billofrights – Page 4

Gun vs. Firearm

When you hear the word ‘gun’, what do you think of? Depending on your political leanings, you may think of very different things. If you absolutely abhor guns of every type, shape and form, you probably only envision an object that kills innocent families and children. At the other end of the spectrum, you may envision a tool for empowerment, self-defense, hunting or sport. What if I had asked you the same question about ‘firearm’? Odd enough, the answer might be a little different.

Both words describe the very same inanimate object; the difference is the emotional tie to the word ‘gun’. Of course, there are many different terms that also describe the very same objects. Firearms, guns, arms and weapons are generic terms whereas pistol, revolver, rifles, shotgun, or hog leg are more specific. Some, such as ‘weapon’ are positively associated with military or police service. It is also negatively associated as belonging to a class of objects supposedly too dangerous for the public to own as the politically defined ‘assault weapon’ or ‘assault style weapon’.

Look at how those opposed to Second Amendment rights and ordinary citizens owning and carrying firearms describe them. The articles they post, the speeches they give, the so-called research they present; all emphasize how dangerous and deadly ‘guns’ are. They continuously blame the deaths on “gun violence” to the point where anyone listening to the message is going to naturally associate anything ‘gun’ with ‘violence’ and ‘death’. They are trying to make the word itself synonymous with something evil and dangerous.

All of this is why many of us in this industry, myself included, prefer to use the term ‘firearm’ generally or ‘pistol’ or ‘rifle’ specifically in our discussions, writings or when we teach. The rational behind it is simple. To present the most positive images of these inanimate objects, the people who own them, and the right to do so.

If you’re thinking this is pretty damn dumb; you are of course correct. It is dumb. It’s semantics at its best and political correctness gone wild. It’s a bit insulting to think that simply using the word gun vs. firearm changes the definition of what you are talking about. But it’s also the realty of the world we live in where far too many people listen blindly to the headlines and never bother to read the fine print.

Before you think about banishing the word gun from your lexicon, understand that it isn’t as simple as using one term for another. You would be hard pressed to find a firearmsmith instead of a gunsmith or try to buy a firearm sock instead of a gun sock. I even have the ‘g’ word in my company name because other more politically correct terms just didn’t make sense.

Of course, the point that tends to get lost in all of this wordplay is what are you doing with your firearms/guns? Are you a responsible firearm owner? Do you live by the four basic firearms safety rules like your life and everyone else’s depends on it? Have you taught your children about firearm safety? Do you store your firearms safely given your life, family and living situation? Have you trained with your firearms? Do you properly maintain your firearms? Are your firearms for the defense of your life and your family’s lives?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then I don’t give a tinker’s damn what you call that thing that goes pew. You are living proof that the term means nothing. What matters is intent, and yours is steeped in American tradition, family values and the Second Amendment.

I only ask that you be aware of the context of conversations and realize that there are those who wish to use every means at their disposal to portray firearm owners – gun owners, as negatively as possible to achieve their goal of denying our Second Amendment rights, even if it is simply using the word gun vs. firearm.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #gunvsfirearm, #secondamendment, #gunsvsfirearms, #responsiblefirearmowners, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

National Reciprocity – The Holy Grail Adjacent

One of the most significant goals of Second Amendment rights groups’ today is nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry permit holders. It’s not the Holy Grail, which would be nationwide constitutional carry, but it most certainly lives next door to it. Imagine an entire country where you can exercise your right to bear arms without having to worry about some line on a map.

Two bills in the United States Congress mean to address this, one in the House and one in the Senate. Both very similar in that they allow a permitted concealed carry holder to carry in all states and that they must adhere to the laws of the state they are in. The one major difference is the permitting authority. One version says the permit must be issued by your home state, the state where you permanently reside. The other version says reciprocity includes any state’s permit, so an out-of-state permit would be valid in all states, including your home state. Constitutional carry states just need their driver’s license. Lucky stiffs…

Neither of these options are acceptable to the gun control elitists and states where they determine who may legally carry a firearm based on nebulous and secretive criteria, and permits are only issued to the rich, famous or well connected. Political hacks posing as law enforcement heads are also up in arms about this. They contend this will allow people from all across the country with little to no training to come in to their state with firearms, putting the lives of their officers and every citizen in the state at risk. There will be ‘blood in the streets’ they say.

