billofrights – Page 3

No Easy Button For Infringing on Second Amendment Rights

California’s Governor recently vetoed for the second time a massive expansion of the state’s Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO), or so-called “Red Flag” laws. He did sign other useless gun control measures, including a couple of minor additions to the GVRO law, but not this one. While some are calling it a victory, I call it sad that we are celebrating when only minor incremental infringements on our Second Amendment rights are signed into law.

I’ve ranted about this before, the first time imbecilic bill crossed the governor’s desk. This year’s version was no different. The vetoed legislation would have expanded the list of who can secretly petition the courts to confiscate all your firearms and ammunition without your knowledge or ability to contest it ahead of time. The expanded list would have included employers, co-workers, teachers, professors and ANY other employees of secondary and post-secondary schools the person has attended in the last six months.

Pushing for these so-called Red Flag laws have become popular gun control tactics since the shootings in Las Vegas and Parkland, Florida. Using Las Vegas and Parkland as their rally cry, proponents claim that had these laws been in place then they could have stopped these events from every happening. In other words, lies.

Las Vegas is easy; there were no red flags. Nobody in this sicko’s circle of family or friends had any inkling of any of his intentions to harm anyone else. Even after a year of investigation by local, state and federal authorities, no motivation has been found. The only ‘odd behavior’ anyone can come up with is legal purchases of firearms and ammunition. But then, that’s kind of the point. He was legally purchasing firearms and ammunition, something the gun control fanatics think is a positive indication of future violence.

Parkland of course is another story. There were so many missed opportunities to stop this from ever happening it is absolutely nauseating. The Broward County Sheriff’s Office had received literally dozens of complaints about the suspect in the years leading up to the shooting. Any number of them in and of itself would have been sufficient to charge him criminally. The FBI ignored two credible reports identifying the suspect by name where he claimed “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.” The Florida Department of Children & Families determined he was receiving adequate support from his school and outpatient care from Henderson Behavioral Health in Broward County. A team from Henderson found the suspect “stable enough not to be hospitalized.”

The Parkland school’s progressive anti-disciplinary polices could have removed him from the school and initiated criminal proceedings numerous times, but that would have made the school look bad. The school had even commissioned and received it’s own threat assessment of the facilities ahead of the incident, and chose not to act on them. In the moments leading up to the shooting itself the school security guard who saw the suspect going into the school did not sound the alarm and a second guard locked himself in a closet. And of course, when the shooting began, responding Broward County Sherriff’s deputies cowardly hid outside instead of going to confront the shooter.

So you tell me. Does it look like nothing could have been done to stop this incident without some new law? Given the utter incompetence of the agencies involved – the very same agencies who are claiming they did everything by the book and couldn’t have done anything to stop the shooting without a new so-called Red Flag law – wouldn’t screw up that as well?

All of these laws relate back to the 2014 Isla Vista, CA attack that resulted in six dead (three from stabbing) and 14 injured near the University of California, Santa Barbara. Much like Parkland, all of the information necessary to make an appropriate interdiction was there; it was just ignored. Now as a result of the inept police work of the multiple agencies involved, we now have new and improved ways to strip people of their Constitutional rights.

The basis to initiate firearm confiscations under the so-called Red Flag laws were set purposefully low. It can be as simple as conversation between two people where one hears what they think is someone contemplating suicide or violence towards others. Following the ex parte hearing, all firearms, ammunition and magazines – magazines just added by the California Governor – are confiscated. The order may now be issued verbally by the Judge, the other new addition to the law.

As is the latest fad, the person accused, the one who had their firearms confiscated now has the burden of proof to show they are innocent and not a threat to others. Legal costs, time and wages lost from work, mental health evaluations, costs related to the return of their property – if the law enforcement agency will even return it after a legal order to do so – are all born by the person accused, even if accused unjustly. The legal recourse for being falsely accused is of course up to the very same people who are advocating for the removal of your firearms in the first place.

Why should it be easy to strip away someone else’s constitutionally protected rights? Why should anyone have such as low burden of proof to strip you of your Second Amendment rights in secret? Why should the person accused then be responsible for proving their innocence to avoid permanent infringement of their rights? Why should they be financially responsible for the costs incurred by someone else’s accusations?

GVRO’s are nothing more than an Easy Button for gun control fanatics who don’t believe anyone other than themselves should have firearms. Stripping away someone’s firearm rights, even temporarily, should be hard as hell. It should require no less burden of proof than a criminal conviction. Yet to compensate for the inadequacies of investigatory prowess at all levels of government, we grant them the easy way out.

At the same time, nobody seems to want to address the amount of crime, the amount of violence or the number of suicides committed with weapons other than firearms. If you were really interested in saving lives or public safety, wouldn’t you address the actual behaviors and indicators for ALL violence? It’s as if your life doesn’t matter unless you are killed by a gun.

So while the celebrations continue for the brief moment of sanity from California’s Governor, consider this. This massive expansion bill has come from the legislature twice before and with sparse opposition to stop it; it will be back on the Governor’s desk again next year. With California’s Lt Governor’s coronation to the big chair virtually assured in this year’s mid term elections, what do you think the chances that one of the biggest gun control advocates in the history of state will veto it?

