aren’t telling you is that all of the laws and rules they are putting into place to take away your right to purchase, posses and use firearms will do absolutely nothing to stop criminals, thugs and terrorists from getting and using their guns against you.

Instead of being able to protect yourself and your family, you are supposed to rely on your local law enforcement agency to protect you. But that too is a fallacy. As much as your local LEO may try, they can only respond AFTER you have been victimized. AFTER you have been assaulted, robbed, raped or murdered, and AFTER you or someone else manages to get to a phone to call and AFTER the police respond – somewhere in the 5 to 45 minute range, or more depending on where you are – they’ll do their best to figure out who victimized you. And that is supposed to make you feel safer.

Keep in mind the government that says public safety is best served by you not having firearms to protect yourself and your family is the very same government that is decriminalizing crime, reducing penalties for other crimes, redefining offenses like assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer; battery with serious bodily injury; solicitation to commit murder and rape/sodomy/oral copulation of an unconscious person or by use of a date rape drug as non-violent crimes so the offender can get out of prison earlier. The very same government that says eliminating bail and mandating those arrested to be released within 12 hours is fairer to ‘justice connected individuals’. And that too is supposed to make you feel safer.

Gun safety on the other hand is just what you would expect it to be, being safe with firearms.  Gun safety doesn’t say the only way you can be safe is to take away everyone’s firearms, it says the firearms you purchase, posses and use can be done safely.

If you talk to someone about gun safety – real gun safety – you’ll hear them talk about information, training and personal responsibility. You’ll learn how firearms and ammunition work. You’ll learn about how to pick up and handle firearms safely. You’ll learn about the law and what your responsibilities as a firearm owner are. You’ll learn that alcohol or drugs and firearms are never to be mixed. You’ll learn about safe storage based on the needs of you and your family.  You’ll learn about training to use firearms safely, confidently and accurately. You’ll learn about how to keep you and your family safe and ways to avoid becoming a victim. You’ll learn and live by the four basic firearms safety rules like your life and everyone else’s depends on it.

  • Treat all firearms as if they were loaded.
  • Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
  • Never place your finger on the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to fire.
  • Know your target, what is in front of it and what is beyond it.

Real gun safety isn’t a fantasy; it lives and breathes every day in every corner of this country by millions and millions of law-abiding families. All these people know that firearms can be purchased, possessed and used safely no matter if their intent is for hunting, sport, collecting or self-defense.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear someone talking about ‘gun safety’. Are they really talking about safety, or have they hijacked these words as a prelude to their real objective, gun control – and taking away your right to purchase, posses and use firearms.

The choice is yours – for now.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #SoftOnCriminals, #RealGunSafety, #GunControlledAmerica #RefuseToBeAVictim, #GunRights, #GunVote, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Gun Safety Laws – IT’S A TRAP!

Every time I hear about another round of so-called “gun safety” laws, I tend to go full Admiral Ackbar. What is it about gun control, gun confiscation and gun elimination groups coming up with “gun safety” laws that make me nervous? Perhaps it’s that they have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control, confiscation and elimination.

A recent case in Massachusetts highlights the issue. Massachusetts law requires all firearms to be secured in a locked cabinet or with a trigger lock when not “carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user.”

Based on a tip, police obtained a search warrant for the house of a 65-year-old male who lived alone and had “dozens of improperly secured firearms inside”. 98 mostly vintage firearms including shotguns, rifles and pistols, including Mauser bolt-action rifles and lever-action Winchesters, were seized during the search along with cases of ammunition. According to police, “Most of the items were improperly stored, strewn about his home”. Also seized were five “military grade ordnance shells” reportedly from a Naval Depot that closed in 1962 and several brass grave markers from the cemetery across the street from the residence. Following the seizure, the town’s police chief proudly boasted, “All the weapons are out of the house, the neighborhood is safe,”

For the sake of today’s argument, let’s skip over the grave markers and the so-called “military grade ordinance” which were reported to have gun powder in them, but didn’t have to be disarmed before being removed, a.k.a. probably demilitarized collectables with a little bit of residue, and deal with the subject of the search, unsecured firearms.

