righttobeararms – Page 3

A Tale Of Two Guns

Two unassuming firearms start out their lives together, one right after the other on the assembly line. They are nearly identical, but they are very, very different. The first one, serial number Nug667, is a good gun, destined for a life of service and protection. The other one, serial number Nug666, is a bad gun. It is pure evil and desires only to cause pain to innocent lives. Their lives take very different paths until the night they come back together again.

It is a day like most others at the factory. Firearms coming together from the various pieces and parts until they take their final functional form. At the end of the line, they are test fired and boxed, awaiting shipment to a distributor, then retailer and their new owners. Nug667 performed admirably in all the tests, as did Nug666. But even the highly experienced assembly and test workers couldn’t figure out what was off about it, so it was readied for shipping.

Once at the gun shop, Nug667 is pulled aside for a new hire at the local police department. They chose it because the serial number would match the new recruit’s badge number, 667. It would be a good omen. The recruit takes his new service weapon and attends the police academy. He is taught marksmanship, use of force and maintenance with it. He excels in all the shooting courses and takes impeccable care of his new firearm. Upon graduation, officer 667 and Nug667 hit the streets together.

Like most officers’ firearms, they are rarely fired in the course of their work. This was the case of Nug667. While it was drawn on a number of felony stops and arrests, the offenders chose to surrender instead of shooting it out with the police. Still Nug667 saw plenty of use during required police training and officer 667’s own practice. As it was in the academy, it was well cared for, dutifully cleaned and parts replaced when needed.

Nug666 was different. Customers at the gun shop could tell something wasn’t right with it and all passed it over. It sat for months and months, far longer than any like it. When it was finally bought, the purchaser ‘looked’ normal, but had other intentions. All of the forms were filled out and the questions answered correctly. Identification presented was genuine and the background check on the purchaser came back clear. By outward appearance and demeanor, the purchaser did everything right. Nug666 was packaged up and delivered, nobody realizing it had committed its first crime. For this was a straw purchase, someone with a clean record buying a firearm for someone else. In this case, the “someone else” was a convicted felon who would not be able to legally buy or possess a firearm. Later that evening Nug666 was handed over to the felon in exchange for a quantity of drugs, the felon’s preferred method of commerce. With the exchange, Nug666 commits more crimes and becomes involved in the community’s drug trade.

Over the next several years, Nug666 accompanies its felon owner on many drug purchases and deliveries. It is carried into numerous burglaries and used to rob several stores, being aimed at defenseless clerks. Beyond the initial few rounds the felon took to the woods and fired into the trees, Nug666 wasn’t fired at all. Still, it amassed a huge list of crimes where it was used for intimidation. It looked much older since it was never cleaned and often times stored loose under car seats, in trucks and even for a while in a ditch when the felon thought he was going to be stopped.

Then late one night, a store in this city was robbed at gunpoint. The frightened clerk doesn’t move fast enough and is shot. Nug666 now adds murder to its long list of crimes. The felon jumps in his car and takes off. A short distance away Officer 667 pulls the car over and orders the felon out of the car, Nug667 pointing at the driver. The felon jumps out of the car and pulls Nug666 out of his waistband as he charges towards the officer. A single shot rings out.

Of course all of the above is nothing but a fable. Not because of the actions; these play out every day in cities and towns across our country. It is fiction because there is no such thing as a good or evil gun. Every firearm ever made is nothing more than a mechanical object. It has no soul, no will and no intent of its own. It is simply a tool to be used by a human. It can be used by an officer or law-abiding citizen to protect and preserve life, or it can be used by a criminal to take an innocent one.

Many in our society blame the gun, the inanimate object, for the crime, violence and death. They say if it weren’t for availability of guns, these things would go away. What they forget is evil intent will always find a way as it always has. In areas where guns are not allowed, criminals can always get and use them. And when they can’t, they use knives, hammers, bats, vehicles, bombs or their own fists and feet to commit those crimes, violence and death.

Guns are not the problem; criminals are the problem. Until we stop blaming an object and hold criminals fully accountable for their actions; crime, violence and death will never go away.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #SecondAmendment, #RightToBearArms, #CrimeAndViolence, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

Is California Too Far Gone To Save?