Maybe it’s time you got out to vote.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #CaliforniaGunControlScheme, #GunViolenceRestrainingOrder, #RedFlag, #GunControl, #Vote, #GunVote, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Training – For Elites Only!

‘It’s a waste of time to train civilians’ – Retired Marine. ‘It’s illegal to teach team tactics to civilians’ – Retired Deputy Sheriff. ‘Tactics should only be taught to military, police and security guards’ – Security Guard. These are among my favorite quotes of why certain training should only be offered to a select few. No matter what the level, some feel they, and ONLY they, should have access to certain tools and techniques. Guess what? It’s all a bunch of bull…

Everyone likes to feel like they are a little more special than the next guy. And to some degree this is true simply by vocation. But it’s not just the profession but what you do in that profession. Front line military troops are going to have a lot more training and experience with armed conflicts than most. Military cooks, clerks and other admin types, not so much. At the same time, just because someone is in law enforcement, doesn’t make them an expert in firearms and tactics.

A lot of this training elitism has been promoted by training equipment providers. By marketing themselves as exclusive to military and police, they create an aura of superiority over anyone that isn’t part of their target group. Keeping things out of the hands of civilians also helps keep prices higher since ‘military/police grade’ products command a premium price point.

Do you as a civilian need this type of training equipment or tactics? When you look at the history of armed civilian encounters you’re going to find the majority will be solo engagements with a single armed criminal at short range. But that doesn’t mean engagements with multiple attackers, at greater distances, or while working with one or more armed citizens doesn’t occur. If you think playing the odds and just preparing for the most likely scenario is all you need to do, you may wind up woefully physically and mentally unprepared for anything else.

Take a minute and think about the possibilities of having an armed encounter in your daily life. Let’s start with your home. Home invasion style robberies/burglaries by more than one perpetrator are popular tactics by criminals as their overwhelming force is less likely to encounter readily armed citizens in our new politically correct, gun controlled world. Have you and your spouse/significant other worked out how to defend yourselves in a close environment with children, pets and all the daily clutter of your lives in the way?

What about when you go out to dinner with family and friends? Have you considered what your response will be to a threat in a public place? Even if you are the only one in your group who is armed, the ability to work together and direct your non-armed friends is going to be critical to everyone’s survival.

If you still think civilians don’t need more than the basic point & shoot, square range training, I’ll have you look at any of the times where there has been a breakdown of law and order due to natural disaster or a manmade crisis such as riots. Or if you live in a jurisdiction where help may be 15-45 minutes or more away, or even in a well staffed city police environment where help is already dealing with someone else’s emergency, you’re going to be on your own for an extended period of time. YOU and ONLY YOU are going to have to ensure your own safety. The more training and preparation you have, the better the chances you have to emerge on the other side of whatever situation you are dealing with.

Take a little time and read the reports of armed civilian self-defense encounters around the world. They range from being able to deter a criminal attack without having to fire a shot to multiple attackers and full nightmare, drawn-out fight scenarios. By the way… Those law enforcement only scenarios the police train for, who do you think has to deal with them until the police arrive?

Remember those ‘not available for civilian use’ products. A funny thing started happening with them. Active and retired military and law enforcement members started their own side businesses offering the ‘restricted’ tools and techniques learned from their government service to the public. By having exclusive access to the restricted products, they were able to offer training nobody else could. And business was good. So good, the product companies took notice and decided these products didn’t need to be so exclusive any more. And business was very good.

Historically many training practices in the civilian world have come from military and law enforcement experience. That makes a lot of sense, as these are the people with the latest and greatest armed encounter experience. At the same time, the civilian world has influenced military and law enforcement because it was able to innovate without the burden of a government procurement contract. Some top trainers, sought out by the military and law enforcement are in fact civilians. They excel at what they do because they make it their business to learn and teach others. Go figure.

The level of training you as a law-abiding armed civilian achieve is up to you. You start with the basics and once proficient at that level, you can move up to more mentally and physically challenging programs. Team tactics, scenarios training, shoot/no-shoot, 360 degree ranges, low/no-light and force-on-force training are not only appropriate, but provide skills for the unpredictable real world encounters you may face. Each builds on the essentials of safe and effective firearm manipulation and marksmanship skills you started with and adds more mental and physical stress to it.

So the next time you hear someone puffing up about certain training tools and tactics being inappropriate or unnecessary for civilians, take it for what it really is, elitism and someone needing to feel superior about themselves.

You and only you are responsible for your own safety and the safety of your family. The more physical skills and mental preparation you can bring to the table, the better the chances you will survive a violent encounter, or better yet – avoid it all together.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #FirearmTraining, #Elitism, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

He Was Look’n At Me!

There are far too many who are more than willing to get into a fight with little or no provocation. Of all the rationalizations I’ve heard, my favorite and the one I’ve heard the most is the infamous “He was look’n at me!” Somehow, somewhere looking at someone became enough of an instigation to beat someone to pulp as anything else. I’d like to say we as a society can do better, but that just doesn’t seem to be an option.

Sadly, this isn’t something new. For as long as I can remember, and I’m guessing long, long, long before that, picking a fight with someone over the most trivial nonsense has been some people’s preferred way of life. While typically a male characteristic, females can be just as quick to strike out as males.

The cause? It could be anything. Alcohol/drugs, ego and mental health issues generally top the list. There’s also unchecked and misdirected anger, violent upbringing and general disrespect for anyone other than themselves. But even if we understand why, we still need to have to deal with the threat they cause.

