#NoNewGunLaws – Odd Stuffing

Gun Control: Twisting Truth and Faking Fact

After reading a recent post from the gun control community, I find it fascinating how facts from the real world can be twisted to form a new, twisted reality. But I suppose when you are trying to convince people that anyone or anything associated with firearms is threat to public safety, you have to take some liberties with the truth.

I’ve linked to a copy of the article below for your entertainment. NSSF REPORT: AR-15 OWNERS STOCKPILE WEAPONS, SEEK SILENCERS. The article quotes the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation – the industry trade organization) then picks apart pieces to make wild speculations about it.

One of the things which immediately pops out is the “AR-15 owners stockpile weapons”. This is based on a single NSSF survey showing a of percentage AR- and AK-style rifles owners own 3.8 on average.

So apparently 3.8 firearms are now considered a stockpile. I think it’s a bit of an exaggeration to call 3.8 a stockpile, but we should be used to the gun control community twisting the truth. How many times have you seen an article on an arrest where the person had a “weapons cache” or “arms stockpile” or “ammunition cache” when there were two firearms and 50 or 100 rounds of ammo?

Let’s keep in mind one of the gun control extremists’ goals is to limit the number of firearms and the amount of ammunition you can own, just like they have already done in other countries. They are pushing this narrative here by showing a small number of personally owned firearms and exclaiming how this is a “massive arsenal” far above mainstream users which can only be used by terrorists and mass shooters.

Remember, redefining common terms to meet their definition is their specialty. These are the folks who falsely claim guns are the leading cause of death for children in this country because they define children up to the age of 20. So, redefining a “stockpile”, something most of us would envision as being a pretty big number – like actual military armory type quantities – down to a tiny number of firearms and ammunition is no big deal.

They also go after the term Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR) as something created in 2009 to rebrand AR-15, AK-47 and other such firearms to invent a sporting purpose “… instead of weapons of war designed for maximum lethality.” Here they continue to pursue the lie that semi-automatic AR-15 and the like are “weapons of war”. They are not and never have been. But they’ve never let the truth get in their way.

Let’s not forget it was the gun control community that coined the term “assault weapons” in 1988 to refer to semi-automatic firearms with similar cosmetic features to military firearms, but without the capability to be used as fully automatic assault rifles, a term already in common use. Assault weapons sound scary, semi-automatic firearms do not.

Of course, there is no consensus in the gun control community on what exactly a so-called “assault weapon” is. Is it the cosmetic features? Is it the removable magazine? Is it the semi-automatic mechanism? This constantly progressing definition is used to encapsulate as many firearms as possible so they can all be banned as being too dangerous for civilian ownership.

They also massively misquote how many MSR/AR/AK/etc pattern firearms are in circulation to make them look like outliers, not in common use by the general public – an argument used to get around United States Supreme Court decisions. The generally accepted estimate is now between 25 to 45 million, making it the most popular type of firearm in the country, aka common use.

Silencers? Really, this again?? One more time – suppressors do not SILENCE a gunshot like they do in the movies. Hollywood says you can snap a tiny two-inch silencer on a revolver and all you get is a pfft noise. In reality, a suppressor just lowers the volume to a safer level.

Once again, the gun control extremists stretch the truth by citing the example of a cold-blooded daylight, street murder of a health care CEO by an entitled and disturbed individual using what by all accounts was an illegal, home built suppressor to insinuate suppressors have no use other than for killing people.

Now contrast this with a recent ATF announcement of new suppressors issued to their agents for “health and safety”, the exact same rational used by law enforcement agencies and military around the world. But when a regular law-abiding citizen wants one, they must be planning a murder. Your health and safety do not matter.

Suppressors are legal in 42 states and hunting with a suppressor is legal in 41. As of June 2024, there are more than 4.8 million legally owned suppressors in the United States. And yes, more and more firearm owners are buying them thanks to the NFA (National Firearms Act) processing times going from 18-24 months down to days or weeks. This has dramatically increased demand as buyers no longer have to pay for the suppressor and tax stamp then wait two years to take possession. The anti-gun extremists call this a “troubling surge in silencer sales”.

