#GunControlFails – Odd Stuffing

More Tales of the Nutty Ninth

This past Thursday, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California’s ban on so-called “large capacity magazines” (LCM) in the case of Duncan v. Bonta. This was no surprise as the Nutty Ninth is infamously anti-Second Amendment and provides rubber stamp approval service to every gun control scheme presented to it, even if it must twist the facts and the law to do it. But the star of this ruling has to be the unprecedented video dissent from one of the judges on the en banc panel.

Quick history: Duncan v. Bonta has been bouncing up and down through the courts since 2017. California’s LCM ban was first ruled unconstitutional by Federal District Judge Roger T. Benitez in 2019. Appealed to the Ninth Circuit, it was affirmed by a three-judge panel, before being overruled by an en banc panel. It was granted certiorari at the United States Supreme Court, who vacated the appellate en banc decision, and remanded the case to Ninth Circuit in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen case, who then returned it to Judge Benitez, who ruled it unconstitutional again. Appealed to the Ninth Circuit again, an en banc panel – the very same en banc panel that overruled it before – to overrule it again. You are now up to date.

A couple of tidbits from the ruling.

“First, the text of the Second Amendment does not encompass the right to possess large-capacity magazines because large-capacity magazines are neither “arms” nor protected accessories. Second, even assuming that the text of the Second Amendment encompasses the possession of optional accessories like large-capacity magazines, California’s ban on large-capacity magazines falls within the Nation’s tradition of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm.”

“A large-capacity magazine—which enables a shooter to fire more than ten bullets rapidly and without reloading— has almost no utility in the lawful defense of the home, but it has devastating effects in mass shootings.”

What the State of California and Nutty Ninth completely ignore is magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds ARE standard capacity, standard issue, as designed by the manufacturer for the firearm. This is true in all but a few states in this country and every other country in the world. It is the low capacity, 10 round magazines, that is an “accessory” and had to be engineered/created just for the few states which ban standard capacity magazines. NOBODY ELSE uses them. Standard capacity magazines are by the very definition, in common use in the rest of the United States and the world.

There is also the on-going lie of standard capacity magazines having “almost no utility in the lawful defense of the home”. This California created “myth” was put to rest in Judge Benitez’s original rulings, but it still repeated by the State and sold as “fact” by the Nutty Ninth.

As a reminder, I’ve reused a photo from my 09/01/2020 article on Not Well-Suited for Self-Defense? (https://oddstuffing.com/archives/716)

The photo that accompanies this article is from a home security system in a Fremont, CA home invasion burglary on August 28, 2016. It shows five armed men coming into the house, at least one carrying a handgun with a magazine extending below the pistol grip, a LCM.

California has been boiling the frog with regard to so-called “LCM”s since 2000 when they banned manufacture, importation and sale in the state, while leaving possession of those magazines already owned legal, a grandfather clause. This was a great way to get those on the fence to support the ban since it would not impact anyone who already owns them. As expected, the State turned up the heat in 2010 and 2013 eliminating more “LCM”s.

Naturally, this still left a dangerous “loophole” that some magazines could still be legally possessed and that had to be eliminated. They accomplished this in 2016 with Senate Bill 1446 and Proposition 63 to completely outlaw possession of these previously grandfathered magazines.

Proposition 63 declared that large-capacity magazines “significantly increase a shooter’s ability to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time.” “No one except trained law enforcement should be able to possess these dangerous ammunition magazines,” and the existing law’s lack of a ban on possession constituted a “loophole.”

So, while playing lip service to the Bruen decision, the Nutty Ninth decided to completely ignore it and substitute their own logic, seemingly going back to the outdated standards of Rational-Basis and Intermediate Scrutiny.

But here is the most interesting part. Judge Lawrence VanDyke, one of the dissenting votes on the Ninth Circuit’s en banc panel, did something unique. He created a video dissent where he discusses and demonstrates the issues with the majority ruling using his own firearms in his chambers. The video is about 19 minutes long and well worth your time.

Dissent video in 23-55805 Duncan v. Bonta – https://youtu.be/DMC7Ntd4d4c?si=LFPmT-qvrVEepHP2

Naturally, the video has been condemned by most of the majority opinion judges, but here’s the thing. I’m going to link the written ruling and dissents and the dissent video in my article, how many of you will read the full 147-page ruling? As of March 20^th, YouTube is showing over 170,000 views for the dissent video. THAT is why it is important.

We the people need to be involved and knowledgeable about what our elected officials and courts are doing. When they are ignoring hard, cold facts to make and uphold laws that are going to get you hard, cold dead, we need to know that and take action.

The next stop for Duncan v. Bonta will be the United States Supreme Court. Whether or not it will be granted certiorari again OR ruled in our favor remains to be seen. This case does provide an opportunity for the Court to clearly state how Bruen should be applied in the lower courts once and for all. It could also be denied/upheld or be sent back to the Nutty Ninth with instructions to rehear it, which will undoubtably send it back to Judge Benitez starting the clock all over again.

One final thought.

It’s a fool’s errand to believe that once a law has been enacted, it can successfully be drawn back. Of the thousands of gun control laws passed around the country, precious few are successfully appealed and reversed. The best way – the ONLY way to stop them is to prevent them from being enacted in the first place. And the only one who can do that is you.