Many of us in the Second Amendment community carry a firearm for personal protection. This is great, and there is no better deterrence against violent assault. But to use your firearm – and use may range from just warning your potential attacker you are armed to gripping, holding, aiming or even firing – you have to be faced with a threat sufficient to justify a firearm’s use. Not every situation is a deadly force one and you need to be prepared to respond with non-lethal / less-lethal options.

How many of you carry a non-lethal option as part of your EDC (everyday carry)? I am always amazed at how many people – including off-duty law enforcement – carry a firearm but not a non-lethal option. And no, a knife doesn’t count, that’s lethal force. I’m talking about something like pepper spray, mace, Taser, stun gun or impact weapon – and the training to use it effectively. Hand to hand defensive techniques or some form of martial arts is also important as a last line of defense.

However, there’s something more important than all the weapons and other things you bring with you, it’s how to NOT get in the fight in the first place. It starts with being aware of your environment and continually accessing any possible threats to your safety. If you do perceive a threat, you need to be willing and able to remove yourself from the situation as quickly as possible.

As critical as all of the defensive techniques are, there’s one skill that can’t be over stressed. It’s your verbal skills. Sometimes called conflict de-escalation techniques or verbal Judo, it’s your ability to talk someone out of the fight they want to have with you. It requires preparation and quick thinking, but it can be very effective. Maybe you have to eat a little bit of crow, swallow some pride or simply walk or run away, but NOT being in the fight is what counts.

If you’re thinking there’s nothing wrong with a good fight to defend your honor or the honor of someone with you, here’s something to consider. Unless your name is Chuck Norris, there is always going to be someone out there bigger and badder than you. Even if you know you can kick that special idiot’s ass, how about his / her three friends who are going to show up out of nowhere? What if one or all of them have weapons you didn’t count on? Is it worth getting into the fight then if you have a chance to resolve it another way? It’s not about not being manly, macho, strong, brave or tough enough, it’s about being smart.

Now let’s say you’ve done everything right to avoid a dangerous situation, did everything you could to de-escalate to no avail or simply had no warning of an impending attack. At that point, keep this saying in mind. ‘If you’re gonna fight, fight like you’re the third monkey on the ramp to Noah’s Ark and brother it’s starting to rain.’ It’s all about your survival at that point and the third monkey isn’t going down easily.

I’ve seen a lot of fights that have started from a ‘look’ or a few angry words. Tension escalates pretty quickly from there and the whole situation goes to crap faster than you can ever imagine. You need to be prepared, not just from a defensive techniques perspective, but also with proper situational awareness and verbal skills to avoid the situation in the first place. Believe it or not, it’s a lot harder to NOT get into a fight than it is to just start swinging.

Get the training you need to defend yourself, but be sure your education includes as many techniques to not get into the fight as it does to get yourself out of it. That’s what real safety is about.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #SituationalAwareness, #LessThanLethal, #EDC, #Safety, #Security, #Training, #SelfDefense, #ThirdMonkey, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

The Second Amendment – A Second Class Right

When we think about the foundations of our nation, we naturally think about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Yet sadly, not everyone believes in these documents relevance today. Nowhere is this more evident than in the obstructionist view of the Second Amendment. It has been called irrelevant, misunderstood and out of date for the modern world. Slowly but surely, the Second Amendment has become the redheaded stepchild of the nation.

Picking the Second Amendment apart isn’t a new thing, but it has become far more fashionable since the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions. The gun control extremists even claim it was these two court decisions that gave individuals the right to own a firearm, instead of what they really were – decisions affirming the individual right always existed and it just took that long for an infringement case to get to the Supreme Court.

Still, that doesn’t stop the gun control crowd from claiming the Second Amendment to mean you can only bear arms while in the state sponsored militia, the modern day National Guard. History of course doesn’t support this creative reinterpretation when in fact every able bodied man of the time was part of the militia of the day, some well organized, some not so much. The common defense of self, home and community was just part of being in the community.

One of the most popular Second Amendment attacks is that it only grants you the right to bear arms that were available at the time, in other words muskets. The rational is that there is no way the Founding Fathers could have foreseen the type of modern weaponry we have today. Again, the argument completely ignores history and that there were far more advanced weaponry available when the Second Amendment was written. It’s also important to remember that muskets WERE the “weapons of war” of the day. The United States and British troops were issued muskets to go into battle with, clearly a point well understood when the Second Amendment was written.

Then of course there is the interpretation that the Second Amendment only covers hunting, and therefore is invalid in modern times when sustenance can be purchased from a grocery store. Only in rural areas do the gun control zealots concede the tradition of hunting should be tolerated, and even there they are trying to regulate hunting out of existence. Hunting might have been a more essential skill at the early years of our country, but nowhere in the Second Amendment text does it say or even imply hunting for food.

Even more creative are the recent additions to the ‘not covered by the Second Amendment’ crowd’s argument. This includes saying “arms” does not include ammunition or magazines. While it boggles the mind that someone would try to separate the fact that arms use ammunition and that it’s okay to infringe on the right to possess the very item the arms were intended to fire. The same illogic is extended to magazines. This historical equivalent to a modern magazine limitation would be that you could only possess a small power horn or tiny cartridge box with your musket.

