Monday, October 05, 2015

There is nothing new under the sun

Obama Preparing More Executive Actions on Gun Control:
October 05, 2015
 The White House confirmed that President Obama was preparing a series of executive actions on gun control to match his recent passion on the issue after the latest mass shooting in Oregon.
... “I can tell you that they’re not stumped, they’re continuing to review the law that’s on the books and continuing to consult with legal authorities but also others who may have ideas about what steps that can be taken to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” Earnest said.
Oh.  Wow.  I'm REALLY impressed!

But in my implacable powers, I have the ability to predict EXACTLY the measures that The White House will implement to insure that firearms deaths are never again a threat in this Great Nation!

See here.

The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment - The Washington Post:
John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”
Stevens Biography:
Nominated by President Nixon to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, succeeding Elmer J. Schnackenberg, confirmed by the United States Senate on October 14, 1970; and took oath of office on November 2, 1970.
Nominated by President Ford as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court on December 1, 1975; confirmed by the United States Senate on December 17, 1975; and took oath of office on December 19, 1975.

Stevens on The Second Amendment:

(I'm not convinced that I agree with Justice Stevens in regards to the meaning of the Second Amendment.  He seems to believe that .. no, let me quote what he SAYS he believes):
 The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia. In its decision in Heller, however, the majority interpreted the amendment as though its draftsmen were primarily motivated by an interest in protecting the common-law right of self-defense. But that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state. The notion that the states were concerned about possible infringement of that right by the federal government is really quite absurd.
[emphasis added]

I did not get a sense, in the original document, of how "... that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state".

I do wish he had been more forthcoming with his reasoning.

My understanding is that American Citizens have had to deal with governmental infringements on the 2nd Amendment for .. always?  Elsewhere in the article, he cites Miller as an example, and I have to say that I am not persuaded by his casual reference as MILLER was NEVER defended in appeals court, so the decision went to the Government by default.  But still, it stands as a precedent, and must be heeded by stare decisis.

My interpretation (you are invited to debate) is that Justice Stevens does NOT believe that the Second Amendment acknowledges the right of citizens to arm themselves for the protection of their lives, their family and their property ... but only in defense of the nation and only while serving as a "member of the militia".

Here are other remarks which Justice Stevens included last year to clarify his position vis-a-vis the "anomalous " arming of civilians,  Essentially, he proposed to amend the second amendment to limit the rights of citizens to "keep and bear arms".

 As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:
 “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
 Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.
[emphasis in the original]
[highlights added]

No, I'm not making a statement or an argument.  Merely providing some information about the retires Justice of SCOUSA who was nominated and confirmed by Republican President(s).

Well .. Justice Stevens DOES seem a bit testy, in my mind.  But I'm sure that if he were to read what *_I_* have written, he would describe me as "testy" as well.  (And I would consider that a compliment!)

Fisking Hillary on Gun Control

I am SO tired of bloviating politicians.  Unfortunately, that's the only kind we've got.

Hillary Clinton's gun-control plan - Business Insider:
  "It's time to act on gun violence. We simply cannot accept as normal 33,000 gun deaths a year,"

[hat tip: David Hardy]

Hill The Pill is going to fix all our problems, with one simple gesture.

Actually, it's SEVEN "gestures" ... all of them flawed one way or another:

#1: Universal FEDERAL Background Checks

  • Without justification, will not stop "mass shootings".
  • Individuals cannot perform background checks; only licensed dealers can.  They charge anywhere from $30 to $60 to perform that service. 
  • Suggests that the serial number and the make/model etc. description of the gun be entered, which amounts to registration as there is currently NO laws restricting record-keeping of civilian background check information.
  • Not enforceable, as there is no way that Law Enforcement Officers can know when a private sale is being transacted.

Sunday, October 04, 2015

What are your guns worth, if the government declares all guns illegal and offers to buy them back?

So the Oregon shooter’s guns were legal. Now what? (October 03, 2015) Hot Air:

From the liberal, gun grabbing side of the discussion there is one remedy which would – eventually – cut down on mass shootings. It involves eliminating all of the guns on the planet. Owing to the fact that the majority of Americans still value gun rights and view private gun ownership as a positive force in protecting themselves from evil, Democrats are loathe to say the words out loud, but that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t like to see it happen. Unfortunately, the gun genie is out of the bottle
What a fascinating question?  And nobody wants to touch this one!