For those of you who live in the real world, it’s okay to have more than one nanny state approved firearm, more than a box or two of ammunition and even have a suppressor. Of the estimated 400-500 million firearms in the United States, only a teeny-tiny fraction is used for illegal purposes. The rest are lawfully owned for hunting, sport and for the protection of self and family. Don’t let the extremists in the gun control community reset the narrative to make you look like the bad guy.

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

Bob

http://oddstuffing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/SmokingGunFable.pdf

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

Gun Control – Everything Old Is New Again

Many think the current generation of gun control extremists are creating their novel approaches to eliminate our Second Amendment protected rights from scratch. In reality, they are merely copying the tried and tested methods of old and adapting them for modern times.

Here’s a short quote for you.

“Are the authorities justified to call the carrying of a weapon a “misuse” that is subject to punishment if the person carries the weapon exclusively for the purpose of self-defense, a right that every citizen has by law? May a state, which is unable to protect life and liberty of its citizens from unlawful attacks, keep these citizens from exercising their right to self-defense? It is clear that even a strong, but unarmed man will be helpless when confronted by an armed attacker. The fact is that peaceful citizens who respect the law are forced to forego weapons because of the penalties contained in the weapons laws. On the other hand, peace breakers who intentionally violate the law and order are not deterred by a prison term. “ “Allow the orderly citizen to carry the weapon he needs for his self-defense but severely punish the person who actually misuses a weapon”.

This argument was made by Dr. Flegel, Senior Court-Marshal Judge for the Navy (Obermarinekriegsgerichstrat) in Germany in August 1931.

You see the Weirmar Republic, the predecessor government of Nazi Third Reich, had already gone down the path of restricting the purchasing, possessing and carrying firearms by civilians. The registration records would later be of great use to Nazi officials to disarm individuals and undesirable groups and keep them from obtaining any more.

Sadly, Germany is using its firearm registry again to deny citizens of firearms. The current left-wing administration has declared the right-leaning political party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) a “right-wing extremist” group. As such, members of this party have been deemed “unreliable” under Germany’s gun laws and is revoking their gun licenses. Without any charges of crimes by the individual members of the party, firearms must be surrendered or destroyed, just for being a member of an opposition political party. This comes just after AfD became the biggest political party in Germany.

Do any of these strategies sound familiar?

Licenses for individuals to purchase, own and carry a firearm.
Creating bureaucratic and economic barriers to obtain a firearm license or license to carry.
Declaring opposition political groups “extremists” to restrict their firearm rights.
Requiring a “need” and other subjective criteria to carry a firearm.
Limiting the availability and quantity of ammunition.
Eliminating civilian ownership of so-called ‘military’ type firearms.
Expanding regulations on firearm manufacturers, distributors retailers and gunsmiths.
Using ownership registries to confiscate personally owned firearms.

All of these strategies are being used TODAY in our country but were conceived and utilized by the Nazi government to disarm and oppress their own citizens years ago.

Here’s a fun fact. One of the current propaganda tactics is to label anyone even slightly right-of-center a Nazi. Of course, history clearly shows us the ones who are trying to deny access to firearms and individual rights were the Nazis, NOT the ones defending those rights.

There is a controversial post from a few years ago with the quote: “Why gun control? Because armed people will NOT willingly load themselves into railroad boxcars.” While it’s impossible to say with certainty if an armed civilian population in Germany would have been able to stop the atrocities committed there, history does show us what happens to disarmed civilians over and over again.

The Second Amendment

The United States of America’s Second Amendment is a unique protection of natural rights in the world. No other country has this. While a few started out with similar protections for a while, decades of whittling away have rendered them null and void. It’s interesting to note for all the countries our nation has ‘assisted’ with regime change, none of the new and improved constitutions have included Second Amendment like protections. The reason is easy to understand. Governing armed constituents who can force you out of office like you just did to the previous regime is so much harder.