I met up with a very good friend a short time ago and we began discussing the current state of affairs in California as it relates to firearms. As optimistic as we tried to be, the outlook for law-abiding firearms owners here is dismal. Even with the shift in leadership at the national level and a new Associate Supreme Court Justice, can we reasonably expect anything to change here?

California, better known to us behind enemy lines as Kalifornistan, is infamous for infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens while simultaneously granting more rights to those who break the law. For firearm owners and Second Amendment supporters, it’s the worst of the worst. New laws targeting “dangerous loopholes” in public safety inexplicably impact only the law-abiding and do absolutely nothing to reduce crime or punish criminals.

Perhaps you’ve seen the latest NRA ad for the West coast: Don’t Give Up On California—The NRA Hasn’t. The accompanying photo shows a massive NRA banner strung across the Golden Gate Bridge. Photoshop of course since this state would literally explode if that ever happened. The point of the promotion is that the NRA is fighting to restore our Second Amendment rights in the state. Sadly, the key word here is “restore”. So many of our firearm rights are already gone, whittled away bit by bit by fringe politicians, gun grabbing elitists and activist jurists who have no regard for the rule of law or the Constitution.

Many Californians are justifiably upset with the NRA and other national advocacy groups for seemingly abandoning the state in the run-up to the 2016 elections. Don’t get me wrong; I absolutely understand the need to focus on national races for the good of the entire country. It’s just a little hard for us living in occupied territory to feel the joy when nothing seems to trickle into our state. We see strong Second Amendment support all over the country including more states adopting constitutional carry and fortifying firearm ownership rights. Meanwhile, we can’t buy the latest and safest firearms, use or keep our standard capacity magazines and will have to surrender our modern sporting rifles or bastardize them beyond recognition in order to not register them on the pre-confiscation list. Never mind that soon we’ll need an ammunition-purchasing license for in-state only ammo purchases and point-of-sale background checks.

We are at a severe disadvantage in this state since we as firearm owners can’t seem to come together as a group to stop the laws before they are created. Those who wish to see every California resident disarmed (except the government, the elitists’ bodyguards and the criminals) own a super majority in the both the chambers of the state legislature as well as the Governor’s mansion. Opposition to any measure of gun control/gun elimination is dealt with swiftly and decisively. Rules and procedures are changed as needed to keep dissent – and accountability – out and ensure the party platform is enacted.

Our only recourse now is through the courts. As history has shown us, fighting a law AFTER the fact is always going to be more difficult, more time consuming, more expensive and far less certain than stopping a bad idea before it becomes law. Even the most egregious, Constitutionally infringing law is going to take years to wind its way through the state and federal courts. Each appeal costs more and more with no guarantee of even being granted a hearing much less a favorable outcome with the Supreme Court, no matter who sits on it.

The result is what you would expect. Just as more companies are leaving this state due to the unfavorable tax and regulatory environment here, Second Amendment supporters are leaving as well. And quite honestly, who can blame them? Why live in a state that treats you like the next mass killer in waiting – while apparently rewarding criminals for breaking the law? Even worse than losing their vote, we’re losing their ability to be a positive Second Amendment supporter role model in their community.

Is California too far gone to save? I certainly hope not. This isn’t some theoretical ideology from a bygone era we are fighting for; it’s about our ability to protect our lives and the lives of our loved ones, in a state that doesn’t care about our rights or our lives.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2A, #SecondAmendment, #RightToBearArms, #GunRights, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

Twenty-Seven Words of Freedom

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is a mere 27 words long, yet it is unquestionably the most intensely debated, contested, misinterpreted and abused of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Recklessly maligned as being out of date in our modern times, it remains one of the fundamental protections for our nation, now as it was then.

Adopted on December 15, 1791 with the other nine initial Amendments, the Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

One of the most widespread misconceptions about the Second Amendment is that it grants the right to bear arms. In reality, it does nothing of the kind. It merely protects that right. The right to bear arms is considered a natural right, one that is not dependent on the laws or customs of any culture or government. Rights of this kind are also called inalienable or even god given rights, inherent to all persons.