It is beyond time we start electing different people to represent us and appoint judges who will follow the constitution and the law, not bend it to meet their political needs.

Duncan v. Bonta 03/20/2025 ruling: http://oddstuffing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-03-20-Opinion.pdf

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #LCM, #medium, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com

Firearm Sales, Cash or Credit?

As I’ve pointed out in previous articles (links below), the latest assault on Second Amendment protected rights is being made through credit card transactions. By implementing the MCC of 5723 – Firearms Retailer – credit card issuing banks, the major credit card companies and even the transaction processors will now be able to stop firearm sales. Unless blocked, this will be devastating to firearm retailers and their customers. So… cash?

A quick sidetrack on the value of cash.

Let’s say you take your crisp new $20 bill to your local store and make a purchase with it. That retailer gets $20.00 worth of value. That store goes to one of his suppliers and purchases something for $20. That supplier also gets $20.00 of value. That supplier uses that $20 to pay one of his contractors and the contractor gets $20.00 of value. This continues as long as that cash is being used.

Now let’s say you go and use a credit card to your local store and make a purchase with it. With a straight swipe fee 3% (the typical range is 1%-3.5% plus or a flat rate), the store retains only $19.40 in value. If you calculate out the 3% for each consecutive transaction, that original $20 value is below $10 in 24 transactions, below $5 in 47.

But we like the convenience and security of being able to use a credit card for a purchase instead of having to carry large amounts of cash or, heaven forbid, a checkbook. And that’s the logic of the finance elite wanting to get rid of cash in favor of a “digital currency”. All the convenience of cash without having to carry cash.

Of course, this convenience comes with a few strings attached such as the swipe fee, every purchase you make being tracked and the ability of “digital currency” to be programmed so it can only be spent on specified products, from specific retailers, in designated areas. Does this sound like a good thing for you?

Okay, back to cash or credit for firearm purchases.

Under the current rollout plan, all firearm retailers in non-MCC 5723 prohibited states will be forcibly switched over to Firearms Retailer in 2025. Banks, the credit card companies, and even the processors will be able to say ‘we don’t want our cards used for gun and ammo purchases’ and deny the charges. THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING with some financial institutions.

Checks? Well, good luck finding a firearm retailer that will accept a check from someone who isn’t one of their best, longest-term customers. Even if they do, there’s no way of knowing the check is good before the transaction is complete and the firearm has walked out the door, even in a waiting period state.

This leaves you with cash. With an average cost of a defensive type handgun running between $300 and $1,500, that’s a lot of cash to carry. (Yes, you can get new defensive type handgun for even cheaper, but please don’t.)

The point here is purchasing with cash, while a valid option, isn’t practical for most people. And if you go to your bank in person to withdraw a large sum of cash, your bank will most likely interrogate you as to why you want it… for security purposes.

The truth is today, most people are going to be making small, medium and even large purchases with a credit card. It’s not always the best option for the retailer or even the customer if they don’t pay off their balance every month, but it’s the way we live. Restricting firearm purchases with the new Firearm Retailer credit card code will limit your ability to purchase firearms and ammunition when and where you want to.

Fun story. Years ago, I was working at a firearm retailer, and a customer was paying in cash, as he always did. When I asked why he explained, as he was completing the Federal Form 4473, he didn’t want the government to know what he was purchasing. While he was kind of missing the whole point of the 4473, it appears he might have been a man ahead of his time. Not only was he keeping his bank and the government out of his purchase, but he was also making sure he would be able to make this purchase.

Threats to our Second Amendment protected rights are not limited to do-nothing-for-public-safety gun control laws like waiting periods, universal background checks, bans on standard capacity magazines or so-called “assault weapon”. As they have with the original Operation Chokepoint, they include attempting to restrict our ability to purchase firearms.

Numerous State Attorneys General, including my own, claim since ‘acquire’ isn’t in the plain text of the Second Amendment’s “keep and bear arms”, it is not protected by the Second Amendment. Fortunately, the courts have firmly rejected this argument, but this isn’t stopping the gun control community from going after it. They are now using the credit card industry itself to target your ability to use their banking services for firearms and ammunition purchases.

For everyone – it’s time to let your federal representatives and senators know how you feel about this, even if they are traditionally gun control inclined. As we’ve already seen in the 118th Congress, even with a Republican majority in the House and Senate, the RINO crowd is strong and needs to be reminded if they aren’t going to represent our interests, then they can be replaced by someone who will.

MCC 5723: Firearms Retailer https://oddstuffing.com/archives/1311
The Latest Operation Choke Point – Paused https://oddstuffing.com/archives/1030

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #MCC, #FirearmRetailer, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com

Young Adults and the Second Amendment

A recent decision from United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Reese vs ATF ruled the laws restricting 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds from purchasing a handgun (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1)) from a Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) to be unconstitutional. The case was remanded back to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The ruling itself may be found at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25509805-reese-v-atf-opinion/#document/p1

The core of the issue becomes when you consider someone an adult. Naturally, there’s a political slant to all of this.

For most of the country, a person becomes an adult at age 18. With a few exceptions where parental consent is given, 18 is the age where you can vote, get married, enter legal contracts, join or be drafted into the military and be punished as an adult for crimes vs the juvenile justice system. Most in this age group are graduating high school and either going to college or entering the workforce and living on their own. Pretty straight forward adult type stuff.

