Weekly Post – Page 29

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

As California Goes…

You’re probably familiar with the saying: ‘As California goes, so goes the nation.’ It is the notion that things started in California will spread and be adopted by the rest of the nation. While certainly true in some areas, there are others where California really needs to get with the times and join the rest of the nation, especially when it comes to the Second Amendment.

To be fair, California has initiated a lot of good. As a center of technology with many great universities, the sixth largest economy in the world and roughly 12 percent of the nation’s population, one would hope the state would contribute significantly to the overall good of the country. However being a leader in one area does not make you a leader in all. Sadly California is going in the opposite direction when it comes to the Second Amendment.

To say that California doesn’t like firearms is a massive understatement. California seems to HATE firearms. But wait; let me clarify that a bit. California seems to HATE personally owned firearms. It has no problem at all with firearms owned by the state or used to protect those in political office or the economic elitists. It’s just everyone else they don’t want to have firearms.

In my now 20+ years of living in California, I’ve seen a slow but steady incremental approach to eliminating the rights of private law abiding citizens to own, carry and use firearms. Each new law enacted is labeled as a “common sense” or “gun safety” measure to increase “public safety”, but sadly as we’ve seen, do nothing to impact crime or criminals, only the law abiding. They only serve to bring the state closer to a total ban on civilian firearm ownership.

Let’s be really clear on the whole criminal vs. law-abiding citizen thing. The definition of a criminal is someone who does not obey the law. A law-abiding citizen on the other hand, does obey the law. So when a law is created which only restricts or redefines otherwise lawful behavior as illegal, it will do nothing to impact criminals. It only serves to remove the rights from those who obey the law in the first place.

So what is California bringing to the safety-for-the-public table?

California has redefined many felonies to misdemeanors to help keep criminals from being incarcerated, turning the state’s criminal justice system into a catch and release system, increasing crime in much of the state.

California has 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.
California has added more previously legal firearms to the banned “assault weapons” list due to “evil features” which do nothing to increase or decrease a firearm’s lethality. Those currently possessed must be registered in order to be retained – at least for now.

California has banned previously grandfathered standard capacity magazines, what they define as “high-capacity”, which now must be disposed of.

California has made it so anyone wishing to purchase ammunition in the state will need to pay for a separate ammo buyer’s license and have a background check for each and every purchase.

And what does California have to show for it? Some of the highest levels of crime in the nation; rivaled only by those areas where gun control of the law-abiding is also a priority.

It’s time for California to look at the rest of the nation and learn. California needs to learn that continuing to restrict Second Amendment rights does nothing but turn law-abiding citizens into victims. Being a leader means you must recognize when you are wrong and that good ideas can come from anywhere. It’s time for a new proverb: As goes the nation, so goes California.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #secondamendment, #gunrights, #asgoesthenationsogoescalifornia, #firearmrights, #CCW #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

Prepping – Not Just For TEOTWAWKI

A lot of us in the Second Amendment community gear our disaster preparation activities towards the zombie apocalypse or other the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it (TEOTWAWKI) events. Kudos if this is you, however the recent atmospheric river fueled storms in Northern California and the resulting flooding, power outages, mudslides and road closures should serve as a reminder to all of us that we need to be prepared for all sorts of emergencies.

Every part of the country has some kind of natural, as well as man made, disaster potential. Those of us in California are expected to be on top of our game due to the constant threat of the next big earthquake. Most of us have the requisite 72-hour kit in our car, home and/or place of business. The main idea is to be able to sustain yourself and your family until relief comes, typically within three days. While critically important, it tends to focus us on the worst-case scenario of what could occur instead of what is more likely to happen.

Note that the two ends of the spectrum are not mutually exclusive, it is only the time frame being prepared for which dictates the depth of the planning and supplies that are different. Both ends of the spectrum provide the same essential, self-sustaining elements.

Prepping is not a new or novel concept. It’s been around forever and occasionally becomes the focus of a series of news stories, often times chronically someone at the very bleeding edge of preparedness. The truth is families have been preparing for disruptions of normal daily life and services since the dawn of time; one extra can of beans at a time.

Growing up on active SAC (Strategic Air Command) bases, I really didn’t think anything of the extra storage of water, food and other supplies we had on hand, although I do recall wondering why we had so many cans of peas. Once my parents were out of the Air Force and we were living in a small New England town, I remember spending the night in my uncle’s Civil Defense Fallout Shelter, big yellow sign, emergency toilet and stationary bicycle power and all. Again, I thought that’s what everyone did.