How did this happen? Most likely someone visited this person, obviously a collector of classic arms, and reported it to police who obtained the warrant. Seized were all the “improperly secured” firearms as well as those that were properly secured AND all ammunition on the property, secured or otherwise. Note: Massachusetts law also places restrictions on the amount of ammunition you can legally possess, with and without a special storage permit. None of the reports I’ve seen indicated he had more than the allowable amount of ammunition, just “cases” of ammo.

So what is a properly secured firearm in Massachusetts? Apparently one that is stored in a locked cabinet, has a trigger or gun lock on it or is under the person’s direct control. Typically direct control means being in the same room with it. Your firearm on the kitchen table would not be under your direct control if you are upstairs in a bedroom. It doesn’t seem to matter if your house is a locked, alarmed, has 24-hour video surveillance or otherwise inaccessible to anyone but you, the house itself is not considered “secure”.

The theory behind the so-called “gun-safety” storage laws is that they prevent thefts and suicides. Well, yes and no. Having a state-approved trigger lock or cable on a firearm isn’t going to prevent its theft since you just take it with you. Even full sized safes can be cut open or, as they are in many cases, moved out of the house to be opened later, even if they are bolted down. Trigger locks or cables may slow down the curious toddler, but any age above that is going to figure out how to get it off. And if you already have access to the firearm and locks, well… how is this going to prevent suicide?

Many states mandate some form of locked storage. More recently, municipalities have jumped on the gun control bandwagon and mandated their own stricter versions, including requiring firearms be unloaded with ammunition stored separately.

First off, proper firearm storage is critical for everyone who owns firearms; it is the single most important aspect of responsible firearm ownership. Those who rely on their firearms for self-defense inside their home are especially acute of this.

One of the things we discuss in basic firearms classes is safe storage in the home, but most importantly is that it is not a one size fits all solution. What constitutes “safe” may be look radically different for someone who has children vs. someone who lives alone. There are a wide variety of security products designed for rapid accessibility combined with high safety, but these options become progressively expensive as the features increase and may be out of reach for everyone.

We often think of our homes as our castles, our private domain where we are protected from the outside world, including government interference. We believe that as long as we are safe within our walls, nobody will bother us. However this case in Massachusetts, and many others like it, illustrate otherwise. Under the guise of “gun safety”, it is just another tool to be used to take firearms from the otherwise law-abiding citizen.

 

Whenever you hear someone proposing more “gun safety” laws, rules to “make you safer”, think about what happens when you don’t measure up to someone else’s one-size-fits-all standard, even if it doesn’t make any sense in your situation. You might want to think about whom we allow inside our castle walls as well.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #SecondAmendment, #billofrights, #firearmsafety, #guncontrol, #gunconfiscation, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

They DO Want To Take Your Guns!

The gun grabbing elitists’ favorite saying is always “Nobody wants to take your guns”. These are the same folks who also say, “I support the Second Amendment”. The problem is, it’s just not true.

Before we dive into the latest set of lies and infringements on our rights, let’s take a look at what they want to take away… all firearms they do not personally control. In other words, any that are not owned by the government or their personal protection details. They simply do not believe the civilian population should own firearms.

A little preface about firearms. They are not consumable products. They are finely crafted, complex and durable machines. They are designed to reliably and accurately propel a projectile towards its target. The target is solely based on the intent of the person using it. A firearm has no will of its own. It can be used for hunting, sport, recreation, self-defense and enforcing the law – as well as for evil.

I make the special note that firearms are not consumable goods as many of us have firearms that have been passed down from father to son or daughter for generations. It’s not at all uncommon to have firearms well over a hundred years old that are still operational and as mechanically sound as they were on the day they were created. Firearms destined for the next generations can be individual specimens or part of considerable collections. It is very common for an owner to expect to pass on his or her firearms to their children when the time is right.

Let’s also take a look at the trend in firearm ownership. The most conservative estimates say there are roughly 350 million personally owned firearms in this country. For the past 19 months, inquiries to the NICS background check system have set new records. While not an actual count of the number of firearms sold, it is the best indicator of consumer demand for firearms. While some of this may rightfully be attributed to fears about the 2016 Presidential election, the Black Friday background checks – AFTER the elections – also set a new record. Americans are not rejecting personal firearm ownership; they are choosing to buy more.