Yet somehow, the gun control community believes the Second Amendment should not apply to young adults ages 18 through 20. They say you must be a full 21 years of age before the full protections of the Second Amendment apply to you.

BUT the very same people supporting this also believe:

An 18-year-old is mature enough to join the military and be issued and use handguns, fully automatic rifles, bazookas, mortars, artillery, tanks… you get the idea.
A 16-year-old is mature enough to vote and should be voting in local, state and national elections.
A child of single digit age is mature enough to determine their own sex/gender and obtain medical and surgical intervention without their parent’s knowledge or consent yet still have to be told to eat their vegetables, do their homework and chores and have a bedtime set by their parents.

One of the great lying with statistics examples is how the gun control community now says the leading cause of death in children is so-called “gun violence’. Is it true? ABSOLUTELY NOT! How did they come to this conclusion? Easy, by including ADULTS aged 18 & 19 in their counts. When you eliminate the 18- and 19-year-olds, you get what it has been for decades, traffic accidents.

Yet this lie is so pervasive and has been repeated so many times by so many left leaning ‘news’ groups, activists and politicians, it’s almost become a fact. And that’s the rationale behind doing it. If you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes fact.

According to the latest census data, this age group represents only 3.91% of the United States population. As a political force, they have minimal clout and practically zero representation. It’s very easy to choose this age group for discriminatory practices since they have neither the influence, nor resources to mount an effective challenge without the assistance of others.

Besides, it’s not a right denied it’s just a right delayed until they are a bit older. And within just a few years, far shorter than most legal challenges through our court system these days. Note: Figure out where “A right delayed is a right denied” originates and the legal arguments it has been used in to see the hypocrisy of the use here.

They argue the regulations do nothing to prohibit 18- 19- and 20-year-olds from owning, possessing, or carrying handguns, nor does it prohibit them from buying handguns in the unlicensed, private market or receiving handguns as gifts. This of course assumes universal background check laws are not in place, a parent is willing to provide a handgun, and the state allows them to carry a handgun.

In this case, the government argued that a limited ban on the purchase of handguns from FFLs is not an infringement on the Second Amendment rights, and in any event this age groups is not among “the people” protected by the right.

While founding era 18 to 20-year-old could not serve on jury, or vote, but there are no historical precedents for age restrictions for the Second Amendment.

Let’s also keep in mind in 1870, nearly eighty years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the Fifteenth Amendment extended voting rights to all Americans, regardless of race; and it was not until 1920 that the Nineteenth Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote. Finally, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment lowered the voting age for all Americans from twenty-one to eighteen in 1971.

The good news is there are organizations who are willing to represent and challenge these age discrimination laws. Challenges are being mounted in multiple states against laws which deny this age group the ability to purchase a handgun, any long gun, ammunition or obtain a concealed carry permit.

This ruling is a long time coming but will no doubt be challenged up to the United States Supreme Court, as it should be. This discriminatory law against young adults has no place in our country and needs to be jettisoned along with the rest of the do-nothing to increase public safety gun control laws that have been passed.

Young adults deserve to be able to protect themselves and their families at home and in public just the same as any other adult.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #ATFE, #YoungAdults, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com

Protecting Second Amendment Rights Executive Order

On Friday, February 7^th, the President of the United States issued an executive order entitled Protecting Second Amendment Rights. Given the all-out assault on the Second Amendment by the previous administration, this is a significant event, but will the result be what we want?

This is the link to the Executive Order on the White House website. I encourage you to take a few minutes and read it for yourself. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/protecting-second-amendment-rights-7b90/

As expected, the reaction from the extreme left anti-gun zealots and their talking heads was swift and unhinged.

From Everytown: BREAKING: Trump just signed a sweeping executive order calling on

Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate “ongoing infringements” of the Second Amendment. Let’s be clear: The bipartisan, life-saving, and extremely popular progress on gun safety made under the leadership of the Biden Administration is consistent with the Second Amendment, which is why 15 Senate Republicans supported the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

From Giffords: “Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children and teens in America—we cannot make it easier for guns to fall into dangerous hands. The president’s priority should be to build on the lifesaving progress made over the last four years, not boost profits for gun company CEOs.” “The Second Amendment isn’t under attack. GIFFORDS built a coalition of thousands of gun owners who, like me, know that there is no conflict between the Second Amendment and commonsense gun safety. Any effort to repeal important, lifesaving measures will harm public safety and put our children at risk. The safety of our families, our children, our schools and our communities is not a partisan issue. That’s not what Americans voted for in November.”

For those of us in the real world, we know the previous administration did absolutely NOTHING life-saving, or to enhance public safety or protect children. In fact, all the measures taken were against law abiding firearm owners by limiting their ability to protect themselves and their families at home and in public. ALL these groups are complicit in the tragedies at schools by making them gun free zones that ensures they have ZERO on-site protection from law enforcement or armed security. And p.s., so-called “gun violence” is not the leading cause of death for children in America. That is a lie. But let’s not go there right now.

What do we think is going to happen with this?

First off, given the decisive actions taken from day one by this President, it’s safe to assume this will not be a typical government analyze and bury studies. We should reasonably expect the report in 30 days and for it to be relatively straight forward.