Despite years of creative reinterpretation by gun control extremists, the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual’s natural right to keep and bear arms. It always has. But it is under constant attack at the local, state and federal levels. Each little so-called “common sense gun safety” law whittles away at that right. Individually, they might not be considered a serious threat, and that’s the idea. Small, incremental infringements that only the most radical gun nuts would ever oppose are easier to pass. Everyone wants to be safe, right?

Except gun control laws have never succeeded at reducing violence or crime since they only target law-abiding citizens, not the criminals who by their very definition, disobey the law. Yet we are constantly told just one more law, one more regulation, closing one more loophole will make us all safe. It simply isn’t true. It wasn’t then, and it isn’t now.

Bob

Gun Control Target: Colorado

In one of the latest rights oppression operations, the gun control extremists successfully targeted the State of Colorado for a new round of novel Second Amendment suppression laws. Born not within the borders of Colorado, this was delivered from the same Gun Control Inc. lawyers and activists targeting state houses around the country. While the resulting law is less draconian than originally proposed, it still represents a serious violation of rights. And this is just the beginning.

On April 10, 2025, Democratic Governor Jared Polis signed several new gun control bills into law, among them, Senate Bill 3, commonly known as the Semi-Automatic Ban, which by most accounts will ban up to 85% of rifles, plus many shotguns and handguns. The primary targets of the new law are the popular and common AR/AK pattern firearms, but it lassos in most semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines.  The law goes into effect on August 1, 2026. Prior to signing the law, Governor Polis said, “I really think this will make Colorado safer.”

Under the new law, manufacturing, distributing, transferring, selling, and purchasing certain semiautomatic weapons in Colorado that use detachable magazines will be illegal. New firearms must now be sold with the magazines of no more than 15 rounds welded, soldered, or epoxied in place.

Unless…

Naturally, the common exceptions are made for the military, law enforcement, prison guards, or armored vehicle personnel. But, if the common citizen jumps through a series of expensive and time-consuming hoops and gets a permit-to-purchase, they too can purchase these WAY TOO dangerous to own firearms.

Common Coloradoans can apply for a five-year purchase permit after passing a subjective vetting by a county sheriff, a background check, and completing a class to obtain a “firearms safety course eligibility card.”  IF said commoner has not taken a hunter safety course, they must take a 12-hour in-person training course over two days, otherwise it’s a shorter course, plus pass a test with a score of at least 90%. The results of which are available in a shared statewide database, a.k.a. registry of people who own these WAY TOO dangerous to own firearms, to firearms retailers (FFLs) to determine if you are eligible.

Read another way, if you can afford to take the time off work, and to pay for the background check, pay for the extra training, just to obtain an eligibility card from your local sheriff, you can then buy one of these WAY TOO dangerous firearms.  Those of less modest means need not apply to be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

In case you’re wondering where this abomination came from, it was conceived by the lawyers at one of the national gun control groups – whom I collectively call Gun Control, Inc. – who delivered it to the Colorado Senate sponsor. This is yet another case where the Gun Control, Inc. establishment is driving new gun control laws in this country and the local or state politicians are simple the signatory sponsor. All they have to do is sign their name to the bills and Gun Control, Inc. handles the rest, including in many cases defending the law in state and federal courts.

This has been evident in other states like New Mexico when the state sponsors of a new gun control bill could not answer even basic questions about the bill being considered and needed to have a lawyer from Gun Control, Inc. who was in the audience address the questions.

Keep in mind this new law is the watered down, starter version. As originally delivered to the State of Colorado, it called for a COMPLELTE BAN on the described firearms, including those currently in lawful possession. However, the uproar from the commoners would have made it far too controversial to pass, so the no manufacturing, distributing, transferring, selling, and purchasing UNLESS you have a permit-to-purchase scheme was introduced.

What’s so ironic is this new law directly undercuts their own narrative on what they claim are WAY TOO dangerous to own firearms. Instead of the outright ban the gun control lobbyists handed them, they said these firearms are still okay to own if you already have one AND you can still get an exemption through the permit-to-purchase program.