The recent storms across Northern California have seen historic rainfall amounts. As a result, many communities were flooded and forced many to be evacuated. Power was disrupted for thousands. Mudslides covered roads and cut off communities. Erosion undermined others and entire sections of roads were gone. While not a catastrophic event, there was – and still continues to be – significant disruptions in peoples lives due to the storms.

At the very least, we all need to take a look at our own family’s preparedness level and start filling in the gaps. Essential things including having a plan for care of children, elderly parents or pets in case we can’t get home. Aside from that 72-hour life sustaining kit in the car, just some extra water, food, comfort items and a charger for your cell phone can minimize disruptions in the transportation system. A small overnight bag with a change of clothes and some extra cash can come in handy in case you can’t make it home. And of course, a force multiplier you are comfortable with. Keep in mind while you are trying to take care of yourself and your loved ones in an emergency, there are others who will try to take advantage of the disruption for their own means. Always be safe.

There are a lot of good resources available including FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) and the Red Cross. Many local government agencies and private companies also offer basic and advanced emergency preparedness classes. There are also a number of online resources dedicated to prepping at all levels.

As I am writing this today the sun is shining and the sky is blue, things not seen around these parts for a while. As such, it is the perfect time to take a look at your own emergency plans. Remember it doesn’t have to cost a lot to be better prepared and you can do it in small steps over time. Each incremental bit of planning means you and your loved ones are better prepared for an emergency, not only for the worst-case scenario of what could occur but also what is more likely to happen.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #secondamendment, #prepping, #emergencypreparedness, #TEOTWAWKI, #FEMA, #CDC, #redcross, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

The First Shot

No matter what kind of firearm owner you are, be it hunter, competitor, collector, professional sheepdog, home defender, prepper, or all of the above, we all took that critical first shot. While so many around us are spreading the false narrative about how all guns are evil, I want to focus on that first shot and why it makes such a big difference in our lives.

No matter how many firearms we now have or bullets we have sent down range, we all started somewhere. Those of us who advocate for recognition of Second Amendment rights understand the incredible responsibility that comes with firearms ownership. A proper beginning leads to the right path.

Everyone has seen the YouTube videos of someone shooting a huge handgun, shotgun or rifle – using the absolute worse form possible and getting a face full of gun in return for it. Yes, some of them are funny as hell, but imagine if that was your first shot. How eager would you have been to continue shooting? How comfortable would you be picking up a firearm for self defense? Is it possible an experience like that could shape your opinion of firearms, skewing it towards how unsafe they are?

Sadly there are a lot of people whose first shot went this way. One of the ones I’ve spoken with is the wife of a friend. He is a shooter and she is not. When I asked why, she shared the story of the old boyfriend who took her shooting and gave her a huge, loud and uncomfortable firearm. That was the first and last time she touched any firearm.

By far the most time honored way people get their first shots is through family members. Typically parents, most often still the father – however that is changing – grandfathers or uncles who help little ones understand firearm safety, proper use, care and the essentials of marksmanship. Handing down the tradition of firearms like this helps ensure not only the respect of the firearm, but for the Second Amendment itself.

There are also a number of organizations that teach firearms safety and marksmanship such as the Project Appleseed, 4-H, Boy Scouts, the NSSF First Shots and the NRA FIRST Steps and Women On Target programs, as well as many affiliated private companies and instructors. They all share the same primary goals, teaching safety and responsibly.

My own path started on my grandfather’s farm in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. No idea how old I was at the time, but I was pretty young. I remember seeing my grandfather’s rifles in a glass front case in the dining room. To this day I have no idea if it was locked or not. I would never have considered trying to open it myself. I was taught not to. One day my grandfather put a raccoon that had been shot on the farm on top of a fencepost. From what I learned later about my grandfather’s hunting ethics, I have no doubt said raccoon had taken one liberty too many in the cattle barn. He explained the rifle to me, showed me how to hold it, aim properly and shoot. The only thing I recall of the rifle was the checkering on the stock. It was rough and beautiful. I’m sure it must have been a .22. I took the shot and it hit the very top front edge of the fencepost and deflected up and into said raccoon. I still maintain it was a valid hit. Years later I bought my first rifle, a Ruger 10/22, which now belongs to my son. Several revolvers and pistols later, I entered law enforcement and began receiving formal training and cementing my addiction to things that go bang, pop and pew.

As we are trying to secure and advance firearms owner’s rights, let’s not forget what brought us to this point and that our primary obligation is for safety and responsible ownership.

If you are willing to share your first shot experience in the comments, I would love to hear it. Hopefully everyone’s stories will help inspire families to pass on this tradition to the next generation or for individuals to seek out the right training to take that all important first shot.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2A, #SecondAmendment, #firstshot, #projectappleseed, #4H, #boyscouts, #nssffirstshots, #nrafirststeps, #nrawot, #thankyougrandpa, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

Criminals and Hypocrites

The United States of America is a nation of laws. Only by following the laws does our society work. To think otherwise is lunacy.