Now let’s look at the newly enacted laws in California. Previously safe and legal firearms are no longer safe or legal to own – unless you pay a fee and register them as a so-called ‘assault weapon’. Among the list of draconian regulations your new ‘assault weapon’ must comply with, you will no longer be able to sell, transfer or pass it down to your descendants. Of course, you can alter it to remove the cosmetic features that make it too deadly to own and de-register it, making it transferable – at least for now.

Since the rules for ‘assault weapons’ have changed numerous times already, there’s nothing to guarantee your featureless rifle won’t be considered a nontransferable ‘assault weapon’ next year. Oh, and that firearm you built yourself and dutifully placed a new state issued serial number on? You can’t sell, transfer or pass that one down to your descendants either. There’s no deregister path there. It’s just plain nontransferable.

What are your options for your non-transferable firearms? Sell them to someone out of state OR take them to your local police department and turn them in for destruction. And no, they won’t pay you for them. Simple right?

So how is this not taking my guns away? Until the State of California changes it’s mind and says I can no longer posses my so-called ‘assault weapon’ or self-built firearm, I can keep them myself. But I can’t sell them, I can’t transfer them and I can’t pass them down to my children. These are not pieces of property that are used up and discarded; they are pieces of our American heritage and family heirlooms no different than grandfather’s pocket watch or grandmother’s thimble collection. Why does the State of California have the right to determine what is passed on to the next generation and what is not?

The gun-banning elitists are continuing their long con game on the American firearm owner. But continuing to impose incremental ‘common sense gun safety’ laws that do nothing to improve safety and only take rights away from the law-abiding, they are working to eliminate firearm ownership within a single generation.

As optimistic as we are, California may be a lost cause. So many rights have been taken away for so long that it will be very difficult, if not impossible to get them back. The only hope rests with the next Supreme Court striking down some of these constitutional infringements.

Of course, appeals are the hard way. We need to stop these laws from being passed in the first place. Every elected seat at every level counts, now more than ever because they really do want to take your guns.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2A, #SecondAmendment, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #nobodywantstotakeyourguns, #theyreallydowanttotakeyourguns, #mewe, #oddstuffing

California’s New Assault Weapons

With the stroke of a pen, California’s Governor turned all bullet button firearms in the state into so-called “assault weapons”. I say so-called since the “assault weapon” definition was manufactured by the gun grabbing elite and it is subject to change based only on the whim of whatever administration owns it. What was just a normal rifle is now too dangerous and deadly to own – at least not without an additional license and registration fee paid to the State.

For those of us in California, we know an “assault weapon” is just a semi-automatic, centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine and one or more “evil features” like a pistol grip or adjustable stock. Of course, the exact definition changes depending on your geography. In the now defunct federal “assault weapons” ban, you needed two or more evil features, and bayonet lugs were considered evil as well. (I’m guessing the media just never reported on the ravages of gang drive-by bayonetting.) New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts all have their own versions; with Massachusetts recently updating their definition to include firearms with parts that are interchangeable with previously defined “assault weapons”.

California firearm owners now face a dilemma for 2017. Register their bullet button firearms as California “assault weapons” or go featureless. Some are eager to register with the understanding this will allow them to finally remove the bullet button and run their firearm like it was intended. The problem is, that may not be the case. Nothing from the State so far has positively confirmed what will be permissible or even which of the newly invented add-ons will be allowed. What we do know for sure is registration comes with far more draconian restrictions on storage, transportation, use and the inability to sell or hand your firearm down to a descendant. As of now, there is a path to de-register it, make it featureless and as such, transferable – but we’ll come back to that later.

Going featureless means swapping out those dreaded “evil features” and making your modern sporting rifle look a little less scary and more like any other rifle. After all, its just cosmetics and does nothing to impact the actual operation of the firearm. While this avoids the dreaded “assault weapon” registration, it gets really expensive, really quick. Featureless parts or modifications can easily add $100 to $500, or more to each firearm you own. But then, you will be able to take off that foolish bullet button.

