Friday, March 24, 2017

California Firearms Legislation: Still Crazy After All These Years!

California legislatures are at it again, bringing up tired old laws which are impossible to obey.

California Supreme Court to rule on gun law - SFGate:
March 22, 2017
The state Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether gun manufacturers have the right to challenge a California law requiring identifying microstamps on bullets fired from semiautomatic pistols, a requirement the manufacturers claim can’t be met with current technology.
A state appeals court had ruled in December that gun groups could present evidence to support their suit seeking to overturn the law, an exception to the usual requirement that statutes can be struck down only if they are unconstitutional.
But the state Supreme Court voted Wednesday to grant a hearing to defenders of the law, which remains in effect while the case is pending. Six of the seven justices, all but Ming Chin, voted to review the appeal by the state’s lawyers.
I've been writing about this bizarre twist of "logic" (ala California) since 1985.

In fact, I've written about 30 articles on the subject, although not all of them referenced California's efforts to impose draconian laws on firearms manufacturers.  Other states (eg: New York) have attempted to strangle the second amendment by fiat.

(Example from 1993: at one time a New York Senator proposed to "tax ammunition out of existence".)

Why 1911's Don't Suck

Excellent video discussion on the advantages of The Almighty 1911 ... featuring Travis Tomasie, who shoots two six round mags, with reload, in just over 3 seconds (which is the time it takes me to get a good 'first round hit' on the draw!

Note:  0.15 second split times!

No, I won't steal the video; go to the link.

Why 1911's Don't Suck: 
There have been many people talking about the good stuff about owning a 1911. In this segment we want to narrow down certain attributes among all brands that manufactures 1911’s that correlates as to why 1911’s are good to have, its more than saying 1911’s are cool and that they are for EDC, personal protection, etc.

Personal note: I paid $130 for a one-day class from Travis Tomasie before he turned 21.
I still can't shoot in his class.

Think I should ask for my money back?
Naw .... it's already embarrassing to admit that my idol is less than half my age.

High Capacity Magazines Are Deadly

Man tries to rob pizza place with gun magazine, employee slaps i - FOX Carolina 21:
MYRTLE BEACH, SC (WMBF) – A man tried to rob a pizza place on Ocean Boulevard Tuesday night by pointing a gun’s magazine at the employee, but the employee slapped it out of the suspect’s hands, according to a Myrtle Beach Police report ...
(The Deadly Weapon)

File under "Dumb Crooks"
(Hat Tip:

I still don't like Trump; but he's still the President

Why no-one should be surprised Donald Trump won the election | The Independent

We're into months of the Trump PResidency, we're and still trying to figure out how he got there!
Do you even KNOW why nobody *including me*  likes Donald Trump?

It's because (TA DAAA!) you have been TOLD that you don't like Donald Trump.
Because it's not .. y'know ... accepted to like Donald Trump.

Why is it no one admitted to like Donald Trump?  Even thought they voted for him?

I like Trump for a very good reason: Because he's not HILLARY!!!

I think there are probably twenty-seven people who are willing to accept that Donald Trump was the BEST candidate for the office ... ignoring the alternative.

And yet he won the election because he WASN'T HILLARY!   

Which explains why more people voted for him than for Hillary.

Oh, how hard does anyone need to campaign on the political plank of being NOT HILLARY!\
Personally, I think that Donald Trump is the Second-Most Unacceptable Candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America,

And like 99% of America, I voted for him because he was NOT HILLARY!
Not like Al Gore, who lost the 2000 election because of his misplaced political position on Gun Control.  (The New York Times admits that Gore lost the race because of Gun Control!):

While Tennessee has moved to the right in national politics, Mr. Gore has moved to the left since his days as a congressman, particularly on issues like abortion and gun control that have put him at odds with many Southern voters. If he had not, Professor Geer said, ''He could still have carried Tennessee, but he would never have gotten the Democratic nomination.''

Cutting To The Chase ... Guns save Lives. And money!

Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns:
When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”
So guns aren't the EEVIL Guns they're made out to be!

Good news: we're not The Bad Guys.