If you read the text of the Bill of Rights, you will find that all of the Amendments are there to protect the individual rights, not to grant them. And, just as critical is who they protect these rights from; the government. The Bill of Rights are not a limitation on what the “people” can do, but on what the government cannot do.

The concept of the protection applying to the “people” is where the Second Amendment is often attacked. Since the prefatory clause says “A well regulated Militia”, it is argued the operative clause protecting the right only applies to the militia. However, as with the rest of the Bill of Rights, the rights protected are all individual – the people – rights.

It is also said that the Founding Fathers could never have foreseen the power of modern weaponry and that they only intended individuals to own muskets for hunting. In reality, muskets were the modern ‘weapons of war’ issued to the military and far more advanced firearms were already available. And just as our First Amendment protected rights today are not limited to what is expressed with a quill and inkwell or a hand-operated press, the Second Amendment is not limited to what was available at the time it was written.

My argument for the Second Amendment in modern times centers on the context of when it was written. Otherwise known as originalism or textualism, it is that the interpretation should be based on what the common understanding of the text to be at the time it was written. Naturally this view is hotly debated. Judges, lawyers, politicians, professors, legal scholars and even our own Supreme Court are not united on this view, much less how the Second Amendment protections should be applied.

I at least choose to believe the Founding Father’s vision for the nation and that for over 225 years, the Second Amendment protection of the right to bear arms, whether or not formally recognized by a court ruling, has applied to the individual, to the people.

The debate and the struggle over the Second Amendment will likely go on long after I am dead and buried. I don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing. As each new generation comes forward, it’s important to have a contemporary recap of the principles that brought us to this point as well as a reminder of how protecting these rights is essential in modern society.

We cannot take for granted the rights that our ancestors fought and died for. We cannot let our rights be stripped away by politically correct thinking or by the elite who are willing to sacrifice the populous so that they can have more power and control. We cannot let our lives or the lives of our families to be offered up to those who would do us harm without a fight.

This is why I fight for those twenty-seven words of freedom known as the Second Amendment.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #secondamendment, #2A, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #27wordsoffreedom, #gunright, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

Law Abiding Victims

As law-abiding firearm owners, we relentlessly monitor the law in order to keep ourselves on the legal of the fence. That’s no easy feat in places like California where the steady influx of new laws, updated old laws, and changing administrative rules flow faster than our tax dollars down the drain. But what happens to our law-abiding status when the laws specifically target us instead of the criminals?

The political types like to say they are tough on crime and are all about “public safety”. The problem is, what they SAY is completely opposite from what they DO. While espousing public safety, California has decreased the penalties for breaking the law. Proposition 47 reclassified many crimes as misdemeanors and as a result put more criminals back on the streets and increased the crime rate in every city and town in the state. Proposition 57 redefined crimes such as assault with a deadly weapon, rape of an unconscious person, human trafficking involving sex act with minors, drive-by shootings and assault with a deadly weapon on peace officer as “non-violent” felonies eligible for early release.

So that’s how the State treats criminals. How do they treat the law-abiding citizenry? Proposition 63 makes it a crime to import ammunition into the state, creates a licensing and background check system for every ammo purchase and takes away grandfathered standard capacity magazines, all perfectly legal today. The 2016 Gunmageddon Laws also redefined currently legal firearms as so-called “assault weapons” that must be registered or disposed of.

What impact will these laws have on criminals? To people who don’t obey the law, the new laws will have zero negative impact. It will only make it harder for the law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals who aren’t following the law anyway.

Since the government is taking away your ability to defend yourself, they will protect you, right? Not exactly. While many police departments have a motto similar to the Los Angeles Police’s “To Protect and To Serve”, the truth of the matter is they have no duty to protect you.

In 2005 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. This case involved a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband, making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

Now I can tell you as a former law enforcement officer, I most certainly considered it my solemn duty to protect the public and I did absolutely everything in my power to do so. Of the officers I worked with over the years, I am confident they would say the same. However the harsh reality of the police work is that but for the one in a million fluke of incredible luck, you will not have an officer there to protect you when you need one. There simply can never be enough law enforcement presence to accomplish that. The absolute best the police can do is respond AFTER the fact.