Assembly Bill 1663

One of the bills that didn’t make it into law in 2016 was AB1663. This bill removed the “evil features” criteria for centerfire, detachable magazine fed firearms. This would have redefined rifles such as the vintage M1 carbine and Mini-14 Ranch Rifle as “assault weapons”. Good news for now, but you can be absolutely certain this will be back in 2017 or 2018 or 2019 or until it is passed. Note: These firearms are already defined as “assault weapons” in some other states.

Remember that part about de-registering your “assault weapon” to make it featureless and transferable? Once all featureless rifles are considered “assault weapons”, there will be no more de-registering and no more transferring of featureless rifles.

Rimfire

One of the few safe havens of California firearms has always been the rimfire, the most common being the lowly little .22 LR. To date, California’s “assault weapons” laws have always specified only centerfire. Rimfire firearms have been exempt and can have all the “evil features” their older cousins cannot. The question you need to ask is how long will this be true? Consider that the word “centerfire” has already been removed from other states’ “assault weapons” descriptions. Also consider the firearm reportedly used to kill five people in the September 23, 2016 shooting at the Cascade Mall in Washington was a simple wood stock Ruger 10/22. The fact that the shooter used a 25 round magazine will be irrelevant to the gun banners here in California.

There have been calls to outlaw all registered “assault weapons” in California on more than one occasion. That call will come around again, but most likely not until every possible firearm is already included in that classification. At that point, one more signature makes them all go way and turns their previously legal owners into felons.

So where does it end? The answer is it never will. There is one and only one end goal of the gun grabbers; the elimination of private firearm ownership. The elitists in California like to believe they have the higher moral obligation to lead the nation on creating pointless laws that only restrict law-abiding citizens from owning firearms and ammunition.

Each of us must choose how we respond to the new “assault weapon” laws by registering, going featureless, taking our firearms out of the state or turning them in. None of the options are ideal and all just put off the eventual total ban that is unquestionably in our State’s future.

We can only hope that the upcoming United States Supreme Court will help strike down some of these anti law-abiding citizen laws.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndAmendment, #2A, #CAAssaultWeapons, #featureless, #registration, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

If It Saves Just One Child’s Life…

It’s the ultimate tug-at-the-heart gun control argument. If it saves just one child’s life, isn’t it worth it? How could any intelligent, caring, common-sense person disagree with anything proposed under such an umbrella? After all, it’s for the children!!! Well, I guess I’m just a despicable human being since I disagree.

Let’s say for just a moment that we comply and implement every one of the gun control elitists’s draconian, anti-constitutional measures. This would include, but not be limited to, a complete ban on so-called “assault-weapons”, semi-automatic and pump operated firearms, “high capacity” magazines and handguns. Bolt-action hunting rifles and single-shot shotguns, all that are legitimately needed for hunting can be kept with a license, for now, since the government respects the Second Amendment. Australian-style buybacks (a.k.a. confiscations) are implemented and “Mr and Mrs America turn ’em all in” is the new law of the land. What then?

First, let’s look at what this will accomplish. Law-abiding citizens will turn in their previously legal firearms for mass destruction. Very few firearms will be in the hands of the civilian population and those that remain, along with restricted quantities of ammunition, will be under strict regulations for storage, transportation and use. The days of carrying or keeping a firearm for personal protection will be gone. We will save that one child’s life.

But what about the criminals, gang bangers, thugs, hoodlums and terrorists? The law now says no one can own firearms, certainly they will comply, right? Umm.. No. These are people who, by the very definition of them do not follow the law. They have never been able to legally own firearms or ammunition and their use in criminal activity breaks even more laws. They now enjoy a government imposed armed advantage over every single law-abiding citizen in this country. What in god’s green earth would make anyone believe they would willingly give up the tools of their trade when they know the incredible advantage they have gained against their intended victims?