But what if we disagree with the laws? Are we just free to ignore a law because we disagree with it? Sorry buttercup, that’s not the way things work. We don’t get to pick and choose what laws we want to obey and which ones we want to ignore. What if everyone were to do that? What would happen if each of us chose to follow only the laws we personally agreed with, and that list is different than everyone else’s? The result would be utter chaos.

We didn’t always have laws to obey. In the beginnings we had simple traditions or customs. We did things, or didn’t do things, because that was what was accepted in the society. Violate the will of the society you lived in and you would be punished. Punishment could include such things as banishment, a savage beating or even death.

As civilizations grew larger and denser, the rules were codified and formalized. In written form, it became easier for everyone to clearly see what was and was not acceptable. Did everyone agree with them? Of course not, but then that’s the problem with free will.

It’s also important to note that while laws are enacted by the majority – “the people have spoken” concept – they are also in place to protect the minority from the majority. A majority opinion doesn’t make something right, at least in our society. It’s a fine and delicate balance our nation struggles with every day.

Breaking a law simply because you don’t agree with it doesn’t make you a community leader; it makes you a criminal. Likewise passing laws to make legal activity illegal because it doesn’t align with your way of thinking, while simultaneously ignoring other laws because they don’t fit with your higher moral ideology, doesn’t make you a lawmaker; it makes you a hypocrite.

In a letter from the Birmingham jail in 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote: “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”.

I agree with the sentiment Dr. King is expressing; however I have a problem with the last part of his statement, specifically, the word “disobey” in the final sentence. I would replace it with “challenge” so it reads: One has a moral responsibility to challenge unjust laws. While this might sound like just a game of semantics, there is a very real difference in the way this plays out today.

In our 24/7/365 live-feed world where everyone is an expert and nobody is willing to be held accountable, we have witnessed the rise of the self-entitled elitists who believe they and ONLY they are morally superior. From this lofty perch they believe any laws which do not support their ideology are free to be ignored, but only by them of course.

Here’s the reality of the world. If you choose to break the law because of your beliefs, do so with the full understanding that you may be held accountable for it. Do not expect the world to readily accept your opinion that the law is unjust and change it just because you say so. It is possible your case will be the one that changes a national injustice and makes the world a better place. Perhaps… but in the mean time, you are still breaking the law and are a criminal. Put another way; “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”.

If we have no respect for the rule of law, we are nothing more than criminals and hypocrites ourselves. Laws have and will be changed, and while the process is sometimes painfully slow and complicated, the history of our nation shows just how far we have come.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #criminalsandhypocrites #ruleoflaw, #baretta #sorrybuttercup #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

Beware The Old Man

Men (and women) generally peak physically and mentally somewhere between 25 and 35 years of age. After that everything from eyesight, muscle mass, flexibility and mental ability tend to slowly decline. So does that mean that anyone over the age of 35 should be cast aside since they are past some generalized peak performance measure? Hell no!

My rant comes from a conversation about training and how it was supposedly better to go with a younger trainer than with someone who is older with outdated skills. I still haven’t decided if that was directed towards me – someone who is a bit older – or just older people in general. Either way, it caused those two still functional grey cells in my head to start thinking and ya know what, it doesn’t work that way.

Saying that someone, anyone, is out of date because of their age dismisses most of what age brings to the table with one big stereotyping statement. Certainly there are those who are out of date because they have stopped learning. But what about the professionals who continue to learn and improve their skills their entire life? What value do we assign to someone who has seen and experienced the evolution of techniques, practices and technology?

While I’m specifically speaking about one thing, the principle of experience applies across all physical or mental skills. When we learn something new, we learn from someone who already has that knowledge or skill. It is generally someone a bit older who has experience in that area. And they learned it from someone else in the same way.

Passing on what we know used to be a lot more common than it is today. It is still prevalent in the trades where apprentices work with masters, learning one step, one skill at a time until they become full-fledged tradesmen. Hopefully they too will someday pass along what they learned from their master, and from their own experience, to the next generation. By doing this each successive tradesman becomes better than they were in the past.

The whole premise of this is those in the profession never stop learning. Each time they utilize their skill, they have the opportunity to figure out how to do it better than it was taught to them. They learn from their own experience as well as tapping into the experience of others. Ongoing education and collaboration is key since the experience of a community will progress faster than the experience of just one person.