The fact that the ATF is specifically called out gives us hope their overzealous and unconstitutional attempts to create new, restrictive gun control laws on bump stocks, frames and receivers, forced reset triggers, stabilizing braces and bans on imports and exports could be stopped. We can also hope the zero tolerance administrative actions towards FFL’s (Federal Firearm License) and extreme force raids for non-violent offenses could come to an end as well.

BUT, we also must understand this Executive Action is directed to the new Attorney General of the Department of Justice (DOJ) who has a history of vigorously supporting so-called “Red Flag” laws, including advising the current President on them during his previous administration.

Our hope comes from that we have already seen the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, a new federal job for gun control lobbyists inside the walls of the White House, disbanded.

This Executive Order is significant, especially after previous administrations have done everything in their power to restrict the rights of law-abiding firearm owners and users while doing nothing to prevent or punish those who blatantly violate the laws we already have with impunity.

We should also not take this as a time to let up on our legal and legislative efforts, especially at the state level. With both chambers of Congress being a near 50/50 split, any significant federal laws having anything to do with Second Amendment protected rights are going to be damn near impossible to push through.

So, let’s keep our fingers crossed we get the results we want from this Executive Order, and we can translate this success down to our own states.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #ATFE, Executive Order, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com

MCC 5723 – Firearms Retailer

WAY BACK in March 2023, I wrote “I called The Latest Operation Choke Point – Paused” about the push of a new MCC (Merchant Category Code) for guns stores. Here’s an update. Without a legal requirement to do so, it is being pushed onto the industry, like it or not.

As of January 2025, new merchants MUST be assigned the MCC of 5723, Firearms Retailer. This is being imposed on the credit card processors by payment gateway Authorize.net, a wholly owned subsidiary of Visa. The only places exempted are in those states that have outlawed the use of a specific merchant category code for firearms and firearm related businesses.

The states that have mandated the use of this MCC are California, Colorado and New York.

The states that have outlawed the use of this MCC are Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, West Virginia, Texas, Montana, Mississippi, Utah, Iowa, Wyoming, Tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, Alabama and Kentucky.

This means if you are in a state that has NOT outlawed it, but also NOT requiring it, you are getting it anyway.

Why is this important?

As I said in my original article, this has absolutely nothing to do with their stated purpose of being a law enforcement investigative tool. It was advertised as being all about ‘public safety’ by allowing credit card companies to flag suspicious purchases and report them to law enforcement, thereby (somehow) preventing mass shootings.

IF the intention was to be able to track purchases made at a firearm retailer/Federal Firearms License (FFL), the credit card industry and gun-control zealots already had a way to do this. A quick trip to the ATFE (Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives) website allows you to download the complete current list of every FFL in the country in .xlsx, .txt or .pdf format. Even someone with prehistoric programming skills like me could write a program to flag sales from any firearm retailer in real time in about 15 minutes.

Side note: How many industries do you know where the entire list of retailers is available to everyone with only a click required to download it?

The actual purpose is to allow the card issuing banks, or even Visa and the other credit card companies themselves, to be able to deny credit card purchases from firearm retailers, period. Sadly, this is already occurring. There are already many reports around the country of banks who have denied their customers purchases at firearm retailers. Their moral high ground is they don’t want their company being used to legally purchase firearms.

The new MCC would be much less of a burden for large retailers such as Bass Pro/Cabela’s, Walmart, etc. who already have multiple MCC’s for different areas of their stores. Therefore, denying purchases from the firearm retailer MCC would only stop purchase in the firearms area of the store. What this MCC can do is stop smaller firearm retailers from making any sales because they use a single credit card processor for all sales, firearms and non-firearm related.

Your local bank is the current battleground for your Second Amendment rights. Gun-control zealots have long pressured financial institutions into not working with firearms industry, from the largest manufacturers to your local mom-and-pop shop. Ask any firearm related business how difficult it is to get bank accounts or credit card processing in many areas of the country. The firearm retailer MCC is simply another attack on the ability of consumers to buy firearms.

Where do we go from here?

A new federal bill has been reintroduced this year, H.R. 7450: Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act. This would “prohibit payment card networks and covered entities from requiring the use of or assigning merchant category codes that distinguish a firearms retailer from general-merchandise retailer or sporting-goods retailer, and for other purposes.”

If you live in one of the states that has NOT yet outlawed the use of this MCC, it’s time for you to contact your elected representatives and ask/demand they put forth legislation to stop it. Yes, even if you live in a left wing dominated state like I do.

For everyone – it’s time to let your federal representatives and senators know how you feel about this, even if they are traditionally gun control inclined. As we’ve already seen in the 118^th Congress, even with a Republican majority in the House and Senate, the RINO crowd is strong and needs to be reminded if they aren’t going to represent our interests, then they can be replaced by someone who will.

By the by, does it make sense now why they want to get rid of cash and go to digital currency?

Bob

ATF Implements Background Checks for Alcohol Purchases (Fictitious Content

The ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) recently announced a change in their regulatory approach. With consideration to the deaths and health dangers associated with the consumption of alcohol, purchases shall henceforward require a background check. This move will synchronize the oversight and governing over the areas ATF is responsible, using firearms and explosives as the model

ATF noted that *alcohol related deaths in the United States far outnumber the deaths in other areas they regulate. In 2022 alone, 13,524 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic incidents. That equals one person dead every 39 minutes. Additionally, 95,000 alcohol related deaths occur each year, along with 47,500 deaths attributable to the long-term health failure from drinking. Stricter regulations of alcohol purchases will certainly be a significant benefit to public safety.