Well, at least the supply chain of guns will be shut off now and they won’t be able to get any more, right? Umm.. No. Every day, tons and tons and tons of illegal merchandise is smuggled into this county. Everything from drugs to jeans to electronics to automobiles to people. How are firearms going to be a problem? It already happens today, packed in right along with everything else. And we aren’t alone here. Australia and the United Kingdom, whose gun control models our elitists seek to emulate, have HUGE illegal firearm smuggling problems. It just isn’t part of the narrative we are told to believe. Take a look at what the London police confiscate every single day to see how ineffective a ban would be for criminals.

Certainly violent crime will drop and we will all be safer, right? Umm.. No. Criminals, who have long since lost their fear of the law, law enforcement and the courts, have really had only one obstacle left, an armed citizenry. With this obstacle removed, very little stands in their way. Again, go to the most gun controlled countries around the world and see what their violent crime rate is.

But what of the police you say? They will protect us, right? Umm.. No. You’ve heard the phrase “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away”? Even with a vastly increased police presence, demanded by an ever increasingly victimized populace, the best police response is going to be minutes away at best at any given time.

Try this simulation if you would. Do burpees or run in place while holding your breath for two minutes to simulate fighting for your life. Assuming someone called for help the instant you were attacked AND the police can take the call, dispatch an officer and the officer arrives in that two minutes, you’ll be just fine, right? Umm.. No. All this assumes the most ideal circumstances which sadly, will never apply to you. It also assumes you were not shot, stabbed, strangled, poisoned, folded, spindled, mutilated, stapled or paper clipped in the process by someone who really doesn’t care about your life or anyone else’s.

So why do I disagree? Because if we decide to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights with the promise to save that one child’s life, we will sacrifice scores more in cities and towns all across the country. No, I’m not saying it’s acceptable to lose a single child’s life or that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. But how do you justify sacrificing so many for the hope, the dream, the fantasy, of saving just one?

How many children would grow up without parents because the parents couldn’t protect themselves? How many wives and husbands would lose their partners because they were not allowed a means of defense? How many parents would lose their children because they are not allowed to keep them safe?

Yes, let’s save that one child by not letting someone else decide who lives and who dies.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #constitution, #billofrights, #tosaveonechildslife, #notavictim, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

Criminology 101 – California Style

 

Understanding crime and criminals is the basic element in being able to promote public safety. But I’m going to say there’s an even more basic step that needs to be mastered, understanding who the criminal is.

Witness the State of California and the latest legislative session in Sacramento, California as evidence. Under the pretense of pubic safety, the administration passed sweeping, draconian gun control legislation against whom? Law-abiding citizens. The ONE firearm related bill that made it to the Governor’s desk that would have actually targeted criminals, the people who break the laws, was vetoed.

But then, California has a history of coddling its criminals at the expense of the law-abiding citizenry. The adverse effects of Proposition 47, which reclassified many crimes as misdemeanors, put more criminals back on the streets and increased the crime rate in every city and town in the state, is well documented. Nationwide we’re told it’s now discriminatory to call people criminals or convicts. The new politically correct term for them is “justice involved individuals”. Why hold people responsible for their own illegal actions when it’s possible to blame the law-abiding for discriminating against them.

Keep in mind the anti-gun zealots have bought into the theory of “everyone is a law abiding citizen, until they’re not”. Since the law-abiding own deadly weapons of war, death and destruction, it’s only a matter of time before each of them will go off on a killing spree of their own. Since we don’t have a Minority Report inspired PreCrime Department to arrest people before they commit their crimes, it’s far more efficient to just to go after all gun owners. Everyone should lose his or her rights because someday, somewhere, someone is going to break the law – maybe, or maybe not.

The problem with this logic is that everyone is being punished for something they did not and never will do. The vast, Vast, VAST majority of legal firearm owners will never commit a crime, to say nothing of committing a crime with their firearms. Add to this the estimated one to two million lawful defensive uses of firearms – outnumbering felonious uses by 30 to 80 to one, by law-abiding citizens in the United States each year. According to the gun banners, these incidents never occur and the Good Guy With A Gun is merely a piece of gun lobby fiction. To this I reply: Read the news for yourself.