We tend to dismiss the idea of experience quickly since experience seems to equate to age, and age of course is bad. Tech companies are notorious for this. They’d rather bring in someone fresh out of college with all the latest skills than invest in their current employees. The decision of course is economic since employees who have been with a company longer are higher up in the pay scale than those who would come in off the street. You also have to invest in on-going education for your employees, another cost. When you replace the more experienced you also lose the institutional knowledge of what has been done before.

What does experience do for us? It gives us points of reference for things we are doing now. When we do a task, any task, we search our memory for how we’ve done it before. The more times we’ve done it, the more variations we’ve seen, the better our ability to perform that task or improvise a different way of approaching it. Knowing what has previously worked, as well as what has failed, gives insight to what may work the next time. A favorite quote to add some perspective: “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” – Edmund Burke

There is an old warrior proverb that says: ‘Beware the old man in a profession where men die young.’ Age is only a number that comes from surviving another birthday. Wisdom drawn from experience is the key to expertise. Dismissing what someone past their “prime” has to offer because you believe they are no longer relevant is a quick and easy way to make yourself feel good, right up until the old guy hands you your ass on a platter because he knows how to play the game a whole lot better than you thought he did.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #oldwarrior, #experience, #wisdom, #oldguys #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

The Gun Free Zone Trap

This past Friday a former military member flew from Anchorage, Alaska to Fort Lauderdale, Florida with his handgun legally secured in checked luggage. After picking up his bag at the luggage carousel, he reportedly went to a restroom, retrieved his firearm and came out to the baggage claim area – a gun free zone – and began shooting. Five souls lost their lives, six were injured and dozens more hurt in the panic to escape the terminal.

While his motives for flying all the way to Florida to perpetrate his act of violence have not been disclosed yet, it was clear he experienced mental health issues, committed domestic violence, had recent contact with law enforcement including the FBI and may have been influenced by radical ideology.

Immediately following this incident, the kneejerk reactionists around the country were coming to the rescue. Interviews with air travelers abound who were shocked to learn that you could bring a gun on a plane. Pundits were arguing about what must be done now to close this dangerous loophole. Clueless newscasters paraphrasing the law into a narrative of how easily you can take dangerous weapons on airlines.

Among the recommendations: Not allowing any firearms in checked baggage. Allowing firearms but no ammo – since you can just order it online and get it mailed to you in a day or two (obviously not from a California politician), having the airlines give firearms “special handling” and having the secure zone extended to every entrance of the airport building.

What the airlines and TSA don’t tell you is the backside of the airport is less like the sterile high-security zone they claim it is and more like Obi-Wan’s description of the Mos Eisley Spaceport.

Those of us who are a little older will remember the way unloaded firearms used to be checked in at the airport. On declaring it and signing the form, a big-ass red tag that said FIREARM(S) UNLOADED was placed on the outside of your bag. Why is this tag now on the inside? Because that big-ass red tag was a magnet to thieves and the “special handling” meant your firearm got stolen. It is now against federal law to mark containers that contain a firearm.

Airport security is always a huge problem and we’ve consistently shown how to do it wrong. Every time you put in a new security checkpoint or perimeter, you create a queue of soft human targets on the other side. Airports around the world who extend the security ring further out have learned how vulnerable these locations become. In response, they just move the queues, and targets, further out.

What nobody has mentioned is this is another case where someone with obvious mental health issues and criminal intent fell through the cracks. All of the warning signs we as citizens are told to be on the alert for were there. Acts of violence, evidence of radicalization, contacts with law enforcement including him going to the local FBI field office himself, having his firearm – the very firearm used in the attack – confiscated by the FBI and later returned and being referred for mental health screening. Yet somehow, nobody felt it was important enough to investigate further. A very sad commentary on what might have been prevented.

What will happen next? You can be sure the elitists and politicians in gun-hostile states will be demanding more restrictions on the legal carriage of firearms if not an all out ban. All of it is of course just more security theater and will only impact the law-abiding citizens who choose to legally transport their firearms with them. Two-bit thug terrorists and criminals will find a way around the security measures. They always have and they always will. Meanwhile, an unarmed and vulnerable public will be waiting there to be their next victims.

Simply put, gun-free zones do not work. They are a magnet for anyone who wants to commit acts of violence with impunity. Honest, law-abiding citizens will follow the rules and will be caught in a trap. Criminals – who by the very definition of their existence do not obey the law – will not. And the result will be more sacrifices in the name of ‘public safety’.

Only by putting the fear of being put down immediately by one of many unidentified legally armed citizens who are willing to protect their lives and the lives of their loved ones will these thugs be deterred.

Yes, it really is that simple.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #secondamendment, #concealedcarry, #gunfreezoneskill, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com