As I said above, this is now just a starter law that gets their foot in the door for banning certain firearms.  But as we’ve learned from the slow-but-steady gun control progression in Kalifornistan, subsequent legislative sessions will need to urgently address these deadly loopholes, and it is much easier to amend an existing law than to get a new one passed.

What will be in the subsequent versions? Removal of the exemption to purchase with an eligibility card. Those in current possession must register their WAY TOO dangerous to own firearms to keep them. Removal of the ability to pass them on to descendants. Severe restrictions on where and when they can be used. And finally, the WAY TOO dangerous to own firearms will be completely outlawed and must be surrendered.

Fortunately, this and the other do-nothing-for-public-safety gun control laws will be challenged, but as always, we are funding both sides of this fight. Our donated dollars to save our Second Amendment protected rights are up against our own unlimited tax dollars and billionaire funded activist attorneys trying to take them away.

This story is being repeated across the country. The only way to prevent this from happening is to stop electing people who are willing to take away our rights.

Bob

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

Mexico and Unites States Gun Control

In case you missed it, the United States Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. While it may sound like a landmark case of a sovereign foreign nation taking necessary legal action to protect their citizens against American arms manufacturers, the truth is a lot simpler. It’s just another extremist gun control ploy to restrict United States Second Amendment rights.

The WICKEDLY short version of the case.

Mexico is attempting to sue firearms manufacturers for $10 Billion for crimes committed in Mexico. They allege the American firearm manufacturers are responsible for the illegal sale and smuggling of firearms into Mexico and is the cause of cartel violence in the country.

The initial suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Boston in 2021, which was dismissed by that district court based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that prohibits frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry for the criminal misuse by remote third parties.

Mexico appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which revived the lawsuit holding that Mexico’s “aiding and abetting” theory fit within one of the PLCAA’s narrow exceptions. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., successfully petitioned the Supreme Court last year and the nine justices took turns asking lawyers for both parties why this case should be dismissed or allowed to proceed.

A link to the oral arguments on March 4^th, 2025, is listed below and will give you some insight to the thinking of the Court.

In considering this, we need to recognize how heavily regulated the firearm industry is in the United States and how a firearm gets to the illegal market in Mexico. Manufacturers typically sell to distributors, who sell to retailers, the final Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) who sells to the public with a federal form 4473 and background check. The first illegal act is that of a straw purchaser who buys the firearm and provides it to someone who then smuggles it across the border to Mexico, another crime. The firearm is then provided to the cartels, another crime, who uses it to commit their crimes.

There is also the myth about 90% of the firearms used by the cartels come from United States FFLs. The truth is that less than 12 percent of the firearms Mexico seized in 2008, for example, have been verified as coming from the U.S. In 2008, approximately 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals in Mexico. Of these 30,000, only 7,200 (24 percent) were submitted to the ATF for tracing. This is because only these firearms were likely to have come from the U.S., a determination made by the presence of a U.S. mandated serial number and the firearm’s make and model – requirements under federal law as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Of the 7,200 firearms submitted for tracing, only about 4,000 (13 percent) could be traced by the ATF of which roughly 3,480 (12 percent) came from the U.S. Although 3,480 is approximately 90 percent of the firearms successfully traced, it is hardly the mythical 90 percent of the total firearms recovered.

It’s also important to note neither the manufacturer, distributor or retailer are ever made aware of the results of a firearm trace.

Going after legal, licensed firearm manufacturers isn’t a new tactic. In the 1990’s, there were a number of lawsuits filed against the largest manufacturers in an open attempt to bankrupt and shut them down or get them to agree to the gun control lobby’s demands for restrictions on products and sales. Any of the smaller manufacturers who didn’t follow suit would be put out of business, along with retailers if they refused to adopt the gun control mandated policies.