To make the public “safe”, our politicians are pointing to law-abiding citizens and lawfully owned firearms and saying: This is the problem; this is why you can’t feel safe in your home, your office or on the street. Your friend, your neighbor, your store clerk, your doctor, your bus driver, your lawyer, your programmer and your family – the people who bought their firearms lawfully, own them lawfully and use them lawfully – these are the people to blame. So our politicians make laws that turn these otherwise law-abiding people into criminals and take away their firearms. Then and only then will you be safe.

Of course, banning firearms is only going to remove the firearms from the people who legally own them. The criminals, the ones who illegally own them, are not going to line up to drop off their newly banned guns, the guns they already are banned from owning in the first place.

It’s time for California to wake up and smell some reality. Instead of coming up with laws that target the law-abiding, target the people who are committing the crimes. If you commit a crime, you should be punished. Yes, it really is that simple.

Instead we coddle our “justice involved individuals”, we reduce and eliminate penalties for committing crimes and we tell the rest of the nation that we shouldn’t hold people who commit crimes responsible for their own actions, now or any time in the future. In a nation where there are no consequences for breaking the law, who is going to bother to follow it?

How exactly is this promoting public safety?

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndAmendment, #gunvote, #californiacriminology101, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

Not So Smart Guns

Bond… James Bond. When it comes to high tech gadgets, nobody does it better than 007. Through the Bond movies we’ve seen cars that fly, swim and are invisible, jet packs, mini-rocket cigarettes, watches with lasers powerful enough to cut through inches of steel and of course, a signature gun – a gun that can only be fired by the owner.

While many of the Q inspired gadgets are pure movie fiction, some have come to exist in the real world, but with real world limitations. A couple of cars can fly, but they don’t look anything like a regular car. Some cars swim, but they are the odd ducks of the auto and boat world and they can’t go under water. And then there are signature guns, now called “smart guns” by those who believe they are the next greatest gun safety, a.k.a. gun control measure.

The technology has been around for years and generally relies on a ring, watch or band that must be held in close proximity to the firearm to activate it. The theory is if the owner is not holding the firearm with the appropriate activation device, it will not fire. The only current production firearm is a .22 LR pistol made by a German company, which uses a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip and requires a five-digit pin code for an eight-hour activation period. It is not currently available in the United States. A few tech entrepreneurs have jumped on the bandwagon and are working on prototypes with remote controls, electronic ammunition and RFID chips embedded in the firearm owner’s skin. Firearms with pin codes, fingerprint readers, sensors to identify the owners grip, Bluetooth activation and Internet connected schemes are out there as well.

Despite the lack of demand from firearms community, it is being legislated as a requirement. The President’s latest set of Executive Orders included a provision for federally funded research into “smart gun” technology. A 2002 New Jersey law stipulates that three years after “smart guns” are available anywhere in the United States only smart guns can be sold in the state of New Jersey.

It’s worth noting the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) have both been very clear that they are not opposed to “smart gun” technology. What they are opposed to, and I firmly agree, is a government mandate for it. If the market decides they want it, then the products will flourish.

What could be wrong with a “smart gun”? In a word: technology. Aside from the issues of adding sensitive electronics to a machine with heavy shock and vibrations; batteries die and usually at the worst possible time. Add a little moisture, heat or cold and they’ll die quicker. Radio frequency connections are not only highly prone to interference but hacking as well. Being tethered to a device of any kind means you must always be wearing that device on the hand you will be shooting with. Take it off and you’ve got access to an ugly little brick. If you’re wearing gloves or have dirty hands with devices that check fingerprints, you’ll be out of luck.

In the research I’ve done (yes, I really do research) the inherent unreliability isn’t the worst part. The most frightening part is what is hidden inside the “smart gun” technology. Two core features are part of nearly all “smart gun” technologies; GPS and remote deactivation. GPS integration allows tracking of the firearm at all times, similar to your cell phone. Remote deactivation allows you, or someone else to remotely disable your firearm. That alone should scare the pants off you. At any time your family, employer or coworker – under California’s latest proposed enhancement to the Gun Violence Restraining Order law – could file a complaint against you and your firearms can be deactivated without your knowledge.