See the previous Odd Stuffing post on law enforcement response times: When Seconds Count at: http://oddstuffing.com/archives/53

So where does that leave us? If the police can not be there to protect you, and have no legal duty to provide protection to you – the very same agencies who will not grant you a concealed carry permit because they deem your need for self protection to not be greater than what is met by current police services – the law-abiding become a by-product of gun control with no means of redress.

Gun control’s inevitable end result is just one thing, law-abiding victims.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #secondamendment, #righttobeararms, #guncontrolvictims, #lawabidingvictims, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

The Future of Gun Control in California

Like many who support the Second Amendment and live in an anti-Constitution / anti-firearm state, I tend to keep an eye on what is happening in the state capitol. Every little bit of gun control legislation brings us closer to their goal of complete civilian disarmament. So why I wondered are there so few gun control bills pending this year? The answer to what will be enacted in the future is what was proposed in the past.

Sure, there are a few pending slaps in the face like expanding the ‘one handgun per month’ limitation to ‘one firearm per month’ – which would include party-to-party transfers. I’m sure we’ll also see a few “gut and amend” surprises towards the end of the legislative session. Just enough to keep the pro-rights groups engaged in the here and now. But compared to past years, there seems to be very few new bills. Why? Remember, California is in this for the long haul, whittling rights away one-by-one. Last year’s Gunmageddon was only the setup for what is to come.

One previously proposed bill was for all center-fire, semi-automatic magazine fed long guns to be classified as so-called “assault weapons”. Why isn’t it being pushed now? Simple, the new bullet-button assault weapon law doesn’t go into full effect until the beginning of 2018. At that time, all bullet button firearms must be registered as “assault weapons”, have their evil features removed, be removed from the state or turned in to law enforcement. Since they have not published the administrative rules for this yet, law-abiding firearm owners are trying to decide whether to register their evil featured firearms or go featureless without the regulations to guide them.

My prediction is that in 2018 this dilemma will be solved for us. After the deadline for registering all bullet button firearms has passed, all center-fire, semi-automatic magazine fed long guns will then be classified as “assault weapons”, with the same mandatory registration or remove rules. As horrific as that sounds, rimfire will most likely be added to the “assault weapon” category following that like they are in other states. Only when the most comprehensive list of registered “assault weapons” is compiled will the final step be taken – the outright ban of all registered “assault weapons”.

What, did you expect they’d keep their promise that if you registered them you’d be able to keep them? Did you forget about all those pre-ban standard capacity magazines they said you could keep – and you now need to get rid of by July 1, 2017?

And if you thought Proposition 63’s and / or SB 1235’s ammunition buying license and background checks were bad, what it enables is worse. Previous proposals to limit the amount of ammunition you could purchase would have been impossible to enforce before. With a new central database of all ammo purchases, adding a limit will be a breeze and just another “common sense” restriction. These laws also enable limiting you to purchase ammunition for only those firearm calibers you have registered with the State. This helps to achieve the full gun registry the State wants AND limits the ammo you can buy to only what the State knows about.

California and other anti-firearm states have learned from their mistakes and are systematically restricting and eliminating our rights one piece at a time. Every law, every regulation, every rule is now designed to be built upon by the next level of Constitutional infringements.

Welcome to the future of gun control in California.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #guncontrol, #secondamendment, #constitution, #gunrights, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

More Gun Control, Cali Style

As if last year’s Gunmageddon laws and Prop 63 weren’t enough for California, they are back at it this year proposing even more draconian gun control measures which do nothing to fight crime or increase public safety, only punish the law abiding. As evidence, I give you Senator Anthony Portantino’s SB 497 changing the limit of one handgun a month to one firearm a month.

The Senator’s rational is this will close a so-called “loophole” by including long guns in a monthly buying limit. He argues there is no reason why someone would need to buy more than one long gun each month. The direct quote: “This is not the Wild West,” he said. “California’s in the 21st century, and you shouldn’t be able to walk into a gun store and come out with an arsenal.”

Here is my very personal reason why I oppose this.