The resulting PLCAA was signed into law in 2005 by President George W. Bush with broad bipartisan support by Congress. The law was spurred by numerous frivolous lawsuits orchestrated by gun control groups to circumvent Congress and put firearm companies out of business based on the criminal misuse of firearms by remote individuals who lack respect for both life and law. The PLCAA has been repeatedly upheld as Constitutional by federal courts.

If you’re wondering where this legal action came from, it’s the very same billionaire/millionaire and taxpayer funded anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment lobbyists and lawyers who are writing laws for cities, states and the federal government in the United States and the rest of the world. The co-counsel for the Mexican government, likely the driving force behind this legal action, is from one of these anti-gun groups. The very same groups who get victims of violence in the United States to attach their names to lawsuits they file against manufacturers, distributors, retailers, transportation companies and individuals.

Mexico’s drug industry is estimated to make between 17 and 38 BILLION dollars PER year. That means they have a huge business to protect, and a huge budget to protect it with. With that buying power they can purchase almost any type of military equipment they want from the world market, including fully automatic firearms, mini-guns, rocket propelled grenades, anti-tank rockets, mines and grenades. These don’t come from firearm retailers in the United States.

Mexico also has a significant desertion problem from their army. Between 2003 and 2009 alone, there were an estimated 150,000 desertions, many taking their military issued weapons with them.

Billions of dollars of annual profit buys a lot of political influence from local politicians, law enforcement, prosecutors and judges to those at the national level, including all branches of the military. Mexico is ranked as 124 out of 180 countries on a corruption index by the watchdog Transparency International. That puts Mexico on par with Pakistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Keep in mind Mexico is the model country for gun control advocates. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and has only ONE gun store in the entire country run by the ONLY entity who can legally purchase firearms from any manufacturer in the world – the Mexican military. For a quick rundown on the gun control situation in Mexico, please see a previous article The Cost of National Gun Control at: https://oddstuffing.com/archives/215

Mexico’s issue isn’t civilian firearms legally manufactured and sold in the United States, it’s Mexico’s own corruption and embracing of the illegal drug and human trafficking trade into the United States. This illegal activity brings billions of dollars into the country each year, with a portion of it being slid into the pockets of people who either look the other way or actively facilitate it.

These are the very people the United States based anti-gun zealots have recruited to be their patsy in their latest attempt to circumvent the PLCAA. The goal is the same, only this time they are using a foreign government to destroy the legal firearm industry in this country.

It is a fool’s errand to predict how the Supreme Court might decide a pending case, however the questions posed by justices indicated their doubts about Mexico’s allegations. Let us hope they will see through the anti-gun lobby’s latest attempt to circumvent the law and restrict our Second Amendment rights further.

A decision is expected at the end of the Supreme Court session in June.

Bob

http://oddstuffing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/23-1141_09m1.pdf

Change The Definition to Fit the Lie

The big news this week from the ATF is it looks like they are finally going to start reversing some of the damage caused by the previous administration to our Second Amendment protected rights. In particular, the reversal of the Zero Tolerance Policy for FFLs, as well as taking a “comprehensive review” of the definition of ‘engaged in the business’ and the stabilizing brace regulations. While the new direction is important, it’s also critical to understand just how this happened in the first place.

Let’s start with an example of changing the definition. The latest and greatest pulling at the heart strings ploy is the gun control zealots claim, “Gun Violence is the NUMBER ONE cause of death for children today.” How many times have you heard left-wing anti-gun politicians, reporters and pundits use this line. Of course, it’s a lie.

How do they justify this? Easy, change the definition of “children”. Their so-called “research” included 18- and 19-year-olds in the definition of “children”, dramatically altering the results. Do you consider 18- and 19-year-olds children? No, they meet every other definition of an adult including the ability to vote, enter business contracts, join the military and get married, except when it comes to the gun control zealots wanting to influence the public. Change the definition to fit the lie.

Now let’s look at a statement from one of the no-gun-in-civilian-hands-is-a-good-gun organizations, Everytown.