The real danger surfaces when those two features are combined. Similar to GPS software in newer drones, geofencing allows a virtual barrier to be placed around sensitive areas disallowing operation. The most common areas for drone operators are airports. Now move this into firearms restrictions. Government buildings, Post Offices and courts are the first to come to mind. But what about schools? Since anything within 1000 feet of a school is already a federally defined gun free zone, your firearm won’t work there. If you live within 1000 feet of a school – guess what, the Second Amendment won’t apply to you. Certainly banks will want to get in on the safety of geofencing their property. Who would need to use a firearm at an ATM?

Now consider a riot, protest or disturbance of any kind in your neighborhood. The beauty of connected systems is a geofence can be set up anywhere, anytime. The first action taken to an incident in your neighborhood can easily be a gun-free geofence set up around it to protect the first responders. It won’t matter if you are the one lawfully defending yourself at the time, all “smart guns” will be shut down.

Here’s the funny thing about so-called “smart guns”: The ONLY people who this will impact will be the law abiding citizen who wants to protect themselves or their family using their Second Amendment rights. It will have ZERO impact on criminals who will be using the plain old-fashioned pull-the-trigger-and-it-fires firearm that the rest of the world will still produce and can smuggle into the United States.

Firearms are supposed to do one thing and one thing only, reliably and accurately send projectile out the end of the barrel each and every time the trigger is pulled. Anything that has even the remotest possibility of preventing that from happening is a threat to your life. Safety, security and marksmanship are the sole responsibility of the owner, not a computer chip.

Is a “smart gun” right for you and your family? If so, that should be your choice, and your choice alone. If you prefer to have the regular, reliable kind of firearm then that should be your choice also, not the government’s.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #smartguns, #guncontrol, #gunconfiscation

Remember the updated malfunction drill: Tap, rack, check GPS, change battery, run setup, re-sync, bang.

United We Stand

This is a difficult year for those of us in the firearms community. Attacks on our rights are occurring at the local, state and national level. Traditionally gun hostile states are doubling down on new and creative ways of whittling away Constitutional rights. Firearm friendly states are being forced to defend themselves from external forces funded by political motivated elitists. Presidential candidates are vowing to destroy guns with Australian style confiscations.

While some states are making strides towards a return of Constitutional rights, others are working to strip them away. This conflict of ideology across the nation will undoubtedly wind its way through the judicial system to the Supreme Court. The next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court has the potential to trigger the reversal of the Heller and McDonald decisions and fundamentally reinterpret the Second Amendment into oblivion. Our next President will likely appoint an additional two to three Supreme Court Justices during his/her term.

Let’s be very clear on what is going on. The attacks on our rights, on our ability to own and use firearms, to defend our families, and ourselves is well funded and well coordinated. While feigning to support the Second Amendment, the goal is crystal clear; the elimination of private firearm ownership. This is a long-term strategy to systematically minimize then eliminate rights. Every incremental “common sense gun reform” “in the name of public safety” or “think of the children” restriction is another step towards the eventual outright ban.

So with all this at stake, why are we fighting with each other?

Lately I’ve been seeing a lot of time and energy being expended bashing other firearm owners who flee to other states or are not doing ‘enough’ for the cause. Not only is this foolish, it’s counterproductive. If we can’t treat each other with respect, how do we expect the rest of the nation to treat us?

A lot of good people will undoubtedly migrate towards more free states. Let’s face it, even the most hardened, battle tested troops deserve a little time off the front lines and we know nothing of each person’s struggle. Consider how many firearm makers and related manufacturers have moved out of restrictive states. We haven’t stopped supporting them and we shouldn’t condemn some of our own for doing the same. Instead of ridiculing or berating them, we need to be understanding so they will continue to support those of us who remain and be strong proponents in their new home state.

Not all firearm owners can take the time to go to a rally or participate in a demonstration. Despite firearm ownership being lawful, some still need to live in relative secrecy because of their jobs or location. They are supporters just the same, but cannot be as vocal as others. Not everyone can speak to an audience, but they can write an email, a letter or contribute to an organization fighting on our behalf. There are many roles to play and we can each do our part in some way. But no matter what, we all must vote.