Modern gun control elitists also contend the Second Amendment does not include the right to sell or purchase firearms. This is the main argument for banning firearms retailers in NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) communities. So while the local government proudly says they “support the Second Amendment, but…” the but includes many limitations and exceptions where they feel it is okay for them to regulate firearms retailers out of existence. Absolutely unsupported “safety” guidelines of not being within 500 feet of places like residential areas, parks, schools, day cares, another firearm retailer or so-called “high risk alcohol outlets” are designed to eliminate the ability for stores to operate in their area.

The latest trend is to subject firearms retailers to a Conditional Use Permit application. With this new costly and protracted bureaucratic process, a city or county has unlimited discretion to approve or deny a new firearm retailer’s application based on an undefined and arbitrary “fit” to the community and perceived impact to the surrounding properties. The notification portion of the process also ensures the NIMBY’s from inside and outside the community will mount a popularity contest to the Planning Commission to determine if a legally responsible retailer should be allowed to operate, simply because they do not like firearms and don’t believe they should be allowed in the community.

If that’s where gun control has been and where we are now, a hint into the future comes from the confirmation hearing of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. California’s Senior Senator argued that common possession does not equal common use as describe by the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s writing of the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. Here he wrote the Second Amendment protected the sort of weapons “in common use at the time.” The Senator’s direct quote was “You’re saying the numbers determine common use? Common use is an activity. It’s not common storage or possession, it’s use. So what you said is that these weapons are commonly used. They’re not.”

This sets up all kinds of new legal buffoonery. In highly gun controlled states like California, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey, among others, will they be able to argue that so-called “assault weapons”, which are highly regulated or even outlawed, are no longer in “common use” there? If you possess but don’t regularly “use” your firearm, does the Second Amendment not cover it? And what would be a fair test of “use”? If you use your firearm for self defense like the approximately three million others in the United States every year but don’t fire it, is that enough “use”?

While the Second Amendment has been beaten up, carved into pieces, minimized, misunderstood and creatively reinterpreted, it has survived to this day – at least in most of the country. In other areas such as my current home state of California, it is a mere shadow of what it once was and getting dimmer and dimmer every day.

Unless we are out protecting it and ensuring our elected representatives will no longer stand for the incremental elimination of our rights, the Second Amendment will fall. It’s on all of us to stand up and be counted before we have no rights to fight for.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #DeclarationOfIndependance, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #GunVote, #GunRights, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Crime Without Consequences

There used to be a time when politicians ran on agendas of being “tough on crime”. They knew how much safety and security meant to their constituents and how crime – everything from simple thefts to violent assaults and homicide impacted peoples lives. They understood that the best way to handle those who broke the law and discourage the next potential criminal was to punish these criminals, swiftly, severely and with certainty. And then there’s California.

If you have any question about who our elected officials in California are concerned about, look no further than the latest set of bills signed into law and those waiting in the wings. I’ll give you a hint; it’s not you – the law-abiding citizen.

California politicians haven’t cared about law and order for a long time. Propositions 47 & 57 which reduced many crimes to infractions and took away the threat of serious penalties for such “non-violent felonies” as Assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer; Battery with serious bodily injury; Solicitation to commit murder and Rape/Sodomy/Oral Copulation of an unconscious person or by use of a date rape drug, clearly show the Governor and legislature’s preference on protecting the criminal instead of the victim.

In March of this year, California’s Governor pardoned five ex-convicts who were facing deportation due to their criminal convictions. Among the convictions were auto theft, illegal drugs, domestic violence, obstructing a police officer, kidnapping, robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Then of course the pardon of the man who was convicted of murder in 1994 for shooting a gang rival and was facing deportation.

Also in March the California Supreme Court issued an administrative order that opened the door for the Governor to legally commute the sentences of every inmate on death row. The Governor used to have to get the concurrence of a majority of the state Supreme Court to issue a commutation or clemency when the individual concerned has two other felony convictions. This new administrative rule – which nobody seems to know what case prompted it – removes that condition.

With the Governor’s signature, California has proudly become the first state in the nation to eliminate the bail and will free so-called “non-violent” suspects within 12 hours of being booked. In lieu of bail, suspects will be gauged under a county-by-county defined risk-assessment system. While effectively eliminating the bail bond industry, the costs of implementing the new system are estimated at up to $2 billion. Of course more state jobs will be added to the public payroll and less people will be incarcerated while awaiting trial, a win-win for the state bureaucracy.

Oh but that’s not all… The Governor Jerry Brown signed a law that restores the voting rights of convicted felons serving time in county jails, on probation or under community supervision – but not those in state or federal prisons. But fear not hard-core felons, no doubt your time will come too.

So, what about you and your desire to NOT be a victim of crime? The California legislature has determined that if you want to carry a concealed firearm, you should have more training. Under the new law a minimum of eight hours of training on firearm safety, handling, and technique. Assembly Member Todd Gloria said “Since I introduced AB 2103, we have seen a persistent amount of gun violence in our nation and it’s become extremely difficult to ignore the link between gun violence and the number of guns in our communities.”

So while the State of California doesn’t issue concealed carry permits like many other states do, they are willing to set the standard for the cities and counties that do issue them. And now by mandating a full eight hours of training – generally starting at $100 and more depending on location, that bar is moved just a little bit further out of reach of those who are already struggling to cover all the other associated costs. And as evident from the author of AB 2103, their goal is to reduce the number of firearms in the community by targeting those carried by law-abiding citizens.