My wife is the director for our county’s Women on Target program. For those of you who don’t know about NRA’s Women on Target, it is a program dedicated to providing women with a safe, friendly and fun introduction to recreational shooting. The program here is a small one; this will be its third year with three to four events per year. It is a 100% volunteer, bootstrapped effort. With materials from the Women of the NRA and together with a training company that offers its resources, our local range providing the facility and a local restaurant providing lunch for the participants and the many volunteers – oh yes, the wonderful volunteers! Men and women from the community who provide their time, expertise and kindness to help local women of all ages learn about firearms and safety.

Previously the program was able to borrow the firearms needed to run the clinics from friends and families. Now California says the only way you can loan a firearm to anyone other than a small list of immediate family members is for the loaner and loanee to go to the local gun shop, pay $35, the state mandated fee for a party-to-party transfer, and wait ten days just like a normal firearm purchase. Getting it back to the original loaner is $35 and ten more days.

Since borrowing under these circumstances is cost prohibitive and time consuming, and having a hodgepodge of whatever the instructors and volunteers can bring isn’t effective for education, it means acquiring them. The good news in this situation is a very generous grant pending from the Northern California Friends of the NRA. However since firearms in California must be registered to an individual, not a company, trust or non-profit, the plan for the program is for firearms to be registered to my wife. That way if she is ill, traveling or otherwise unable to attend a clinic, as one of the volunteers I can still ‘borrow’ them for the event using the family loaning exception.

On the list of pending purchases are 13 firearms, eight of them handguns. Under the current one handgun a month law, even splitting registration between the two of us will take four months, eight months if they are all in her name. Under the proposed one firearm a month law, seven months split, 13 months if they all are registered to her.

This Women On Target program isn’t the only one impacted. Even long running training and educational programs that have enough firearms still need to be sure the registered owner is with the firearms during training to not run afoul of the new loaning laws. Acquiring replacements or additional firearms puts them in the same position of having to wait months to years to replace or expand inventory.

It is already illegal to buy a firearm for someone else. It is already illegal to give someone a firearm without doing a legal transfer. It is already illegal to use a firearm in the commission of a crime, to say nothing about committing the crime in the first place and the host of other crimes that come along with it. How is making legal purchases illegal, going to make anyone safer?

If California spent their time and money enforcing the laws already in place, punishing those who break those laws and keeping them incarcerated instead of letting them out early to prey on the public, instead of creating new laws targeting law abiding citizens, the crime rate would actually go down.

What California is doing is obvious and inevitable. Each incremental, “common sense” gun control law that further restricts only the activity of law abiding citizens is another step towards the eventual goal of no firearms in private hands in California.

So congratulations California! You’ve made it more difficult to teach women in our county about safety and responsible firearms usage, as well as categorizing my wife’s volunteer educational activity as amassing an “arsenal”.

Welcome to Gun Control, Cali Style.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #secondamendment, #guncontrol, #gunrights, #NRA, #WOT, #friendsofthenra, #FONRA, #thankyouFONRAbob!, #californiagunrights, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

Firearm or Tomahawk?

A news story from my former home state of Vermont last week highlighted how a homeowner successfully used a tomahawk to fight back against a homeless man armed with a rifle who broke into his house. Major kudus to the homeowner for using the tools at his immediate disposal. However, I question the media outlets that choose to publish this story, but never report on successful, law-abiding citizens using firearms to defend themselves.

Granted this was an interesting story due to the unusual choice of self-defense weapon. There are scattered stories every year from around the country of people defending themselves with everything from a katana to a frying pan. Again, major kudos for anyone who takes care of business with whatever they have at hand. The problem I have with these unique news stories is they are used by the anti-gun extremists to prove the point that the average citizen does not need firearms.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for using improvised weaponry in a pinch when your life is on the line. But is that really what you want to bet your life on? Sure, some very highly trained people can slay their enemy with a MRE spoon, but there aren’t a lot of instructors training the proper use of a modern tomahawk for self-defense.

For many law-abiding citizens in this country, the home defensive weapon of choice is a firearm. The right choice between a handgun, rifle and shotgun depends on a number of factors, but a firearm allows even someone with a very small stature to effectively defend themselves from the largest home invader or invaders.

