Pseudo-Laws: NJ Limits Magazine Capacity to five (5) rounds

There is no limit to Magazine Capacity to which Gun Control Advocates ("Gun Grabbers") will ultimately agree, but they believe that if they can convince law-abiding firearms owners to agree to ANY limit, they will eventually establish a criteria which undermines the Second Amendment

New Jersey has just exceeded all expectations by introducing a bill which would limit the legal capacity of a magazine in a semi-automatic weapon to five (5) rounds; it's a publicity stunt, which also serves the purpose of distracting legitimate firearms owners from more complicated 2nd Amendment issues.

(H/T: The Gun Feed)

STATEMENT1314 This bill revises the definition of “large capacity ammunition  magazine” to reduce the number of rounds of ammunition a legal  magazine may hold in this State.  Under current law, it is unlawful to own or possess an  ammunition magazine that is capable of holding more than 15  rounds of ammunition.  This bill would reduce the maximum capacity of a legal  ammunition magazine in New Jersey to five rounds.

It's difficult to believe that the framers of this bill expect it to pass. 
According to them, there is a "Magic Number" of maximum rounds which you are legally allowed to load into your firearm, according to various gun-control bills which have recently been introduced.

But this is the first time that the magazine capacity of a semi-automatic pistol has been legislatively reduced to less than can be loaded into a typical revolver (aka: "Six Shooter").

Nobody knows what maximum number of rounds  legally loaded into a semi-automatic firearm would be acceptable to Gun Control Advocates (anti-gun folks), but ultimately any acceptance of a limitation will establish that a "limitation" is a reasonable measure.

And that's just ... wrong.

Firearms owners are continually criticized for their unwillingness to accept "reasonable" restrictions of any sort, but the truth is that any compromise  results in an abrogation of our rights, while the gun-grabbers are unwilling to accept a "compromise" which does not undermine our rights. 

(Is there any "compromise" which would NOT deprive us of our freedoms?)

This bill is not expected to pass; but it illustrates the extreme methods which gun-control fabulists will employ to undermine the clear intend of The Second Amendment.

Those of us who support the Second Amendment must win every challenge; those who would take away our rights only have to win one fight.

Don't give them a cheap win.  Fight for your rights.

Never Give An Inch.

WTF? Professional Navy Guys Run into each others' SHIPS? WTF?

The ocean is so huge, and our ships are so small;

How can it happen that they run into each other ... not once, but twice in the same month????

Navy filing homicide charges against 2 ship commanders:

The Navy has been reeling from tough questions arising from the two collisions. The destroyer USS Fitzgerald struck a commercial ship off the waters of Japan in June, killing seven U.S. sailors. The destroyer USS John S. McCain collided with an oil tanker in coastal waters off Singapore in August, killing 10 U.S. sailors.

My son is in the navy.  I thank GOD that he is in a "land" rotation (he gets to live with his family ... yea!) and is not immediately vulnerable to ships' captains who are not competent to navigate in the open seas.

(I can say this without fear of reprisal, because I've too old to draft, and I've already served my time in Viet Nam .. what are they going to do to me?)


(What a bunch of maroons!)

Campus Carry .. good or bad thing?

Wichita State gun case shows loophole in campus carry law - The Gun Writer: WICHITA, Kan. —

The case of a former Wichita State University student who was arrested for carrying a loaded gun on campus points to what could be an unintended loophole allowing criminals who are barred from carrying a gun to get away with it.

It also points to local "regulations" (probably not 'laws") which constrain college student from their right to protect themselves.

The work "LOOPHOLE" should be a warning that someone's Constitutional Rights are being infringed. 

Or not:
When the laws are imperfect (as usual),  interpretation is dubious.

The original article infers that the student was not of sound mind, and had 'issues" which might have affected his judgement;  it's difficult at this time to determine whether or not he was competent to carry a weapon.

Whether or not this is, indeed, a "Loophole" remains to be determined.  In the actual event, that the campus police disarmed the student was probably a valid precaution.

Las Vegas Shooting Reaction (we knew it would come down to this)

Senate committee hears testimony on gun control bills - The Gun Writer: OLYMPIA, Wash. —

A couple who survived last year’s mass shooting in Las Vegas were among those who asked a Senate panel Monday to pass a slate of bills that include a measure to prohibit so-called bump stocks, a trigger modification devices designed to accelerate a firearm’s rate of fire. Opponents to the measures told lawmakers on the Senate Law and Justice Committee that law-abiding gun owners will be punished by the bills.

There is no way that this group of "lawmakers" can  present a finding which will not infringe on Second Amendment Rights.    I'm not defending "Bump Stocks", I'm just saying ....

... anything which restricts the 2nd Amendment opens the door to more restrictions.

NOBODY want's to restrict your constitutional rights ... or so they say.
(Personally?  I'm dubious)

This might be a really good time to talk to your Federal Representative with the message that you choose not to be penalized because of the outrageous unacceptable violent actions of someone who has no connection to you.

Nobody Much Likes Trump

Trump ends 1st year with lowest average approval rating

The thing about Donald Trump as President is that the alternative would have been The Hillary Person.

While the Democrats are working hard to emphasize Trump's lack of popularity, they don't have to  (REFUSE TO!) reference the Clinton Catastrophe ... which is significant, and should be emphasized if the Ruling Republicans weren't so smug (and surprised!) that their candidate actually won the Oval Office.