Right now the State of California, along with far too many communities who what to make their own political statement, are far too busy criminalizing the distribution of plastic drinking straws, mandating only milk or water be served to children in restaurants and making sure our youth get a good night sleep by legislating no middle or high school can start before 8:30 am than to tackle the hard issues of jobs, homelessness, mental health, public safety and the impact of all the new taxes they continue to enact on businesses and their employees.

Criminals – the people who break the law – don’t do so by accident. They make a conscious decision to steal someone else’s property, to break into cars, homes and businesses, to rob, rape or murder their victims. Crime is a given natural occurrence in society; it’s a choice to break the law at someone else’s expense.

If you somehow find the need to be a little more “fair” to these criminals, how about a little tough love? How about telling them that if they don’t want to lose their freedom, if they don’t want to go to jail, if they don’t want to pay fines, if they don’t want to be subject to the penalties society makes for people who do things like this, maybe – just maybe they shouldn’t commit the crime.

How about just telling them: STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE!

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #CaliforniaGunControlSchemes, #CrimeAndPunishment, #SwiftSevereCertian, #SoftOnCrime, #SoftOnCriminals, #StopBreakingTheLaw, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Gun Shows and Gun Culture

You would think it would be enough for the gun control zealots to legislate, license, register, restrict, or outlaw firearms, ammunition and the law-abiding firearm owner to within an inch of their very souls, but that just isn’t enough. They want to eliminate anything to do with the horrors of “gun culture” from our communities and from our minds, because THAT is what will make everyone safe! Welcome to the beginning of the end of gun shows.

What is the latest and greatest in vogue gun control scheme out here on the (extreme) left coast? Getting rid of gun shows of course! It’s all the rage out here in California. Local, county and state politicians are jumping on the bandwagon to stop gun shows from operating in publicly owned venues. Why? Duh… guns. If it has anything to do with firearms in any way, shape or form, they want to get rid of it.

Where is this going on? San Diego County, Santa Clara County and the State of California for the Cow Palace in Daly City… among others. Politicians backed by “local activists” are making the case that banning gun shows will somehow make everyone feel safer.

For a hint at the logic, here are the comments from State Senator Scott Wiener who is backing SB221, a bill that would specifically bar the historic Cow Palace from hosting events that would involve the sale of guns or ammunition.

“Our country is awash in guns, and schoolchildren are dying,” said Wiener. “We need fewer guns, and we need to stop the proliferation of guns whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. We should not have gun shows in the heart of the Bay Area. The Cow Palace gun shows should have ended a long time ago. Better late than never.”

And just to add a little bit of incentive, the budget for a new roof for the 1940’s era Cow Palace is being tied into the proposal.

If you think this sounds like a solution in search of a problem, you would be correct. Gun shows at venues around the state must follow all local, county, state and federal regulations, which they do to a tee. The widely spread myth of a “gun show loophole” has long since proven to be nothing more than a means to cause fear in the eyes of the uninformed public to get them to support more “common sense gun control laws”.

What is really going on is an assault on gun culture. And their definition of gun culture is anyone or anything that sees firearms in a positive way. Or, the way they look at it, unless you see firearms as something that should be completely banned from civilian ownership and use, you are part of the gun culture problem.

Law-abiding citizens legally own roughly four (4) million firearms in this country. The reasons they own them are as varied as our nation. There is no one profile of a “gun owner” in the United States, people from every walk of life, every race, every religion, every political affiliation in every corner of the country own them and use them responsibly each and every day.

These good people buy everything from new and used firearms, ammunition and accessories all the time. The firearms industry itself makes up about $ 31.8 billion of the U.S. economy, and that was in 2012.

Have you ever been to a gun show? If you have, you know what’s there. For those who haven’t, it’s a fascinating collection of new and used just about everything you can think of. Gun shows can fill entire convention centers or just a small meeting hall in a basement.

Overwhelmingly gun shows are populated by small vendors and companies with some kind of a niche in the market. You can find everything from new and used firearms from just about every corner of the globe. If you are looking for historic military firearms (weapons of war in gun control speak), you’ll find them from every military conflict, from every side of the conflict. You’ll see hard to find magazines and parts from out of production firearms that nobody else may ever have. You’ll find more accessories than you knew existed, some innovative, some a little strange. You’ll also find hats, mugs, jewelry, clothing, commemorative pins, patches and coins, crafts and creations as well as fishing gear and self-defense training programs mixed right in together.

I went to a gun show just this weekend and as usual, I was amazed at the variety of what you can find there. I saw a range of items from blunderbuss to modern sporting rifles, and everything in-between. I saw an original Red Rider BB Gun, an actual World War II FP-45 Liberator and custom hunting rifles that cost more than a luxury SUV. I saw books, I saw rare and hard to find parts, I saw custom crafted accessories I’ve never seen before and I saw ammunition I didn’t think still existed.

But as fascinating as the items on the floor were, I was more interested in the people. Despite what the gun control zealots tell you, I saw a cross section of the community. I saw old and young, men and women, wealthy and not so well off. I saw elderly in wheel chairs and kids in strollers. I met some wonderfully knowledgeable people who knew WAY more than I know about firearms, and a few blowhards that are better at talking than actually knowing things.