What's the value of your grandfather's Winchester lever action .30-30?

Your STI Open Pistol, that you payed $3500 for?

Your 1911 .45acp built in 1918?

No, there's no way that a Gun Buy Back Scheme is going to work in America.

Australia managed a gun buy-back scheme.  It didn't satisfy a lot of people.
But THEY made it work, because ... essentially, a bunch of expatriate Brits.
You know ... "obey the law because it is the law" kind of people?


UCC Was Not A 'Gun Free Zone'

UCC Was Not A 'Gun Free Zone' Because Public Colleges In Oregon Can't Ban Guns | ThinkProgress:

Yes, it was.
They're liberals, they lie .. but they are so sly and we are so stupid that sometimes we even tempted to believe them!

They say that we CAN carry guns on campus to defend ourselves, but they carefully don't mention the fly in the ointment:   Oregon State Colleges (Universities) can keep you from carrying a weapon on any campus by simply refusing you permission to "carry" inside any building (or all buildings) by simply denying you permission.  And it's legal.

Roseburg, Oregon is in Douglas County, and even the county sheriff  has said that he will not enforce certain Oregon laws which are, in his words, "not enforceable",  But that doesn't mean that the laws are not still in force.


Think Progress made an effort to dispute the GUN FREE ZONE issue, which many pro-gun people have cited as the reason why the murderer chose that venue for his massacre,

On Thursday, a shooter reported killed at least 13 people and injured many others at a community college in Oregon. Just minutes after the incident, commentators sought to attribute the incident to the fact that Umpqua Community College was a “gun free zone.” “The gun free zones are the areas that tell licensed gun owners that you are not allowed to carry your weapon in this facility…If you’re going to perpetrate some act, you know that most people are not going to be armed,” CNN “military analyst” Rick Francona said a few minutes after the shooting. A retired Navy Seal, Jonathan Gilliam, also appearing on CNN, went even further. Blaming the “gun free zone” for the scope of the tragedy and adding “the only thing that’s going to stop a gun is another gun.”

Okay so far, but here's the unspoken hitch:  You NEED PERMISSION to carry a gun on campus, and you can get permission; but you have to ask for it.  Oh, like how long is THAT going to take?

Saturday, October 03, 2015

Finally, a Politician 'gets it': "A New Standard"

Michael McCaul, House Homeland Security chairman: 'No gun law probably could have stopped this' - Washington Times:
(October 02, 2015)
 Rep. Michael McCaul, Texas Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said Friday there needs to be an emphasis on mental health, and not new gun laws, in the wake of Thursday’s shooting at a community college in Oregon. “No gun law probably could have stopped this case. Tell me what law could have been passed to have stopped this case,” Mr. McCaul said on CNN’s “New Day.”

After all these years, a Politician finally admits that, however it might add a great 'punch' to his next re-election campaign ... he refuses to postulate that passing new gun-control laws (which is how Politicians expect to get re-elected) would not stop "gun violence".

Those of us who have blogged for years on this theme should take heart in this simple statement.

No, Goldie, this is Not on Us - The Armed Lutheran

No, Goldie, this is Not on Us - The Armed Lutheran:
(October 02, 2015)
So why expend all the time, energy, money, and effort to pass meaningless laws that will do nothing to curb the violence? Because they are incremental steps toward a bigger goal. When these policies fail, politicians will call for another round of “common sense” reforms. We’ll be told that nobody is suggesting taking away our guns. And nothing will change. And it will happen again. Slowly eroding our freedoms until there’s nothing left.
I tripped over this gun-blogger by pure serendipity a couple of days ago, and I've been back a couple of times since.  The guy makes sense, he has a wicked sense of humor, and he has done his homework.

Well, (shrug),  maybe it's just me, but I intend to keep track of him on my non-existent Blog Roll.  You might want to wander over and check it out, too.