“… Bondi is specifically attacking three things: ATF’s zero-tolerance policy for gun dealers who willfully violate the law, a rule that requires more gun sellers to get licensed and run background checks, and a rule that regulates deadly short-barreled rifles… “

The previous administration’s implementation of the Zero Tolerance Policy was directed at one thing, and one thing only. To shut down as many FFLs as possible. To do this, they changed the definition of “willful” to mean ANY paperwork error on the myriad of federal forms required to buy and sell firearms in this country. Even something as inconsequential as a single misspelled word was considered a “willful violation” and enough to get the dealer’s license revoked. And revoke licenses they did. In 2021 there were 134,516 FFLs, in 2024 that number had been reduced to 127,784

In this scenario, they changed the definition to fit the lie that thousands of rouge gun dealers were ignoring federal law and selling guns illegally.

Note there was also a side benefit in that all the firearm transaction records from dealers put out of business have to be sent to the ATF to be included in their computerized firearm registry database. Yes, it really exists, but more on that another time.

In regard to ‘engaged in the business’, the ATF changed the rules on who needed to get a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell a firearm. The new rules were so expansive, a single sale of a personally owned firearm for profit could result in a criminal charge. The objective was to force more people into obtaining a FFL so they must do background checks, aka a backdoor implementation of Universal Background Checks, making the transaction records available for the ATF registry.

In this scenario, changing the definition to fit the lie of “dealers” not doing background checks so practically every firearm sale would be subject to a background check and records collection.

Then of course we come to stabilizing pistol braces and what a convoluted story it is. Originally designed to allow a disabled combat veteran to continue to shoot, it was approved by the ATF and not classified as a short barreled rifle (SBR). The ATF then said the simple act of moving the brace from your arm to shoulder was a “redesign” and made it a SBR. Another ATF determination letter then said it was incorrect with the redesign designation. The ATF then came up with another proposed rule with a byzantine point system for determining if a stabilizing brace was in fact a pistol or a SBR, which then was withdrawn. Then they said braces were in fact rifle stocks and you could either pay the $200 tax and register it as SBR under the National Firearm Act (NFA) which comes with many restrictions, surrender or destroy the firearm, or remove and get rid of the brace – since simply having access to one while owning an AR pistol was considered “constructive possession” of a SBR. Since then, the courts have ruled the ATF rule was “arbitrary and capricious” and nationwide injunctions issued.

Let’s also recall that rifles of all kinds, including SBRs, are used in only about 3% of homicides nationwide. Handguns are most commonly used for the simple reason they are concealable. A pistol with a stabilizing brace is bulky, larger and heavier than a standard handgun and as difficult to conceal as a rifle.

But not letting facts get in the way, in this scenario they changed the definition to fit the lie that stabilizing pistol braces are SBRs and somehow more deadly than a pistol without one. Because of this they deserve to be taxed and regulated as a NFA item.

As you can see, the gun control community became the guiding influence of ATF policy during the previous administration. Given the creation of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, a government funded and activist staffed gun control organization within the White House, it’s easy to see where all this came from. Fortunately, that group was disbanded shortly after the current administration took office.

This week also saw the announcement of a new task force. From Attorney General Pamela Bondi.

“The prior administration placed an undue burden on gun owners and vendors by targeting law-abiding citizens exercising their 2^nd Amendment rights. The Department of Justice’s new 2^nd Amendment Task Force will combine department-wide policy and litigation to advance President Trump’s pro-gun agenda and protect gun owners from overreach.”

This announcement signals a dramatic and welcome about face. Our government should be actively supporting and defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights, rather than trying to undermine it for their own purposes. While we may not agree with all the positions this administration takes, we are certainly in a far better place than we were with the last one.

It is also a reminder that our Second Amendment protected rights can be systematically eliminated bit by bit by bit until there is nothing left to defend. The only way to prevent this from happening is to stop electing people who are willing to take away our rights.

Bob

Hypocrite Carry

No conversation about carrying a firearm for defensive purposes would be complete without discussing the various forms of carry. While everyone is familiar with the most popular forms, Hypocrite Carry has emerged as a new and fashionable trend among the political and economic elite.