In other words, when you go to a gun show, you’re going to find a room or rooms full of people who see the positive benefits of owning firearms, each in their own special way.

This is what the politicians are trying to stop. People conducting legal commerce, acting in accordance with every law, rule and regulation tossed in to make their lives a little more expensive and harder. They are trying to stop people from learning, sharing knowledge, innovations, ideas and a little bit of bullshit along with legal firearms and accessories.

In 1997, the U.S. 9th Circuit found that a Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors’ ban on selling guns at county-run venues to “avoid sending the wrong message to the community relative to support of gun usage,” violated the First Amendment rights of gun show promoters. While seemingly an important ruling, this hasn’t stopped communities and the State of California from continuing to work on banning gun shows and/or gun sales in the name of “public safety”. After all, this is the 9^thCircuit and Constitutional rights are always in flux.

Gun shows are not, and never have been a public safety issue in California, or anywhere in the country. They are however a demonstration of the positive side of gun culture, which makes them a prime target of the gun control zealots in our community and the politicians they support. It’s just another NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) argument against legal commerce and politically incorrect thinking.

I choose to think incorrectly.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #GunShow, #GunCulture, #PoliticallyIncorrectThinking, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

High Capacity Magazines and Other Mythical Creatures

The gun control elitists are always coming up with ways to restrict and disarm law-abiding citizens. One of the favorite techniques is incremental confiscation of things they determine are now too dangerous for the public to own. Enter the “high capacity” magazine. Along with this menacing term, they perpetuate myths designed to convince you a magazine with a limited number of rounds makes you safer, if they are going to allow you to have a firearm at all.

What exactly is a so-called “high capacity” magazine? Depending on where you live, it’s anything more than 10 rounds, although there are some states where “high capacity” is over 15. In New York, it’s anything over seven. You can still own a 10 round magazine there, but you can only put seven rounds in it. Add one more and it becomes “high capacity”. Somehow, somewhere 10 rounds is what the gun control crowd now insists is a “standard capacity” magazine. The logic behind this arbitrary number is anyone’s guess.

Consider the world’s most iconic pistol, the John Browning designed M1911 with a magazine capacity of seven. Even at the time of its inception in the year 1911, revolvers and other magazine fed firearms were made that held more than seven rounds. Since that time, the standard capacity of semi-automatic pistols has increased thanks to innovations in design and materials of the firearm and magazine, as well as the ammunition itself. True standard capacity magazines are whatever fits flush in the grip of the semi-automatic pistol. Something that extends below that is… you guessed it, an extended magazine.

In restricted states, the law-abiding citizen who wants to defend his/her life and family’s lives can only have a 10 round magazine. Criminals – the ones who don’t obey the law and are the ones you are defending against – are always going to be able to illegally obtain any kind of firearm and magazine they want. After all, they are criminals. Of course the government can have anything and everything they want, and they need larger magazines to defend themselves against criminals. Are you seeing a problem with this logic?

Much of the myth of 10 round civilian magazines centers around the idea that when a criminal pauses to reload, it gives people in the area a chance to jump and disarm them. An empowering idea, but I’m going to call bullsh*t on that one.

For those of you who have ever done a Tueller Drill, you know someone can cover about 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. If you are the attacker in this situation, it assumes you are standing ready to go on command. In real life, if someone is shooting and you haven’t been shot yet, you’re probably getting your ass behind cover or at least concealment, not standing OK Corral showdown style waiting for them to reload.

How long does it take to reload a semi-automatic firearm? A lot less time than you think. Anyone with even a little bit of practice is going to be able to pull off that not-so–complicated maneuver in less than 1.5 seconds. Sure, if the shooter is not so practiced there’s going to be a longer break. But how exactly are you supposed to know how long it’s going to take from a hopefully safe position?

Revolvers are slower right? A bit, but again it doesn’t take much practice to get very fast with a speed-loader. And I’ll submit to you that someone hand loading one round at a time is just as deadly. Why? If you start after someone who has managed to get only one fresh round into the cylinder, they still have ONE ROUND IN THE CYLINDER, aka, a LOADED FIREARM.

Here’s another thing to consider. When is the last time you tackled, disarmed and detained someone? Keep in mind this person’s primary motivation is likely to kill you or someone else, not to run away. And not to pop anyone’s macho self-image, but keep in mind highly experienced professionals with the latest and greatest law enforcement tools and training can’t always pull this off on their own.

Most certainly it can and does happen. There are a lot of true heroes out there with and without self-defense training who have taken on armed assailants and kicked their asses. But what we will never know is how many were not successful. How many decided to charge a shooter and didn’t make it? Their extraordinarily brave efforts will forever be anonymous since only they know what they did and why.

Am I suggesting your only option is to do nothing and wait to get shot? HELL NO!! You fight back with whatever you have be it a pencil, rock, chair, knife or your bare hands. You do whatever you have to do to survive. But you shouldn’t have to rely on improvised weaponry, or no weapon at all against armed criminals. The Second Amendment protection of the right to bear arms means you should always have an option to defend your life and the lives of your family with arms commonly in use, in other words, a firearm with whatever capacity magazine is supposed to come with it. OR, at least that is what it is supposed to be.