Friday, October 02, 2015

Newtown Families Sue Gun Makers For Tragedy

Newtown families' suit against gun maker sent to state court - Washington Times:
 By - Associated Press - Thursday, October 1, 2015 HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - A wrongful death lawsuit filed against gun maker Remington by families of some Newtown school massacre victims has been sent from federal court back to state court, where it may have a better chance of succeeding.
Well, perhaps not.

The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (2012) might reasonably make their attempt moot.
This kind of suit is similar to suing GMC because a drunk in a Chevy hit a school bus full of kids.
Yes, it's a tragedy, but no, GMC isn't liable because their local dealer sold a Chevy to a a person who turned out to be a drunk.Should GMC have known that the buyer was a drunk?  Even this allegory is not a parellel to the Sandy Hook massacre.

Should Remington have known that a gun shop sold an AR15 knock-off to a woman who was a legal purchaser with no criminal record, that she would store that rifle in a locked gun safe, that her insane son would murder his mother and steal her rifle, and then use that rifle to assassinate children at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut?

Peasants With Knives!

Death Toll in Xinjiang Coal Mine Attack Climbs to 50:
(September 30, 2015)
The death toll in a knife attack orchestrated by alleged “separatists” at a coal mine in northwestern China’s troubled Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region has climbed to at least 50 people—including five police officers—with as many as 50 injured, according to local security officials who say nine suspects are on the run.
While the American Government is still striving heartily to ban the private ownership of guns, 'separatists' groups in China have moved to a more primitive weapon:
as in: 'if we can't shoot ya. we'll cut ya!'.
People in America poo-poo folks who think that pistols, rifles and shotguns are valid weapons to defend American Freedoms against a totalitarian government.  They say things like:

"Oh yeah, the government has tanks and planes and machine guns, and you're going to do WHAT with your puny little pistol?"

Strangely enough, governments have very little defense against outraged citizens who have any means at all to express their grievances.  Look at this picture from the original article; this is the military that is being attacked by 'peasants with knives'.

The "Chinese Separatists" may be a bunch of loonies, but they may also be "the mouse that roared".

The American Revolution started with not that much more in the way of weaponry.

Not that they will listen ....

Oregon gunman singled out Christians during rampage | New York Post:

 A former president of the college said that it has only one unarmed security officer and that the community decided against armed guards last year. “I suspect this is going to start a discussion across the country about how community colleges prepare themselves for events like this,” Joe Olson told CBS.
(emphasis added)

College and University Administrators are scrambling for a safe place in the face of an oncoming firestorm of protest against collegiate rules forbidding self-defense on campus, and at least one former Oregon Administrator has pulled his head out of his Academia to ask:  "Is this going to hurt my career?"

Dear Joe, and all the oh-so-Academic-Joes who have been making life-altering decisions for your students for the past century:

Well ... yes.   There probably will be a 'discussion across the country' about this.  Except that the discussion has been going on for DECADES!  This is merely the first indication that someone in Academia might notice it.   (You sanctimonious bastards!)

Thursday, October 01, 2015

Just Because ...

Just because you're not happy with unrestrained immigration reform, doesn't mean you're a Bad Person.

You just might be "Not-A-Democrat" ... and maybe you want to still have a voice in how this country will be run in the next decade.

Ann Coulter - September 30, 2015 - THE WAR ON AMERICA TURNS 50:

The 1965 act brought in the poorest of the poor from around the globe. Non-English-speaking peasants from wildly backward cultures could be counted on to be dependent on government assistance for generations to come. 

Kennedy and other Democrats swore up and down that the new immigration law would not change the country's demographics, but post-1965-act immigrants are nothing like the people who already lived here. 

As Pew Research cheerfully reports, previous immigrants were "almost entirely" European. But since Kennedy's immigration act, a majority of immigrants have been from Latin America. One-quarter are from Asia. Only 12 percent of post-1965-act immigrants have been from Europe -- and they're probably Muslims.
Apparently, the "American experiment" is actually some kind of sociological trial in which we see if people who have no history of Western government can run a constitutional republic.


The good news?  Often, second generation Americans are wise to the chicanery, and want to protect their new-found country from unfettered vote-loading.

It's hard to count on that, though.