There are an estimated 350 million legally owned firearms in the United States. With record sales in 2015 and 2016, that number continues to grow. And while the number of criminal uses of firearms is closely tracked and often exaggerated by the media and gun control lobby, the number of defensive uses of firearms barely gets a mention. The gun banners contend defensive firearms use does not happen at all or the incidents are statistically insignificant. However, the best estimates indicate there are between one to two million lawful defensive uses of firearms – outnumbering felonious uses by 30 to 80 to one. In the majority of lawful defensive firearms uses, the firearm is not even discharged.

I will admit that a firearm is not always going to be the best defensive choice for everyone. While I have seen men, women and children (yes, under adult supervision) of all sizes, in all physical conditions, from professional athletes to those confined to wheelchairs, use firearms effectively, there are some who simply may not have the physical strength or agility to use one safely.

There are also those who do not wish to use firearms because they do not want to take a life. They would prefer to use a “less deadly” option such as a knife or bat. While I would never criticize or disparage anyone who does not wish to take another human life, I would also point out that knives or baseball bats are considered deadly weapons and are just as capable of taking a life as a firearm. In fact, they are used far more often to kill in this country than the so-called “assault weapons” the gun banners are trying to outlaw.

My point for all this is simple. Your choice of what you defend your home and family with, or what you use to defend your life and the lives of your family outside your home, should be yours and yours alone. You should be able to choose the tool that best meets your needs, which you can train with and be confident in using in every situation.

Your choice should NOT be made for you by someone who believes you should use a tomahawk instead of a firearm.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #secondamendment, #2A, #righttobeararms, #tomahawk, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

Time To End Gun Free Zones

Our nation is finally starting to take an unbiased view of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. More and more states are doing away with ineffective gun control laws that only serve to increase crime. It’s now time to take a look at so-called gun free zones.

Posting a sign that declares a gun free zone is like saying “Hey criminals, we are unarmed so don’t shoot us, pretty please!” Even when backed up by a state or federal law banning firearms, there really isn’t anything to stop someone from bringing one in. Sure, the person with the gun is breaking the law, but if they are bringing it in to kill you, does that really matter?

I’ve always been amazed by the insane misguided trust given to gun free zone signs. My favorite comment remains: “Gun free zones don’t attract criminals, they repel them!” WOW!! Behold the power of a three word sign to stop hardened criminals, killers and terrorists in their tracks.

The truth of the matter is so-called gun free zones are anything but. They have been a magnet for all but a precious few of the mass killings in this country as well as the rest of the world. Anyone wishing to do harm to others is virtually guaranteed to do so unopposed in a gun free zone.

So what does a gun free zone sign do? Worst case is it subjects the person who brings a firearm in to some kind of a criminal violation. More than likely the person will just be asked to leave.

My problem with any location that posts gun free zone signs is they are doing nothing to ensure anyone’s safety other than posting that $10 plastic sign. There are no checks for firearms or other weapons and no security personnel inside to keep people safe. A business with a gun free zone sign is simply saying it doesn’t want honest, law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves and the business isn’t going to protect them either.

Here’s a thought. Any business that posts a gun free zone sign should be held accountable for acts of violence occurring on their premises. This isn’t as outrageous as it may seem. Similar to the OSHA regulations that dictate businesses must provide a safe environment for workers and customers, being held accountable for acts of violence committed on the property is no different.

Imagine if a company just posted a “Watch for Falling Objects” sign instead of providing hard hats to workers or visitors in a construction zone. That would be insane! Any deaths or injuries on the property would result in criminal charges and civil judgments. The company knew the potential for death or injury and purposely did nothing about it other than post a sign. How are gun free zones any different?

I fully understand the argument of businesses being able refuse service to anyone. However, as we’ve seen in today’s hyper-politically correct, morally higher ground society, we know this isn’t exactly true. Except of course when it comes to firearms.

Within the last several months, a couple of states have introduced legislation to do away with so-called gun free zones. At least one is working on holding business owners liable for deaths or injuries in their gun free zones. Of course, my home state of California is doing the opposite. A bill is pending that will strip local school districts of the authority to allow trained and permitted staff from being armed on school grounds. How dare they try to protect their children!

The personally owned firearms of legally armed citizens are used every day in this country to prevent and stop those who would do us harm. In most instances, they are never even fired. Just having the ability to stop a violent attack is often enough to prevent a violent attack.