Fortunate it is that I can surf the internet so you don't have to.

Speaking of which: Jan and Dean  show us how life is suppose to be, in "Surf City":

Surf City: Jan & Dean, 1963  (Activate the Way-Back Machine!)

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Guns And The Law: Alameda County Judicial Hearing

THIS IS QUITE LONG ... the arguments exceed an hour ... but I have found it fascinating to observe the process by which a lone lawyer (yech!) argued for the establishment of a "gun store" in Alameda County, California.

(Hat Tip: Arms And The Law)

Considering how the State of California has been so entirely anti-gun in recent years, it's refreshing to watch a young lawyer argue his client's case against a panel of judges who are obviously 'dubious' of the merits of his case.

The question is whether a 'new' gun store in Alameda County, California (eg: OAKLAND)  may remain open even though it has been established within X-number of feet of an existing commercial establishment which is also licensed to sell firearms.    Alameda county law prohibits establishment of a store which sells firearms, within X-number of feet of another such establishment.   The 'new' store is within a handful-of yards of the 'old' store; the question is whether that stand-off distance serves any useful purpose, and whether two stores which provide similar product cannot provide different services and be a benefit to the citizens of the county.

More important .. is that 'stand-off' distance' meaningful, or is it arbitrary?   If it is arbitrary, why can that distance be 400 feet instead of 500 feet, and why does the law not take into account the cultural differences between the two retail businesses?

The point made by the defense is that (a) the 'distance' is arbitrary and provides no benefit to the county other than limiting the number of resources for citizens who wish to purchase a firearm in Alameda county; and (b) the 'new' store provides many valuable benefits which had not previously been available to local citizens, not the least being training and instruction on safety, firearms laws, etc.
It's a rare treat to watch two teams of bright, dedicated proponents present their point of view.  And it's fun to watch the various judges doze off during the presenting of the opposing arguments.

I won't tell you how the story ends.

The following link has been tested, and it works for me:

Watch recording for John Teixeira v. County of Alameda, No. 13-17132

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Chelsea who?

Chelsea Clinton selected as 'Lifetime Impact Honoree' by Variety for humanitarian work - Washington Times:
Chelsea Clinton and a select group of women will be honored next month in New York as Variety’s Lifetime Impact Honorees for humanitarian work. Variety magazine and the Lifetime television network will pay tribute on April 21 to Mrs. Clinton and five other women for their philanthropic endeavors.
.” Ms. Clinton, vice chair of the Clinton Foundation, “will be honored for her work with Alliance for a Healthier Generation, which empowers kids to develop lifelong healthy habits,” Variety added. The magazine expects 400 “entertainment and media insiders” to attend the event.
A note on "The Clinton Foundation:

It's "Drying Up"

No word yet on how on whether or how many millions of dollars the Clinton Family has sucked out of their 'non-profit' organization for their own personal profit.

At this point, it's all rumor and innuendo.

Terrorists Don't Need guns

London terror attack: Four dead and 20 injured | Daily Mail Online:
He was stabbing the police officer with the knives. He was wearing black tracksuit bottoms, a black of grey top and what looked like work boots. The police officer was stumbling and fell on the floor'.
Folks think that "Gun Control" is the solution to terrorism.  

Actually, it's part of the problem.

When terrorists use cars and bombs and knives and ... oh, they're more imaginative than we are ... it doesn't matter if their Killing Field is in London or Long Island, they will find a way.

Guns are a less effective weapon for terrorists.   They can only kill one at a time with a gun; with bombs, flames or vehicles they get more bang for their buck
Guns are the sole solution for innocent civilians to defend themselves against attack.

Of course, in London, that is not an option.   The Brits won't let you pack a gun.

They do this for your own good.

How's that working out for you, England?


Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Oregon Bill is nonsense

The Legislature of the Great State of Oregon once again manages to introduce a gun-control bill which is fraught ("Fraught!") with contradiction and Weasel Words.

Which comes as no surprise to Conservatives in this community.