Oregonians died today. And it's my fault. And yours.

Oregon shooting: Gunman dead at Umpqua Community College -

Is anyone surprised that this happened in a "Gun Free Zone"?    Anyone?
U.S. President Barack Obama was briefed on the situation and will continue to receive updates throughout the day. He pushed for a change in gun laws when he spoke to reporters about the shooting Thursday. "Our thoughts and prayers are not enough. It's not enough. It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel, and it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America -- next week, or a couple months from now," he said.
(Presidential statement here)

at about 2:17 on the statement video, The President says:

It cannot be this easy for anyone who wants to inflict harm on another person to get his or her hands on a gun!

Firearms are the most restricted, legislated-against, controlled commercial product in American history.  And yet Obama bemoans that it's to EASY?
Well, for someone who has no history of mental disease, or felonious actions, it's easy.  That's in keeping with the Second Amendment.  But the issue isn't about guns, it's about people.  As soon as we get technology which allows us to predict how people can act in unpredictable ways, we can stop this unpredictable activity. (re: Minority Report)

(Local sheriff statement here ... the sheriff refused to name the shooter, and rightly so)

(This current piece in REASON has a few things to say which  I wish I had said first):
What's important in regards to the politics of Obama's speech right now is that neither you nor I nor Obama knows anything about what sort of weapon was used and how it was obtained or the shooter's background. I don't even know his name as I type. 
Thus, he is undoubtedly overreaching beyond the facts when he speaks over and over about how apparently easy and simple gun-safety laws would have prevented this, or future tragedies like this
The arrogance of our current president surpasses understanding.

I read the news about the massacre at Umpqua Community College (which by the way is pronounced "UMP" as in "Umpire" and "QUA" as in "QUALITY"), and I'm appalled once again by the societal influences which bring a person to the decision that they only way he can be made whole is to cause the slaughter of innocents.

Usually, this sort of tragedy is ended when the shooter commits suicide, and I wonder:   "why the HELL didn't he just shoot himself first?"

UPDATE:  May have posted his intentions on Social Media

Today, the police in Roseburg, Oregon (nice town, I've been there many times, it's only 120 miles away from my home) were both pro-active and timely.  They responded to the calls quickly,  found-and-fixed their target, and resolved the situation as expediently as possible.   But they were too late to stop that asshole before too many people were slaughtered like lambs.

Unfortunate that there were no CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holders on the scene; they could have minimized the death toll, which was far too many innocents.  I often wonder why America is so plentifully staffed with innocent lambs, and so understaffed with the sheep-dogs that a proper flock requires.   We need to pay more attention to the needs of our sheep-dogs local police departments.

And we need to revisit the collegiate rules which mandate no CHL on campus in Oregon.  The state laws allow CHL, but (as I've said so many times before) the colleges can make their own rules about no guns on campus, and enforce them by firing an employee who violates them, or by terminating a student who legally has the temerity to carry a firearm on campus.

... and this most recent tragedy is my fault because I am vehemently against Gun Free Zones, because that's the Happy Hunting Ground for mad men.

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Clueless .. and loving it!

As a Navy Veteran, I Know How America Should Implement Gun Control:  Shawn VanDiver

(Liberals misuse the 2nd Amendment to abuse gun owners: A Case In Point)

TOTALLY ignoring the original premise of this no-think piece, I drilled down to the comments (oh, PLEASE do that .. it's as exciting as a dog-fart in an enclosed car!) and found one which just begs to be fisked!  
Proof gun owners are disingenuous about their safety arguments. 
1. 99% of all home invasions occur when no one is home. A gun will not protect your property when you are not home. Insurance companies will not lower your insurance rate if you own a gun because owning a gun has no actuary impact on property protection.  
2. Insurance companies have real data on what protects you: lights, alarms and other safety measures. The combined sum total which costs less than the price of 3 guns. Insurance companies will lower your home owners policy if you put the recommended home protection safety measures in place. 
Apparently, the fact that gun owners who are home owners are not at home 100% of the time is a valid argument against firearms possession to protect yourself, your property and your family when you (or your family) ARE at home!