Just to review, the forms of carry include:

Open Carry: A firearm carried on a person in plain view of the general public.
Concealed Carry: A firearm carried on a person but covered by clothing, so it is not visible to the general public.
Off Body Carry: A firearm carried by the person, but concealed in a bag, purse or satchel that can be set aside when needed.
Off Person Carry: A firearm carried by others on behalf of the person who does not carry a firearm. Typically involves paid armed private security or law enforcement.
Hypocrite Carry: A firearm carried by others on behalf of the person who does not carry a firearm while advocating that others should not be allowed to carry a firearm. Absolutely involves taxpayer funded law enforcement or paid armed private security.

Advantages of Hypocrite Carry include being able to say you are against people carrying dangerous firearms, including semi-automatic handguns and so-called “assault weapons” while your paid, protective staff utilize the cutting edge, safest and most effective modern firearms, including “large capacity magazines” (otherwise known as standard capacity magazines) you are attempting to keep out of the hands of others. The Hypocrite Carrier is free to do whatever they like and not be concerned about their own security since that is the sole job of the armed staff.

Who are the Hypocrite Carriers? It is very common among politicians. But while you might think this is just a federal congressional type thing, as evidenced by their liberal use of the nationwide Capitol Police department and US Air Marshalls (on VIP flights), it’s also a thing at the state and local government level. While the taxpayer funded security details of state and local government officials are smaller, they are still omnipresent and provided by state and local law enforcement agencies.

And speaking of law enforcement agencies, let’s not forget the “politicians with badges” who are appointed to run police departments in liberal leaning areas. While they ‘can’ carry a firearm themselves, most of the times they don’t since it messes with the lines of the suits.

Business executives also fall into this group since they ‘need’ to have this level of security. They say they don’t want it, but their Board of Directors, made up of other business leaders, makes them have it. Their armed private security is typically made up of ex-military and law enforcement types.

Last but not least, we have the gun control activists. Their armed private security is also typically made up of ex-military and law enforcement types and paid for by the folks in the above groups.

What do all these folks have in common? They are all trying to make it so YOU cannot carry a firearm for your own protection or the protection of your family while THEY venture out into the world inside a security bubble of armed law enforcement or private security.

As for why, that’s the easiest part to understand. These people want to have exclusive control over who gets to be protected with firearms. If they can turn a right into a privilege, they can decide who get protection and who does not. The non-hypocrite class then becomes fully dependent on the government for whatever measure of “safety” they decide to provide. And since the government has no legal obligation or responsibility to protect YOU, you’re giving up your rights for the promise of safety that will never come.

The Hypocrite Carry class is not actually opposed to firearms, or being protected by firearms, they are just opposed to YOU carrying a firearm for YOUR protection.

Ever since the United States Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen in 2022, gun-control states have been passing “Bruen response laws”. Not to comply with it mind you, but to circumvent it and make the ruling moot. A common feature among them is to declare virtually all public and privately owned space outside your home a “sensitive space” where firearms are not allowed, thus negating the whole concept of being able to carry a firearm for personal protection outside the home.

The good news is most of the elements of these laws are currently held up in litigation as they clearly violate Bruen, the Nutty Ninth (the leftist/west coast Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) being a notable exception – to the surprise of absolutely no one. As some point these cases will get back before the United States Supreme Court and hopefully, they will clear up not only the correct application of Bruen, but also the seemingly never-ending world of fictitious “sensitive space” gun free zones.

The next time you hear someone talking about how nobody should be walking around in public with “a loaded gun”, take a step back and look at who is keeping watch over them. Are they surrounded by a team of armed law enforcement or private security? Well guess what, they’re exercising THEIR Second Amendment protected right to keep and bear arms using Hypocrite Carry.

Bob

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

Top Ten Reasons I Now Support Gun Control

Standard Capacity Magazine Bans

As the assault on so-called “large capacity magazines “ (LCMs) – what we all know as standard capacity magazines – continue, I thought I’d post what it would take for me to support such as ban. It’s quick, easy and builds on the “facts” gun control zealots have been pushing for years. It doesn’t require anything new added to the proposed laws. In fact, it’s just one quick deletion. Remove the law enforcement exemption for standard capacity magazines.