Anyone who thinks you are safer having a magazine of 10 rounds or lower, or that your first choice, self-defense tactic against an active shooter is to give up a position of hard cover to rush someone during a reload, bare handed, is thinking more about the safety of the criminals than about your sorry law-abiding ass.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #SecondAmendment, #BillOfRights, #RightToBearArms, #selfdefense, #standardcapacitymagazine, #highcapacitymagazine, #immillwall, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

Purging Our Politically Incorrect Past

In 2001, the world was aghast when the Taliban were purging Afghanistan of all remaining non-Islamic statues. Among them were two Buddha statues in the Bamiyan Valley dating back over 1700 years that were destroyed despite international outcry and numerous requests to allow them to be relocated elsewhere. The Taliban’s strict interpretation of their religion forbids any symbols of living things, so that meant they had to be destroyed. Today, we have a similar eradication occurring in our own country only in the name of political correctness instead of religion, the purging of the Confederacy.

This latest round of historical cleansing stems from the 2015 shooting at a church in South Carolina by a pathetic high school drop out and druggie. But this isn’t because of what he did; killing nine people. It was because he was white, the victims were black and there were photos of him with Confederate flags. Blasted across the media as proof that anything to do with the Confederacy is racist and dangerous to modern day living, statues have been removed, building and street names changed and the Confederate flag all but outlawed.

The South has long been a target of the moral elite and this latest purging is right out of current Chicago Mayor and former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s playbook of “You never let a serious crisis go to waste”. This was simply a golden opportunity to progress an agenda that couldn’t get traction before. Now, because of this horrific incident, the offended could finally rid their world of the hideous reminders of a long gone era.

How widespread has this absurdity been? Just recently, the high school in the small Vermont city where I spent the majority of my law enforcement service lost their “Rebel” team name. Apparently the team name used since the school’s founding 55 years ago during the Civil War Centennial and chosen as the school colors were blue and gray and the city was ‘South’ of its major rival, was too closely associated with the Confederacy for the politically correct.

In another case, a Georgia police sergeant lost her job because someone saw the Confederate flag she had been flying at her house for over a year to display her pride in her Southern heritage and honor her recently deceased husband, and was offended.

In both of these cases, there was zero evidence of racial discrimination, bias, violent intent or any other factor – just political correctness at play.

If this same psychopath shooter in North Carolina had been wearing Mickey Mouse ears during his homicidal rampage and killed only men with facial hair, because that is what HE believed Walt Disney would have wanted, would we expect a nationwide movement to shut down all the Disney theme parks? Of course not, that would be stupid. But so is thinking that one demented little piece of crap’s interpretation of the purpose of the Confederacy should shape the rest of the world.

History is a mixed bag of great accomplishments and dark, disturbing events. Our nation’s relatively short 241 years of existence is full of examples of great strides in technology, arts and civil rights as well as horrific abuses of human rights, pain and suffering. But history is just that, history – events that occurred in the past. It is the path that got us to where we are today and as intellectual and enlightened as we like to believe we are, we wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for what we as a nation went through.

While the United States did not grant Confederate soldiers full US veteran status as some believe, the men who fought for the South were our own just as the Union forces were our own. Their young nation was split and at war with itself, and it was their geography that determined the Southern soldiers’ destiny. It is not an excuse or an apologist view to want to treat those who lost their lives in this or any human conflict with a little bit of respect.

You might wonder why someone who mostly writes on Second Amendment topics cares about the South or the Confederate flag. It is simply because this is just another example of politically correct censorship and eradicating the world of things that some moral elitist is now offended by. We’ve seen far to many examples of firearms being banned for their offensive cosmetic features, as well as other draconian gun control laws, laws that have absolutely nothing to do with public safety and will never do anything to reduce crime or save lives, only make some people “feel better”.

Sanitizing our nation’s history by erasing symbols of something we find offensive today is just another step towards living in George Orwell’s “1984” where the past is rewritten to match the current party line. Removing these memorials, names and symbols is a slap in the face to all those whose lineage goes through the South and dismisses any of the positive contributions from that era and region of our own nation.

Heritage doesn’t equal hate just as a firearm does not equal violence. It is the intent of the individual, and ONLY the individual that determines what happens next.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #SecondAmendment, #Confederacy, #ConfederateFlag, #Heritage, #Rebels, #1984, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

Your Life Is Not Worth Defending

Every so often we get to hear politicians non-wordsmithed views on a given topic. Away from the speechwriters and handlers, their comments lend insight into how little they really care about their constituents. Thus was the reply of Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting representative of Washington DC, to a question of allowing District residents to defend themselves with concealed carry permits in the wake of the shooting of Congressional members in Virginia.

The delegate’s at times laughing response on July 10, 2017 was:

“The city has taken the position that the best way to defend yourself is not to be armed. So, your notion…is an insult– quite an insult to the wards that have greater crime. They have not come forward to me and say, ‘Congresswoman we want to conceal and carry.’ So, I suggest that you approach the people you’re talking about.”

Washington DC has among the strictest gun control laws in the nation. It was the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller which overturned the District’s complete ban on handguns and the requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” when in the home. How strict was the law? The subject of the case, Dick Anthony Heller, a licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia was allowed to carry a firearm for work in federal office buildings, but was not allowed to have one in his own home.