"Penalties that don't match the values of the City of Chicago"

Chicago Is Currently Experiencing a 20 Percent Increase in Homicides | Complex:
(September 29, 2015)
" .... everybody (who) woke up this morning, or heard it last night, felt a pain of anguish, and it’s time that our criminal justice system and the laws as it relates to access to guns and the penalties for using 'em reflect the values of the people of the city of Chicago."
(... and ..)
At least 2,300 people have been shot in Chicago this year alone, according to the Chicago Tribune. According to their analysis, that's roughly 400 more incidents than during the same period in 2014. Homicides are currently up 21 percent in 2015, with the past two weekends pointing to a noticeable increase in gun-related violence.
The Mayor of Chicago is saying that ... private ownership of firearms is almost entirely illegal in Chicago, and yet there are too many guns?  And the rate of  SIC ("Shot In Chicago" rate) is too high?

On the contrary; I would say that this grim statistic EXACTLY "... reflect(s) the values of the people of the City of Chicago..."

I realize this is a tired bromide that I've been touting for YEARS, but I'll say it again:

The SIC in Chicago is irrationally high.

The democratic leadership (pusillanimous mayors) of Chicago have historically held its citizens in an iron fist which denies them the right to defend themselves, by dint of their draconian laws against private ownership of firearms.  As a consequence, honest citizens pose no threat to armed gang-bangers who roam the streets at will.   The police in Chicago doubtless includes many honest cops who only want to clean up the town ... but they can't do it by themselves.

Generations of Chicago Mayors have ensured the victim-hood of their constituents by denying the right to self-defense.  (Last count; there was only ONE gun shop within the city limits, and rumor has it that that business has been closed due to excessive municipal regulations.)

Nobody is working toward making the citizenry of Chicago self-supportive,
At the same time, nobody (read: the office of the mayor and everyone under his control) has recognized that their police force is able to combat the crime-in-the-streets culture which has been promulgated because gang-bangers KNOW that when they fire a shot ... nobody in the streets will be defending themselves, except the other gang-bangers.

The solution is so obvious, the only reason it has not been implemented is that the politicians want a population of dependent serfs to rule, rather than a population of citizens to cherish.

There's a wall of gun-laws between honest citizens and their right to defend themselves.  And yet the Mayor continues to whine about 'statistics' (and demand even more restrictive gun-control laws) rather than to allow honest citizens to defend themselves.

As the saying goes:

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".

Mister Mayor, you are the problem.

Please either do your job, or do the right thing by exiting your office so an honest officer can lead,

Saturday, September 26, 2015

No Surprises in Troll-Haven

S.F.’s last gun shop to lay down its arms - SFGate:
(September 25, 2015)
The owner of High Bridge Arms, Japan-born Masashi Takahashi, is shutting down the 63-year-old store, employees said Friday, as city leaders consider yet again whether to toughen restrictions on gun sales.
San Francisco .. "Baghdad By The Bay" .. has driven its last bastion of freedom to its knees, and bowed its head, and driven it out of business.

I do so hope those horrible hoplophobes are happy with destroying a family business which never broke a law in its 63 years of existence.  (Name me one Head-Shop in the Fillmore District which can make the same claim?)

That's the thing about the Liberal Establishment:  they like what they like, and what they don't like .. they hound to death.

Smoke pot?  They like it.
Illegal Immigrant?  They like it. (even if their favorite boys kill folks, they're committed!)

Suspect who was deported multiple times pleads not guilty in fatal shooting of San Francisco woman

Sell a legal product .. a GUN?  Oh, they don't like that at ALL!  (Of course, their favorite illegal immigrant who STOLE a gun gets a free pass because .. FRISCO.)

Cheap Shot!

Man shoots self in genitals, lies to police:
(USA TODAY: September 25, 2015)
A convicted felon who accidentally shot himself in the penis was arrested after police say he lied about how the shooting happened.

Donald Anthony Watson was admitted to the Avera McKennan emergency room about 1:30 a.m. Sept. 6 for a gunshot wound to his penis, according to an arrest affidavit.
When questioned by police, the 43-year-old said he was shot by “a black guy (who) tried to rob” him while he was taking out the trash at his apartment.