Here is a summary which purportedly attempts to explain the bill to we unlettered hoi poloi:

If you trust your child, and your child accesses your firearm for 'bad reasons', your ass is grass and the Great State of Oregon will prosecute you to the full extent of the law.  

  But there is one sentence which, if it doesn't cause you to raise eyebrows, it should:

 (2) Subsection (1) of this section [NB: penalties] does not apply if: (a) The minor obtains the firearm as the result of an unlawful entry into the premises by any person;


Apparently, if your firearm is accessed by your child for a 'good reason' (eg: home defense against an intruder), then ... okay, no problem, never mind and we didn't really mean it.

Couldn't they have waffled MORE?

Obviously, this is an attempt by clueless politicians to cover their ass in the event of an emergency.

There's more, below:

Monday, March 20, 2017

Big Brother is Your Doctor

Over 85,000 Secret Reports Made by Doctors to NYS Police Without Patients Notice:

Webster, NY –-( Civil rights attorney Paloma A. Capanna today released the statistics on the NYS Mental Hygiene Law  [section] 9.46 secret reporting from 2013-2016, showing more than 85,000 reports made from medical providers to the NYS Office of Mental Health and the NYS Department of Criminal Justice Services.
This is why you don't want to discuss firearms ownership with your doctor.

(For a while, it was against the law in some states for doctors to lecture you about The Evil Gun.  New judicial finds have invalidated that law because your doctor's First Amendment Rights include his/her right to tell you how to live your life based on philosophical differences.)

Yeah, we're getting cranky about "Doctors and Lawyers" again.   Can you believe we PAY them for their interference in our private lives?

Thank G*D for ObamaCare ... he'll look out for you!

[Snark Alert!]

Sunday, March 19, 2017

House Passes Bill to Allow Gun Sales to Mentally Ill Vets

Guns in America: House Passes Bill to Allow Gun Sales to Mentally Ill Vets:

That's the title of a NEWSWEEK article by Michele Gorman, which clearly distorts the reason, the background, and the truth of a congressional action which unreasonably denied Constitutional Rights to a group of veterans who asked for assistance in completing federal forms related to their Veterans' Benefits packages.
 Updated | Twelve House Democrats joined their Republican colleagues Thursday in voting in favor of a bill that would require a judge to first rule if veterans are a danger to themselves or others before the Department of Veterans Affairs takes action to prevent them from purchasing firearms. The House approved the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, backed by the National Rifle Association, by a 240-175 vote. The legislation will now go to the Senate.
The distortions from Liberal politicians and pundits are so blatant and vicious that it's difficult to believe that elected officials could be so cruel to the brave men and women who offered their lives in defense of their country.

Until the introduction of this bill, Federal administrators considered veterans to be "Fair Game" in their continued quest to undermine veterans benefits based on a purely political agenda.

Essentially, officials ruled that if a veteran declined to manage his/her benefits package personally, and instead asked for what is essentially a "Power of Attorney" administrator for help in navigating the confusing set of Federal rules and regulations ... that was ipso facto evidence that the veteran admits to being "mentally deficient" ... and therefore incompetent to be trusted with firearms ownership.

That bureaucrats should make this HUGE 'philosophical' leap is bizarre,

Many seniors best deal with Federal benefits administration by appointing a legal representative or trusted family member, rather than to personally deal with the "Rocks and Shoals" of bureaucratic minutiae. The "Power of Attorney" option allows individuals to provide general guidelines, while leaving the details to people of trust.

Unfortunately, this latest Democratic move puts citizens who have served their country at risk of losing their Constitutional Rights because they are not confident that they have the legal training needed to best represent themselves, personally.

Veterans should not be required to prove themselves legally sane, just because they hire an attorney.

Feeling overwhelmed by government regulations is not a definition of insanity; to the contrary, it's a sign that their government is situationally neither logical, nor sane.

There's something wrong with a country which drafts men to go to war, and then treats these same men as pariahs.

Personally, I wonder if people who seek political office can be defined as "legally sane".

And I wonder how many of these politicians, who feel free to fuck with veterans benefits, have actually served their country in time of war.

I'll give every reader of this blog $5 if  51% of these political idiots ever saw combat.