What exactly was the District saying? Is it that the officer who is trusted enough to protect employees and visitors in a federal office building with a firearm isn’t trustworthy enough to protect his own family and home with one? Or is it what and who is being protected? A federal building and federal employees are worth protecting but an individual’s home and family isn’t.

Time and time again, gun control elitists have made it clear there is a caste system in place here. There are people worth protecting with firearms (them) and there are people who are not (everyone else).

Politicians and the economic elite work tirelessly to eliminate your right to self-defense, while simultaneously exempting themselves from any new restrictions they come up with. They say you don’t need a firearm to protect yourself while they are surrounded by heavily armed men and women who are expected to lay down their lives to keep them safe. In the Heller case, they denied the very people who are protecting them the right to protect themselves, right along with everyone else.

Concealed carry permits are now technically possible to obtain in the District, thanks to years of lawsuits and legal decisions against them. However with each step forward, the District raises the bar for demonstrating sufficient need even higher and enacts more costly, time consuming and discriminatory administrative practices to keep them from actually being issued.

So what does the District’s position on unarmed defense mean? It means you have a population with no effective means to fight back against armed perpetrators. That’s right, I said armed perpetrators. For all the effort the District puts into disarming law-abiding citizens, they still have yet to make an impact on those who are actually committing the crimes. Washington DC consistently ranks on the list of highest murder rate and highest violent crime rate in the nation. In other words, a District of victims.

I have no idea where Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton lives or what she has for personal security. Outside her secure federal workplace, her minimum Congressional salary of $174,000 is certainly sufficient to provide her a safe lifestyle. However that lifestyle sets her far above and apart from the average District resident she is supposed to be representing. I also don’t question that nobody is asking her for concealed carry permits. Like all good elitist politicians, no doubt she keeps herself surrounded only by those who think the same way she does.

Now take a look at your own congressional representation and see if they are doing the same thing. Are they working to keep you from defending yourself while enjoying the security and benefits of the office you elected them to? Is your life worth defending to them?

Bob

#oddstuffing, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #BillOfRights, #SelfDefense, #DCGunLaws, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

Shall Not Be Infringed

Time for a little rant. The last four words of the Second Amendment are “shall not be infringed”. Pretty simple and plainspoken, as are all of the Amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. Yet somehow, this clear and distinct phrasing has been bastardized by government entities small and large around our country in the name of ‘reasonable regulations’. If nothing else about the gun control elitists bothers you, those two words should. And it should scare the hell out of you.

Just to make sure we’re clear on the context, this is the text of the Second Amendment:

“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.”

It is short and sweet at just 27 words. Like all other parts of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is not a limitation on what “the people” can do, but clearly states what the government cannot do.

So where does ‘reasonable regulations’ come from and why is it so important? It stems from the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller case which reaffirmed the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to own a firearm outside of military service; the militia noted in the prefatory clause of the Amendment. But at the same time, the ruling held that like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. This is what has become known as ‘reasonable regulations’ or ‘reasonable restrictions’ and is now the mantra for every gun control / gun ban scheme being formulated.

As we saw in the 2016 General Elections where gun control elitist candidates were so proud to say that they ‘respect the Second Amendment’ but in the same breath say they also supported ‘reasonable regulations’. Naturally, it was a political ploy to convince those who were not paying close attention that they wouldn’t come after their guns. In reality, that’s just what their so-called ‘reasonable regulations’ intend.

What sort of ‘reasonable regulations’ do they support? Forced government confiscations colloquially know as gun buybacks, banning newly created categories of firearms by their cosmetic features as so-called “assault weapons”, restrictions on dangerous levels of magazine capacity, limitations on the type, make and model of firearms you can purchase as well as strict limitations on how many you can purchase at once, and how long you have to wait to purchase a firearm, regardless of how many you currently own.

The latest insult to reasonableness is restrictions on ammunition purchases. Even though they have been shown to be wholly ineffective as a means to reduce criminal activity, new licensing of buyers and sellers are being put in place. While initially just a simple license to allow purchases, this system also enables the long sought after mechanism to restrict the quantity of ammunition purchased as well as limit the purchases to only those calibers of firearms that have been registered with the government. In other words, it forces a complete gun registration system.

You have to wonder why the Supreme Court didn’t answer what was and wasn’t a ‘reasonable regulation’ as well as the question of bearing arms outside the home at the same time as Heller. To be fair, that wasn’t the case that was handed to them and the Supreme Court doesn’t always resolve cases to the degree we’d like to see. In limiting the scope of the ruling, the Court virtually guaranteed decades of conflict and litigation against unreasonable restrictions around the country, as we’ve already seen since Heller.

At the core of our argument to protect our rights, we have to go back and look at the Second Amendment and determine the intent of the Founding Fathers. Yes, it is a decidedly originalism form of interpretation and is something the gun control elitists abhor. But how else can you claim the rest of the Bill of Rights applies to modern day society as it did when it was written if you say the Second Amendment does not.

And for those working in back rooms hidden away from public scrutiny concocting the next set of ‘reasonable restrictions’, I have just one question. What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not get?

Bob

#oddstuffing, #SecondAmendment, #BillofRights, #RightToBearArms, #originalism, #reasonableregulations, #Heller, #ShallNotBeInfringed, #TheCheapPlace, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com