The Bureau also stated that many thousands of individuals around the country are under court order with pre-trial, sentencing and probation restrictions against the purchase and consumption of alcohol. This new effort will be of significant assistance to local, state and federal law enforcement for enforcement of judicial orders as well as help local retailers avoid liability by unknowing providing alcohol to prohibited persons or minors.

The background checks will be in two forms. For on-premises consumption, an instant background check will be conducted based on a valid state driver’s license or non-driver identification card. All purchases will be recorded in the ATF database. The regulatory analogy for this type of check and tracking is renting a firearm at a range and used under the guidance/supervision of trained range personal.

For retail purchases where there will be no supervision of consumption, an instant background check and three-day waiting period will be imposed prior to the buyer being able to take possession of their alcohol purchase. The regulatory analogy for this type of check is a firearm sale at a retail establishment where the purchaser passes an instant background check but must wait three or more days before taking possession of their firearm.

All purchases will be tracked in the new ATF Alcohol Database. The data may be accessed by any law enforcement agency and shall be prima facie evidence of the intent to purchase, possess and consume alcohol. The ATF indicated future plans to use the database to limit the quantity of purchases permissible in a given time period as well as deny purchase based on a calculation of presumed blood alcohol level from accumulated purchases based on the physical attributes on the individual’s ID card.

An announcement on new regulations for tobacco is expected in the coming months.

Of course, all the above information is absolutely, 100% fictious EXCEPT the astricted* section on the number of deaths associated with alcohol consumption.

Can you imagine the public reaction if the ATF were to attempt to conduct background checks and a waiting period for alcohol purchases? It would be as if the 18^th Amendment was never repealed by the 21^stAmendment. How DARE the government do a background check for me to have a drink or delay my purchase of legal alcohol! Unthinkable!

From a pure public safety point of view, the number of lives lost to use of alcohol (a privilege) is far greater than the lives lost for use of firearms (a constitutionally protected right). Yet alcohol is loosely regulated, and firearms are controlled very tightly, with attempts to increase it every year at the local, state and federal level. If politicians actually wanted to save lives, wouldn’t that be the logical place to start?

The difference of course is restricting civilian purchasing, possession and use of firearms makes the population more dependent on government agencies for their safety. A dependent population is more willing to giving up their rights for the promise of safety, even though the government has no ability, and no legal obligation, to protect them. Yet the mere ‘promise’ of safety is enough for many to give up their arms. Gun control is about people control, NOT public safety.

Civilian firearms can and are used most commonly for legal purposes and self-defense. In a long-buried CDC (Centers for Disease Control) studies, the CDC found that civilian defensive use of firearms outnumbered felonious use of firearms by a rate of 3 to 1, to the tune of 2.5 to 3 million uses per year. Note that not all the events involved the discharge of a firearm by the civilian. Often, the mere presenting or challenge to the criminal with a firearm was enough to stop the intended crime. It’s also important to realize this number ONLY includes persons who were not performing defensive duties as part of their employment such as law enforcement or security services.

There is of course that whole guard against the emergence of a tyrannical government thing, but that only matters if we ever envisioned a government that was out of control and tried to illegally control the population based on things like religion, politics or ideology. That would never happen, right?

The reality is YOU and YOU ALONE are responsible for your own safety and the safety of your family, at home and in public. IF a firearm is the right tool for you to use, then accept the responsibility of ownership, safe storage for your individual situation, obtain the training you need and carry on!

And finally, drink responsibly and do NOT drink and drive.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #ATF, #ConcealCarry, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com

Constitutional Carry Reciprocity Act, A Real Gun Safety Law

A new and improved version of a national reciprocity law entitled the Constitutional Carry Reciprocity Act has been introduced in both the House and Senate. With the President Elect already committing to sign it should it be passed by Congress; will this finally be the time to get this passed? OR… will it be just another visibility bill killed by the old guard?

The anti-gun left has always equated firearm ownership and use (a right) with driver’s licenses (a privilege). Yet while a driver’s license from any state is valid in every state, concealed carry licenses are generally limited to the state they are issued in. There are some states who recognize other states’ concealed carry permits through individual reciprocity agreements, but some states, typically the most adamant anti-gun states, refuse to recognize any conceal carry permits other than their own.

Just a comment on state lines. These days they mean next to nothing and the closer you live to one, they mean even less than that. We are a highly mobile society and going across state borders is as unceremonious as going town to town, neighborhood to neighborhood, street to street. Politicians love them because they can rule over their domains to their own benefit, but very few people do anything different one state to the next.

For those who haven’t been paying attention, there are now 29 states where constitutional carry – carrying a concealed firearm without a state issued permit – is now legal. The last 13 being brought in since the current (as of 01/19/24) anti-gun administration began. That’s more than half the states in the country where 46.8% of Americans (157.6 million) now live in constitutional carry states, with 67.7% of the land in the country (2.57 million square miles).

Interestingly enough, the number of concealed carry permit holders, 21.5 million, has gone down as the number of constitutional carry states increased. The reason is understandable as people who once were required to get a government issued permit no longer need to, saving the time, administrative hassle and costs associated with obtaining and keeping a permit valid. Those who do obtain one generally do so for additional benefits such as expanded carry zones, reciprocity with other states and no duty to inform on interactions with law enforcement.