Victim later admitted that he shot himself in the  umm ummm while lying in bed playing with his "gun" (victim not specific in this area, but apparently very accurate in other senses of the term).

Okay, it wasn't really "Appendix Carry"
Two days after the surgery, Watson was re-interviewed about the shooting. He told officer he was examining the gun, placed it in his pocket and the gun discharged striking him in the penis. He refused to tell officers who was selling the gun and where the gun is now.
Watson was then arrested on charges of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of firearm by drug offender, false report of a crime to law enforcement and false report of information to law enforcement.
Hasn't the man suffered enough?

I have too much ... pride ... to indulge in any of the obvious smirking puns which come to mind.

Except (of course) for the title.

Missoula City Council poised to tackle gun control

Missoula City Council poised to tackle gun control | Missoula Local News -
(September 24, 2015)
An ordinance under consideration by the Missoula City Council is taking heavy fire from gun rights advocates.
Sponsored by Council Members Bryan von Lossberg, Marilyn Marler and Emily Bently, the draft ordinance aims to close a loophole that allows private transactions and gun transfers to happen without a background check. Licensed firearms dealers are required to run a check on gun buyers, but there is no federal or state law that requires the same check for private parties.
(H/T: The War On Guns)

We just suffered through this kind of  bastard legislation in Oregon, and I hope that the good folks in Missoula (and Montana in general) will find the wisdom to give the ordinance the sound trouncing it so richly deserves.


Well, not just because (a) criminals will not observe it; and not just because (b) it will make criminals of honest citizens who recognize the ordinance for the intrusive kind of needless governmental oversight it is, and refuse to comply with it.   These are only third level reasons why this kind of ordinance (or "law") is to be avoided.

The real problem is that it is tantamount to Registration ... which is the first step toward confiscation of private firearms, and that's the reason why it seems to attractive to liberals ("They Who Do Not Want To Take Your Guns").   The only way the law can be enforced is if they register the serial number of the firearm, and enter it into a database. That way every change of ownership can be traced.  

Just in case they want to .. oh, I don't know ... check up on you from time to time to see if you still have the gun you bought.  And if you can't produce it, and if you haven't filed a report of stolen property, then you the buyer will be fined ... or jailed.  Because you have obviously sold the gun, but didn't follow the "ordinance", so you are now a criminal.

What if you sold a gun and it is later used in a felony?  Well, you sold the gun to a felon; that makes you and accomplice before the fact.  You must know that there is a movement afoot to enact laws which make a seller liable for 'bad actions' involving a firearm which you have sold.  Even though you followed the law as best you could (more on that later), and should not be liable for the bad-actions of the buyer --- you might just end up doing hard time in the pokey for not insuring that you are selling to an "honest person".

These are some of the secondary reasons why this is a Bad Law.

Lets talk about the PRIMARY reason why this is a not-good thing:  it is registration, which leads to confiscation.   And brother, if Big Brother knows you have a gun, he can take it away from you or throw you in jail (see above) .. or both.

So what do you, as the seller, need to do to obey the law?  Why, you do an NICS  (National Instant Check System) check on the buyer.

Just one problem:  Only licensed dealers are authorized to use the NICS system.  So you and your buyer need to traipse before a dealer (in person) and have him run the check.  For which he will charge you something between $40 and $100 dollars .... and plan on the $100 charge, okay?

It's official: Oregon is UNDER-GUNNED!

US States Gun Ownership Compared To Countries - The Firearm Blog:
This infographic is a real eye opener as far as the number of guns in states like California which compares best with China! Check the graph to see how your state compares with which country around the world!
 (H/T:  and special thanks to The Firearm Blog)

Personally, I'm just a little insulted that Oregon's 'gun ownership' is compared to "England and Wales".


Hell, I've got more firearms than Wales does!  (Is it Buy A Gun Day again already?)
The comments in the original piece (again, check the link to Firearms Blog) shows that many of their readers feel that their states are under-valued, as well!

Also check the Firearm Blog webpage for a table of population and owned guns.  No, I have no idea where they got their statistics ... but it's still fun to look at.

It's a proud moment for most of us.  Except: really ... New Mexico compares to Belgium??