Of course, the visions of anarchy, Wild West shootouts and ‘blood in the streets’ have never come true, even as more and more states adopt permitless carry. Undeterred, the elitists keep pushing their false narrative to keep the people afraid while pushing for even stricter gun control laws. The truth is, law-abiding, concealed carry citizens are among the most law abiding in the nation. They carry not to cause problems, only to defend their own lives and the lives of their loved ones.

If one of the currently stalled national reciprocity bills eventually makes its way to law, we can expect a flood of legal challenges from the nanny states, propelled by activist jurists who are ready and waiting to issue their pre-planned rulings. We can also expect these non-permissive states to radically alter their own carry laws to make it as difficult and complicated as possible to comply with for anyone who dares come into their state with a firearm.

As anyone who currently has more than one concealed carry permit already knows, each state’s laws have subtle differences that must be strictly adhered to. Then of course there are municipalities who’ve decided they need to jump on the gun control bandwagon and further regulate firearms for their little slices of turf.

Among the many different regulations such as duty to inform on traffic stops, some jurisdictions ban so-called “high-capacity” magazines or anything above 10 rounds. In New York you can only put seven rounds in your ten round magazines, unless you are on a firing range. Some jurisdictions ban “enhanced lethality” bullets, a.k.a. hollow point self defense rounds, or other specific types of ammunition.

If you want to get a taste of how national reciprocity would be treated, there is one already we can look at. It’s called the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), also known as HR218. This national law allows qualified current, former and retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm in any state. The NRA Law Enforcement Division has a good resource page on LEOSA. See the link below for more details.

So you would think this would be easy, right? Sadly it is not. Not only are many officers not aware of the law, some jurisdictions feel free to outright ignore it. Current and former officers lawfully carrying under this Act have been harassed, had their firearms confiscated and been arrested. Even when charges are later dropped, this type of enforcement follows the good ol’ days concept of “you can’t take back a night in jail”. It is designed to send a clear message that unless you are permitted by THEIR jurisdiction, you cannot carry there.

Consider if this is how law enforcement, a supposedly close-knit nationwide community, treats it’s own in non-permissive states, image how they’ll treat the average out-of-state concealed carrying citizen?

Nationwide concealed carry reciprocity is long overdue in our country. Your ability to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones shouldn’t be determined by the next dotted line on the map, controlled by someone who doesn’t believe your life is worthy of Constitutionally protected rights in THEIR jurisdiction.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #NationalReciprocity, #SecondAmendment #BillOfRights, #LEOSA, #HR218, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

NRA Law Enforcement Division / LEOSA – http://le.nra.org/leosa.aspx

Gun Safety Laws – IT’S A TRAP!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob

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

Is California Too Far Gone To Save?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob

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

Twenty-Seven Words of Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob

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

What Have YOU Done Lately To Support The Second Amendment?

The 2016 General Election let us all give a little sigh of relief. With a House, Senate and White House who are NOT actively trying to destroy law-abiding citizens right to own and bear arms, we are feeling a lot more secure about the Second Amendment’s survival. But this isn’t the time to stop our efforts. Every day around the nation there are those who would strip your rights away and it’s up to YOU to stop it.

Please note I’m not suggesting anyone drop everything in his or her life and become a full time lobbyist. That’s not even remotely possible for most of us . But just because we don’t advocate Second Amendment rights as our full time profession doesn’t mean we can’t make a meaningful impact.

Making a difference can be as simple as calling or writing a letter to your elected officials. Yes, some of us live in highly non-firearm permissive states where our elected officials are doing everything in their power to strip our rights away, but they still need to hear our voices. The NRA and most of the affiliated state organizations and advocacy groups make it as easy for you as can be. Just go to their website, fill out your information and hit send. It’s that easy.

Now, if you still think that writing a letter or placing a call will get you on a ‘list’, I’ve got some bad news for you. You’re already on that list. If you’ve ever bought a firearm, ammunition, a firearm related magazine, book, etc. etc. etc., no doubt you are on someone’s ‘list’. Among the approximately 320 million people in the United States, there are an estimated 350 million legally owned firearms, so embrace the ‘list’, you are in good company. And unless your last name is LaPierre or Nugent, writing a letter or calling your elected official to tell them to support the Second Amendment isn’t going to move you up.

No matter what, the most positive thing we can all do is to lead by example. For law-abiding firearms owners, that means acting responsibly with our firearms. Every stupid or inconsiderate incident a firearm owner is involved in becomes fodder for the gun-grabbing elitists. They use it as part of their false “no guns are safe” narrative and advocate for more gun control and ultimately gun elimination.