Let’s also remember what the anti-gun extremists warned would happen when all these states dropped their permit requirements. They claimed it would be the “wild, wild west” and “blood would flow in the streets”, and called it “criminal carry”. What really happened? Violent crime in the constitutional carry states went down. Go figure.

Also, according to a recent law enforcement survey of working officers, not the politically appointed politicians with badges at the head of the agencies:

More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/ medically incapable.

A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 60 percent).

House H.R. 38 and the Senate counterpart S. 65 says, in part:

“A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State…”

There is already one conceal carry permit in the form of LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act). However, this applies only to qualified current, retired and separated law enforcement officials. It has also been summarily ignored by several anti-gun states even though the federal law has precedence over the state law. Properly credentialed LEOSA officers have been arrested and had firearms confiscated but released in the morning without charges. It’s the old cop saying, “you can’t take back a night in jail”. This harassment of law enforcement officers carrying under federal law may preview how some states will treat those carrying under a new national reciprocity act.

What will it take to get this passed by the House and Senate, and sent to the President for his signature? A miracle.

While the House version now caims “bipartisan support” thanks to the unusual endorsement of one of Maine’s anti-gun Democrats, this doesn’t mean it will pass. The Senate is even less likely since it will require Democrat support due to the razor thin Republican majority. But that’s only part of the story.

While the Republican party holds a majority in both houses, it also contains a record crash [sic] of RINOs who will do anything and everything to stop it. The motivation is in two parts. One that they really are anti-gun elitists who enjoy having firearms protecting THEM, but don’t want the rabble they represent to have them. The other is they don’t want to allow the President to make good on a campaign promise, even if it means their constituents must choose between leaving their firearms at their state line and not be able to defend themselves or break the law of other states in order to protect themselves and their families away from home.

This means it’s up to us to let our federal representatives in the House and Senate know our support for these bills. This is especially true for those of us, like me, with RINO representation. They represent US, and we need to remind them of that.

The time has finally come for National Constitutional Carry Reciprocity, so let’s make it happen.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #Reciprocity, #ConcealCarry, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com

No, America Isn’t Turning Away From Firearms

Anti-gun extremists are doing their best to restrict lawful firearm purchases, possession and use across the country. If you believe what they say, they are winning the war against firearms and more and more people are rejecting them. But is that true?

The accompanying graphic popped up on one of my news feeds and purports to show the rate of gun ownership across the states. Keep in mind the graphic is from The Trace, an absolutely biased, left wing funded and produced, anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment group, so… anything they says must be taken with a MASSIVE grain of salt. But just for a moment, let’s say the information is even in the ballpark. What does it show us?

First off, you’ll notice the lowest percentages of firearm ownership is in the nanny/highly restrictive gun control states of California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Hawaii. This is not by accident and is a source of great pride with them. They have done such a good job at gun control that their firearm ownership rates are so low.

Now, go take a look at the crime rates across the country and compare those in the lowest firearm ownership states with those in the higher firearm ownership states. You’ll notice the truth they don’t want you to see. Less civilian firearm ownership means higher crime rates. The reason is simple. Criminals prefer unarmed, defenseless victims. And since none of their gun control laws do anything to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms through illegal means, they are well-armed.

Governments also prefer unarmed, defenseless victims as citizens. When the public has no place to turn other than the government for ‘safety’, they will willingly consent to more and more restrictions on their own liberty for the promise of a little bit of safety.

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

What’s the truth about firearms in this country? Americans understand they are responsible for their own safety and the safety of their families. The government cannot/will not be there to protect you and… has zero legal obligation to do so. Your safety is YOUR responsibility.

For Americans who feel firearms are an appropriate tool, they have been purchasing them in record numbers. December’s NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation)-adjusted FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verifications topped 1.6 million background checks for the sale of firearms at retail establishments. This brought the total for 2024 to 15.2 million. December was also the 65^thstraight month where the total adjusted background checks exceeded 1 million. Does this sound like the country is abandoning firearms or embracing them for self-defense?

I also noted an article recently where the LGBTQ community is now rushing to arm itself under the unfounded fear they will be rounded up and put into “concentration camps” or subjected to “hate-driven oppression” with the incoming administration. Even the most cynical, radical, anti-everything among us understands this is just another scare tactic designed to sow hate and discontent. But at the same time, it is interesting that some of the very same groups and individuals who have advocated for highly restrictive gun control laws are now pushing to arm themselves for self-defense against a potential oppressive government or those who would do them harm, just like everyone else.

The Pink Pistols, established in 2000, has long advocated for members of the LGBTQ community to become comfortable with firearms, train with them and carry them for self-protection. Personally, I cannot applaud them enough for encouraging their members to take responsibility for their own safety.

The nice thing about the Second Amendment is it doesn’t discriminate. Yes, even though our country has come a long way since it was created, there are some people who still do. I firmly believe their numbers are dwindling, much to dismay of the fearmongering press who attempt to drive a wedge between the people of our nation.

Unfortunately, the criminal element among us no longer fears the police, the courts or any form of punishment thanks to years of soft-on-crime politics. Adding to the problem are defunded law enforcement agencies who despite wanting to do their best to “protect and serve” the public, no longer have the capacity.