There are an estimated 350 million legal firearms in the United States, and the number grows every day. The owners span every possible race, culture, status, age, gender, religion and political affiliation. Imagine the power of that many united voices.

Without cooperation and participation from all firearm owners, the second half of Founding Father John Dickinson’s phrase is certainly going to kick in. And we will be the generation that allowed it to happen.

United we stand, divided we fall.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #unitedwestand, #gunconfiscation

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.

Bob

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

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

Arsenals, Stockpiles and Caches – Oh My!

We’ve all seen the press conferences where a high-ranking law enforcement official or political gun grabber stands up with a crew of concerned cronies looking on from behind. In front of them, a table of scary looking guns and accessories is displayed. The description of the items usually includes terms such as ‘high-powered’, ‘assault weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’. Then, the requisite quote to emphasize how serious this really is: I’ve never seen a stockpile like this in all my years…

Whether called arsenals, stockpiles, caches or something else, the perp walk of guns is also commonly witnessed as ‘evidence’ is being staged on the front lawn of the suspect in question. The spectacle serves no crime fighting purpose other than to scare the neighbors and let the invited press get some good close-ups so the story will stick in the mind of potential jurors. I suppose it does also send a message. If you have a lot of guns and ammo, this could happen to you.

Just to be perfectly clear: I do NOT object to removing firearms from criminals. I DO object to using the criminal justice process to further political agendas with exaggerations and half-truths.

So, what exactly is an arsenal? In 1994, Handgun Control Inc., which later became The Brady Campaign, was trying to get legislation passed to create Arsenal Licenses using this definition:

Any person who owns 20 or more firearms or more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition or primers would be required to get an “arsenal” license. To obtain a federal arsenal license, a person would need to be fingerprinted, obtain permission of local zoning authorities, and pay a $300 tax every three years. Their home would be subjected to unannounced, warrantless inspection by the government up to three times a year. “Arsenal” owners would also have to obtain a $100,000 dollar insurance policy.

When was the last time a criminal used 20 firearms and a thousand rounds of ammunition in the commission of a crime? Is that even possible? And other than the obvious Second Amendment argument, why are these numbers so completely meaningless?

Collectors acquire firearms for the love of the craft, the history as well as for investments. Hunters, sport shooters, competitors and those who simply own firearms to defend themselves and their families know one firearm isn’t appropriate for every use. You probably own more than one pair of shoes too since even something that simple is purpose driven.

Buying ammo in bulk is no different than buying toilet paper in bulk; it’s cheaper in larger quantities. For anyone who shoots on a regular basis for training, competition, sport or recreation, buying in quantity and when it’s on sale can reduce the cost up to 50%. A single two-day training program can require over a thousand rounds. Buying in bulk also helps to insulate the firearm owner from temporary price spikes caused by political speeches about banning some kind of firearm or ammo.

Yet in the name of public safety and security, national, state and local politicians are trying to limit how many firearms or how much ammo you can have. In California where there is already a one-in-30-day limit on the purchase of handguns, anti-gun politicians are trying to extend that limit to include rifles and shotguns as well as party-to-party transactions. The result would be a strict one firearm a month acquisition limit. In New York, one ammunition-banning proposal would limit purchases to two times the capacity of your registered firearm caliber every 90 days. If you own a six-shot .38-caliber revolver you can buy 12 rounds of .38 ammunition every three months.

Are any of these laws going to prevent crime or limit it in any way when crimes are committed? Of course not. It’s as if these legislators are purposely trying to create a class of owners who are less competent to defend themselves because they can’t properly train with their firearms. Personally, I am a lot less concerned with someone who is investing their time and money in firearms, ammunition and training than with the gangbanger whose stolen six-shooter has five mismatched rounds because that’s all he has until he steals more.

So fellow patriots, be sure to hide your extravagant shoes and excessive rolls of quilted two-ply well. As soon as someone decides you don’t need those either, they’ll be laid out across your front lawn for all to view in horror and shame.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #gunandammobans, #gunconfiscation