Be responsible and live the Four Rules of Gun Safety every day.

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

If you haven’t taught your children about firearm safety, now is a good time. The NRA’s Eddie Eagle program (https://eddieeagle.nra.org) is great for Pre-K through 4th graders. The National Shooting Shorts Foundation’s (NSSF) Project ChildSafe Video on Talking to Kids about Gun Safety (http://www.nssfblog.com/new-project-childsafe-video-on-talking-to-kids-about-gun-safety/) is also a great resource.

Many of us live in a community or work in a job where even discussing firearms is taboo and could get you ostracized or fired. It’s not right, but it happens. If that’s your situation, you can still make a difference. You can donate to an advocacy organization or do something as simple as taking a friend to the range and showing them what a law-abiding firearm owner is all about. This simple demonstration of responsibility may be all it takes to change someone’s mind.

So I ask, what have YOU done lately to support the Second Amendment?

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndAmendment, #2A, #billofrights, #nra, #nssf, #gunrights, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

The Future of Gun Control in California

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to the future of gun control in California.

Bob

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

Of Governments & Guns

I’ve never quite understood government’s fascination with gun control. Having lived most of my pre-California life in Vermont and Texas, the People’s Republik of Kalifornistan’s obsession with eliminating personally owned firearms confounded me. Under the notion that understanding the problem is the first step to solving it, I’ve developed my theory of governments and guns.

Big governments don’t just dislike guns; they hate them. They hate them so much, they don’t want you to have them. But it is a contradictory opposition. They don’t completely oppose guns, only the ones they don’t have. It is of course all about power and control.

To understand this relationship, I needed to step back and look at the goal of big government. From what I’ve seen, the goal is simply to be bigger, the bigger the better.

Why have a 10-person department when you can have 100? If a one million dollar budget is good, a 10 million dollar one is even better. If there is something you can do that isn’t being done now, do it! It doesn’t matter if the actual need isn’t there, is duplicated, triplicated or more elsewhere. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t actually work or people don’t want it. It doesn’t matter if it can be done cheaper and better by someone else. And it certainly doesn’t matter if doing it causes more problems than it creates, you can always create a new solution to the problem you just created! The more budget and personnel you have, the more power you have.

But that is only half the equation. The other half is controlling as much of peoples lives as possible. How does a government do that? Easy, you try to solve any problem you can think of, even if it’s not really a problem or – and this one is key – if you were the one who caused the problem in the first place. The more “solutions” you can provide services for, the more control of lives you can achieve. Every aspect of your waking life can be subjected to the state’s control. Once you get a hook in somewhere, it’s easy to increase or adjust the control to your desired effect through additional administrative regulations. The devil is always in the details.

So where do guns come into this equation? Simply put, firearms allow individuals to control one of the most basic elements of their lives; their own personal safety and the safety of their families. Eliminate the ability of individuals to defend themselves, and they become more reliant on the state.

If you want to see what happens when you eliminate lawfully owned firearms, look no further than the failed social experiments in the United Kingdom and Australia. After declaring virtually every lawfully owned firearm an unacceptable public safety risk – since everyone with a firearm is on the verge of a shooting spree at any time – and regulating the remaining ones nearly out of existence, defending yourself from violence was essentially outlawed. What was the result? Increases in violent crime and more helpless victims. And what of the guns? The criminals still have them; they never bought into this whole disarmament thing. And being criminals, they can always get more. Don’t believe it? Take a look at how many firearms are recovered from criminals by the police in the UK and Australia every single day.

So where does a disarmed public turn to for help? Since personally owned firearms are no longer an option, remember – every firearm owner is a threat to public safety in the eyes of the state; they turn to the government. As crime goes up, the public demands safety. This means more taxes for more police, more courts, more prisons, more victims programs, more rehabilitation programs, more drug programs, more education programs, more administrators, more regulators… more government.

The government will never and can never be there to protect you, only scoop up the pieces into to a long plastic bag. Disarming law-abiding citizens only turns them into law-abiding victims. When we allow our right to defend ourselves and our families to be stripped away, relying solely on the government to provide for us in every situation, we give up more than our safety and security, we give up our freedom.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #secondamendment, #guncontrol, #biggovernment, #safetyandsecurity, #mewe, #medium, #instagram, #oddstuffing.com

Time To End Gun Free Zones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob

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

That New Gun You Can’t Have

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then what will you do?

Bob

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