Therefore, it falls upon the individual, the law-abiding citizen – as it always has – to step up and defend themselves the best and most effective way they can. IF that includes the purchase, carrying and use of firearms, then let’s make sure everyone has the opportunity by opposing the insanity of the do-nothing for public safety gun control community.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com

No Compromise on the Second Amendment

One of the common complaints from the anti-gun extremist left is Second Amendment advocates are never willing to compromise. They say we are “never willing to meet us halfway” or “negotiate on gun safety”. To this I respond, you are absolutely correct! We don’t now and we never will! How many of your constitutional rights are YOU willing to negotiate away?

We often get hit with the ‘no compromise’ argument from the anti-gun extremists. We aren’t willing to have a “discussion about gun safety”. The reasons why are very simple.

In the first place the anti-gun crowd has no idea what the term “gun safety” means. To the world at large throughout the history of firearms, gun safety has a specific meaning. It means using your firearms in a safe manner. It’s exercising the four rules of firearm safety EACH and EVERY time you handle a firearm. It’s taking responsibility for every projectile that comes out of the barrel. It’s storing your firearms responsibly for your INDIVIDUAL circumstances. It’s instilling the values of safety and responsibility in the next generation.

Just because the anti-gun crowd co-opts a word and tries to use their own definition of it, doesn’t make it true. To them “gun safety” means more gun control laws. It means restricting the purchase, possession and use of firearms by law-abiding individuals. It means taking every opportunity to strip firearms out of hands of the law-abiding, while doing absolutely nothing to increase one of their other favorite topics, “public safety”.

Public safety from the government point of view is something they are responsible for. They ensure the public is safe from harm from crime and other dangers. But while the government has the responsibility to do this, they have no accountability in doing it. Numerous cases of individuals suing the government for failing to protect them from harm have been dismissed by the courts ruling the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect the public.

This means you are on your own to protect yourself and your family. Fortunately, the Second Amendment is there to protect your natural right to self-defense.

At the same time, the government, and more specifically the anti-gun extremists running it, want to eliminate your ability to protect yourself. By restricting your ability to carry and use firearms, they enforce the government’s monopoly on protecting the public, even though they have zero constitutional duty to do so.

When the anti-gun extremists talk about “public safety”, all they are doing is trying to maintain the government as the sole protector of the peace and safety, even as they defund and dismantle the ability of law enforcement to act. When your only option for safety comes from the government, then you will support progressively more restrictions on your own liberty in exchange for a little bit of safety.

As far as having a discussion, negotiating or meeting them halfway, when is the last time your ever heard of the anti-gun extremists being willing to give up any form of gun control? And no, agreeing not to advance a new gun control ban on “X” this year is not a negotiating point, it’s just postponing the inevitable.

For them, discussing and negotiating means more gun control, period. If you ask them to give up something, they’ll whip out all the so-called “research” they’ve conducted to prove what they have been pushing for. You know the ones created, financed and conducted with a specific goal in mind which come to the inescapable conclusion that more gun control is the only way to increase public safety. They’ll even have all the buzz words to go along with it like data driven, common sense, empowering safety, keep guns out of the wrong hands, and of course ‘think of the children!’. In the end, they won’t give up a damn thing.

An actual negotiation would look something like this.

We’ll give you nationwide conceal carry reciprocity in exchange for a nationwide three-day waiting period.
We’ll take suppressors off the NFA (National Firearms Act) list for a ban on carrying firearms in state and federal government buildings.
We’ll get rid of red flag laws if you fully fund the staffing and training in the mental health commitment laws currently available in all 50 states.

It’s not that I would support negotiating away any limitations self-defense; these are just examples of what a negotiation might look like.

Would the anti-gun extremists ever truly negotiate by rolling back a gun control law without being forced by the courts to do so? No, because they only want Second Amendment advocates to negotiate in the interest of their definition of public safety. What they want law-abiding firearm owners to do is voluntarily give up more and more of their Second Amendment protected rights until nothing is left.

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

For me, I can proudly say I would never compromise on Second Amendment protected rights, for myself or for future generations. As much as the anti-gun extremists want to redefine words for their own needs, the last three words of the Second Amendment seem pretty damn clear – “shall not be infringed”.

No compromise, no negotiation, no meeting halfway and no watering down our rights. Stop lying to the people and let them protect themselves and their families as is their right.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #NoCompromise, #NoNegotiation, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com

97 Percent, Just Another Gun Control Group

Among all the noise and confusion created by the anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment community, there are those who purport themselves as moderates and gun owners who believe more and more gun control is the answer to so-called “gun violence”. Do they really represent gun owners? Hardly. Simply look at how they operate and what they are pushing, and you’ll see they are just another group of antis in a cheap disguise.

I came across the 97Percent in a search on “gun safety organizations”. Like a lot of anti-gun rights groups, they claim they represent both gun owners and non-gun owners. They claim their name was derived from a 2018 Quinnipiac University poll, which found that 97% of Americans support universal background checks.

First off let’s dig a little into this 2018 Quinnipiac University poll. It claims 97% overall and 97% of GUN OWNERS support universal background checks. If you think those numbers seem a little hard to believe, consider a few things. The poll was initiated just TWO DAYS after the horrific shooting at the Parkland, FL school. Also consider they asked, “Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?”, THEN asked if they or anyone in their home owns a gun. The poll of a scant 1,249 people DID NOT identify if the respondents themselves were gun owners.