If you prohibit the law abiding the right to defend themselves on your business property and are providing absolutely no level of security for them in exchange, then you should be held liable for the reasonably foreseen acts of violence a gun free zone sign attracts. Better yet, it is time to end gun free zones all together.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #endgunfreezones, #constitution, #billofrights, #secondamendment, #2A, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

That New Gun You Can’t Have

We all do it. We get a new hunting, sporting or firearms magazine and lo and behold, there is a new gun we simply HAVE to have. It’s newer, has better ergonomics, improved safety features, more reliable, more comfortable to shoot, more accurate, now available in the caliber we always wanted and in a color or texture we had only dreamed of. We MUST have it!!

But wait… We can’t have it. We live in a state where there are restrictions on what we can own. Restrictions put in place by people who disagree with our right to bear arms and who will use everything in their power – and paid for by our tax dollars – to make it more difficult for us to purchase firearms and ammunition while working to eliminate the ones we already own.

In California, one such restriction is the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale. Reportedly initiated to protect the California consumer from unsafe “Saturday Night Specials”, it is fast becoming a defacto ban on handguns in California. Beginning in 2001, so called “safety standards” for handguns were adopted by the State and have been steadily added to over the years. The required features are supposed to enhance safety because California consumers can’t be educated or trusted to safely operate a firearm without them. Requirements for the Roster include drop testing, magazine disconnects, loaded chamber indicators, melting point tests and now, micro-stamping. It is of course okay to own non-roster guns if you had them before or you move into the state with them. Those are safe enough for California.

The trend started in California and has now spread to Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and the District of Columbia. All have very specific requirements and none are the same. All are said to be for our own safety when in fact they are doing the exact opposite.

California’s requirements are now the most stringent with the addition of micro-stamping. For those who are not familiar with it, micro-stamping is the process of laser engraving a unique code, which is not the serial number, on the firing pin and chamber of a semi-automatic pistol. The intent is this code will then be transferred in two places on the ejected casing and can be used to trace the pistol that fired it. The technology is extraordinarily expensive and has been shown to be ineffective. It is unreliable, easily removed with a 30 second application of a light abrasive material, wears out quickly and can simply be replaced by a non-engraved part. There are no firearms using this technology and no firearm manufacturer has adopted it or has any plans to. But the State of California is not deterred by any of these facts. It is now required for all new handguns added to the Roster, none of which will ever be made.

They tell us the good news for consumers in California is firearms that are currently on the roster that don’t meet the requirements can remain as long as the submission fees are paid. However if just ONE component changes, the entire firearm must be recertified to the new requirements.

How specific is the Roster? Make, model and caliber, but also any variations such as color are considered a separate firearm. Some models are specified to the exact product SKU. Change the grip panel and it’s a different SKU. A Gen 3 Glock 19 in OD, on the roster. A Gen 3 Glock 19 in FDE, not on the roster. Of course none of the Gen 4 models are approved nor are the exact same Gen 3 models manufactured from the exact same parts in the USA vs. Austria.

California’s current Roster contains 736 models. Of this, over 200 are simply variations such as color, which further reduces the number of models available for purchase. And the list is declining each and every month as obsolete, no longer manufactured firearms are dropping off. Combine this with California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons”, restricting the type of long guns that can be owned and the subset of firearms that can be legally purchased in the state is dwindling fast.

Of course law enforcement is exempt from the Roster. And not just for work related handguns, but for all handguns. Something they want to buy for the family to go plink with? A-Okay! It’s almost as if the State purposely wants to put law enforcement families in danger by allowing them to purchase known unsafe handguns (massive sarcasm implied).

Why do I bring this up today? This week begins the annual NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) SHOT (Shooting Hunting Outdoor Trade) Show in Las Vegas. Manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers from around the world will be showing off the latest and greatest technology in all things firearms and the shooting sports. Even though they will be showcasing the latest, greatest and safest firearms ever made, most won’t be available to you in your gun-restricted state. You’ll just have to settle for the few remaining outdated models – until they don’t make those any more.

Then what will you do?

Bob

#oddstuffing, #secondamendment, #righttobeararms, #unobtainium, #NSSF, #SHOTSHOW, #mewe, #medium, #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