Hear me out on this one.

For years the anti-gun extremists have been telling us any magazine that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition are too dangerous to own. Why ten rounds? NOBODY KNOWS! There is absolutely ZERO science or evidence behind it. It’s just a number someone pulled out of their ass and said THIS is okay, but one more, 11, is a large capacity magazine and is BAD.

California, in all of their legal arguments against repealing the state LCM ban, including their appeal of their law being ruled unconstitutional has claimed a LCM “has almost no utility in the lawful defense of the home…” While this California created “myth” was put to rest in Judge Benitez’s original rulings, it is still repeated by the State and sold as “fact” by the Nutty Ninth.

Gun control lobbyists claim magazines of 10 rounds or less cause a shooter to “pause” to reload long enough for people to escape or be disarmed by bystanders. This myth has been debunked over and over again since magazines can be swapped out in sub second time, meaning there is no “pause” long enough for someone hiding in a shooting incident to react and take action during a reload.

The same anti-gun activists also claim these magazine bans work. By banning LCMs, they are not used by criminals, thugs and terrorists in crimes, assaults and mass shootings in the cities and states where they are banned.

So, time to put your money where your mouth is.

If law-abiding firearm owners have no need for them and criminals will not have them once they are banned, why do are law enforcement officers need them? They should turn theirs in for destruction on the same day as everyone else does since they won’t be needed any more.

Really stupid, huh? Absolutely!

Law enforcement is going to say they need large capacity magazines because they may face multiple armed suspects, may have to engage in long firefights while waiting for backup to arrive and armed suspects may have large capacity magazines, even though they have been banned and are illegal.

If this sounds like the same argument Second Amendment supporters have been making for law-abiding citizens for years, it is. Just because someone isn’t carrying a badge, doesn’t mean their life is any less worth protecting against threats.

So, I can offer my support here because I know there is NO WAY IN HELL this would ever pass in any legislature at the local, state or federal level. It’s not that the left-wing politicians support law enforcement, as proven by their push to defund the police, they just know without law enforcement support, none of their other gun control initiatives will ever get enforced if police aren’t exempted from these laws. Besides, these are the people protecting THEM, so they want them to have ever advantage they can.

Nor would I want our law enforcement officers downgraded to 10 round magazines. For them as for all law-abiding firearm owners, they need every advantage – and every bullet – they can carry. Criminals, thugs and terrorists are never going to be deterred by another foolish gun control law telling them they can’t carry a standard capacity magazine when they are going to commit an armed robbery or murder.

Proposed bans on standard capacity magazines are being debated in a number of legislatures again this year, including in my own state. Some have already failed for their current legislative sessions, while others are still pending. Some are outright bans while others contain “grandfather” clauses allowing those who currently possess them to retain them, but never being able to sell or pass them to future generations. This tends to help passage since ‘nobody is taking away your magazines’. But as we’ve seen in Kalifornistan, it’s merely a deferred confiscation scheme since the next step is always to eliminate the grandfathered magazine exemption.

There is hope the question of magazine capacity bans will be finally addressed by the United States Supreme Court. A couple of cases are at that level now, including the Duncan v. Bonta from the Nutty Ninth. But while we remain hopeful for a decision in our favor, the Supreme Court may or may not see it the way we do. As we recently saw in the court upholding the ATF ‘Frame and Receiver’ rule in Bondi v. VanDerStok, the Court may rule against us. A similar ruling on magazines would leave us at the mercy of every nanny state and local government in the country.

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

Bob

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

More Tales of the Nutty Ninth

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

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

A couple of tidbits from the ruling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One final thought.

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

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

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

Bob

Firearm Sales, Cash or Credit?

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

A quick sidetrack on the value of cash.

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

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

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

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

Okay, back to cash or credit for firearm purchases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob

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