Now I’ll be the first to admit my family, friends and the people I associate with are going to skew decidedly right on most issues. However, I’m confident if I conducted the same poll I would get the exact opposite number, with only 3% supporting universal background checks. And once we had a conversation as to what those universal background checks really mean, I’m pretty sure I could knock off another percentage point or two.

The 97Percent’ers claim they are made up of gun owners and non-gun owners. The group is not member supported, but funded by the founders, a rich California couple now into philanthropy. They claim right on the front page of their website: What’s the most effective way to reduce gun deaths while respecting Americans’ Second Amendment rights? ASK GUN OWNERS.

Who are their gun owners? They have Republicans and law enforcement and former NRA lobbyists (Oh My!). Let me translate that for you, RINOs, politicians with badges and professional activists who are willing to sell their services to anyone for a buck. Not exactly a robust group of Second Amendment right supporters. Again, I ask you to consider our current Vice President is a self-proclaimed gun owner yet is one of the biggest anti-Second Amendment/Fourth Amendment/Fifth Amendment advocates out there.

Like many of the favorite Fudd’s we all know and love, as long as we leave them and their guns alone, they don’t care what happens to anyone else’s guns or gun rights. Just because you “own a gun” doesn’t make you a representative of the Second Amendment community.

What is their policy roadmap? Well, some of this is going to sound very familiar.

Make sure violent criminals can’t access guns.
Set violent misdemeanor crimes as the threshold for exclusion from gun purchase and possession.
Create a mechanism to assess if someone is a violent criminal, prior to purchasing a gun.
Implement gun permit laws at the state level, in conjunction with background checks.
Ensure background checks, at the state and federal level, are part of the gun permitting process.
Ensure those at high risk of committing violence in the immediate future cannot access a gun.
Implement red flag laws at the state level.

Let’s take these in order.

1) Make sure violent criminals can’t access guns. Their proposal is to reduce the state and federal firearms ownership ban threshold from a felony to a misdemeanor. A conviction of any form of violence as a misdemeanor would result in a 10-year disqualification.

These are direct-from-Kalifornistan “Red Flag” law proposals whose intent is to cast a much larger net of those who can be forcibly disarmed by the state. And don’t forget the Kalifornistan APPS (Armed and Prohibited Persons System) program to go to the homes of recently convicted offenders and confiscate their guns. That’s part of the plan.

But good news! – How Does It Respect Rights of Law Abiding Citizens?

“Along with gun permit laws and background checks, this would eliminate the need for subjective and potentially discriminatory “may carry” laws.”

Of course, these “may carry” laws have already been declared unconstitutional.

2) Create a mechanism to assess if someone is a violent criminal, prior to purchasing a gun. The proposal is for a state level permit to purchase license as well as a permit to carry license. The claim is this will be more effective than repetitive point-of-sale NICS checks currently required for FFL (Federal Firearms License) purchase and transfers since the FBI based checks don’t check state and local records.

But good news again! How Does It Respect Rights of Law Abiding Citizens?

“Would eliminate the need for background checks with valid permits (current federal laws waive point-of-purchase background checks in states with gun permits).
Would eliminate the need for potentially discriminatory “may issue” laws. Law enforcement would not need to have discretion in approving permits. The decision would be based solely on whether a person has a history of violence.
Would open the door to concealed carry permit reciprocity between states that have permitting systems in place.
Gun owners would not need a new background check each time they purchased a gun, provided they held a valid gun permit.
Gun sales or transfers between family members would not require a NICS check or a state background check, as long as the person receiving the gun has a valid gun permit.”

Sadly, the 97Percent staff doesn’t seem to fully understand NICS checks, or realize how foolish of an argument this is. And of course, there’s that whole “may issue” thing being unconstitutional and the fact many states will never willingly allow carry permit reciprocity.

Side note: From their contracted “research” to justify these policy positions, they spoke about how great it would be for the gun owner to have a state level permit for firearms purchases. Once you are “approved to execute your right” there is no delay.

Note: APPROVED TO EXECUTE YOUR RIGHTS. Does this sound like a right or a privilege to you?

Interestingly, even their own directed research couldn’t back up the 97% approval for universal background checks.

3) And finally; Ensure those at high risk of committing violence in the immediate future cannot access a gun. Simply put, Red Flag laws. There are many excellent articles out there which clearly outline why this is a constitutional nightmare.

Instead of using the laws EVERY STATE already has in place to take persons in crisis into custody and secure their firearms, they needed to come up with a shortcut civil system where the firearm confiscation comes first BEFORE the subject has a chance to defend themselves in court, without the right to a court appointed attorney, after the fact, and the supposedly dangerous subject is not taken into custody. There is zero good news with Red Flag laws, and no amount of lies or sugar coating can come up with one.

Why do I bring this up and focus on groups such as the 97Percenters? Because they claim to include gun owners in solutions, but these solutions are always, ALWAYS, the ones that take away rights, take away firearms, and turn your Second Amendment rights into second class privileges subject to whatever whim of new restrictions the next anti-gun administration feels like adding on.

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

Nothing in what this so-called ‘moderate’ group or any of the other anti-gun group clones does in any way respects Second Amendment rights. It’s all about getting YOU to believe other gun owners think this way, so you should too. They might as well be arguing it’s “common sense”.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #NoFudds, #NoRINOs, #No97%ers, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com