Well, nobody on the Left could have provided a stronger candidate ... and nobody on the left would have been more odious that the "American Majority" would have voted Trump into office.

 It may be significant that the Left could not field a more odious candidate than the "Hillary-Beast" (even her own party didn't like her!), and there was no Democratic possibility who was more likely to generate "Anyone Except Her!" votes. 

It's not as much that she (Hillary) was the first female candidate to be sincerely presented as a Presidential Candidate, as that the Democrats had nobody better to offer; she was the most "popular" (in terms of name recognition) candidate, so the Dems offered her up as the "Loser Of Choice", having no expectation that she could possibly win.

So they threw the chick into the cauldron knowing that she couldn't survive the fire.

As an insult, the Republicans offered their least-likely candidate in opposition, and The Trump won as the Least Unlikely Ass-hole,  And the Least Unlikely Ass-hole won, because he seemed to be a legitimate candidate ... which Hillary obviously was not.  It was an election which was unwinnable by the Democrats (so throw the dog to the wolves .. what had they to lose?) and the Republicans could not lose. 

So both parties decided to make a mockery of the campaign, and both achieved their goals.

I do not have fond hopes for a Trump Presidency; but I would have had even lesser expectations for another Clinton Presidency.  I was not alone in my indecision, and while I wallowed in my angst while choosing the "Least Awful President", I was strangely gratified by the millions (okay .. thousands) of Americans who  bit the bullet and voted for "Anyone But Hillary!"

Now we are resolved to support the President who is, if not perfect, is "Not Hillary".

I'm not happy with this, and I don't think that Trump will be on the "Top Ten" list of Presidents of the United States of America; he enjoys the "Least Expectations" vote which would have otherwise have been afforded to "The One Who Would Have Destroyed America" (because of her political mandate).

Consequently, it comes as no surprise that Trump does not enjoy universal popularity.

He is the "Least Foul Dog" in the fight, and is nothing more than a place-holder in the Presidency.

His job is to not screw up more than is absolutely necessary, and nobody expects him to live up to his expectations.  The good part of this is, he can do no wrong!  When nobody expects much from him, anything he does .. any policy he espouses which turns out "all right" ... will be greeted as a stunning exercise in diplomacy, at worse.

Which is what Hillary might have expected ... but she would have expected to have her every move lauded as "just what we knew she would do", and her failures would be brushed away.

I never wanted a "Perfect President".

I always wanted a President who was flawed, who made mistakes and nobody covered them up.

I want a President who had no expectations of a Second Term.

I want a President who is so imperfect, that we all know that his errors of diplomacy will not be glossed over by his political party.  That's "honesty", and (if you will) "transparency".

Remember Eisenhower?  (five star general, eight year president)

  Remember Reagan?  (hollywood actor, eight year president)

 They made mistakes, but they made progress.  Neither of these past Presidents were without fault, but our country thrived under their leadership because they weren't looking for 51% approval; they just wanted to get the job done, and to make our country a better place to live in.

I'm not sure that Donald Trump will, or is able to, live up to their standards.

But I'm damn sure that The Hillary has only one goal .. to be re-elected to the highest office.

You don't get that by being popular, Ms. Clinton; you get that by being effective.

Bill Quotes:

I did not have sexual relations with that woman

There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.

When I was in England I experimented with marijuana a time or two -- and didn't like it -- and didn't inhale and never tried inhaling again.

Hillary Quotes:

If I want to knock a story off the front page, I just change my hair style.

Clintons; as deep as a mud puddle.

Gruesome: The Ultimate Cost of A Cheap Holster

There is a reason why experienced shooters urge you to invest in a good holster.

That's a decision which could save your ass. Literally.

Gruesome pictures at gunfree zone.com

Back story: Bearing Arms

I decline to post the really ugly photos of a guy who shot himself in the leg: three holes, one shot.
(In, out, in again)

"New Shooters" tend to spend big bucks on a pistol, and all the accouterments ... but often won't spend 10% of their investment on a decent holster.  Hey, you may decide that pistol shooting isn't what you want to do, so why waste the money?

Answer: Because you're not as good as you think you are.

I've been competing in USPSA competition since 1983; performed tens hundreds of thousands of draws from the holster, and I haven't shot myself yet ... even though competition requires you to get the gun into action as quickly as possible.

Why haven't I shot myself yet?

Because I always spent the money to provide myself with the safest (if fastest) holsters I could buy, because I always chose holsters for competition, not EDC (every-day carry).

I Can't access the trigger in a holstered gun, because of the holster design. With this type* of holster, you learn to MUST keep your finger off the trigger until the pistol is pointed in a safe direction ... which is defined as "pointed away from your leg". 

 ( *Note:There are other holster manufacturers which provide the same level of safety; I'm not necessarily suggesting that this is the best version of a "safe" holster!  It's only an example.  In fact I don't own or use this holster, or any holster by this manufacturer.)

If you decide that your "usual" mode of carrying a pistol is predicated on safe retention, you may choose another design.

Yet a third design may be your best choice. 
You should evaluate your options and make your own decisions, based upon your circumstances.  What are your priorities?  Concealment is only one priority.  Accessibility may be another, and retention yet a third.   This is not the best source for recommendations, but I urge you to consider all these criteria

If you;re concerned about EDC (Every Day Carry) your choices will perhaps not be my choices.

They say this as if it was "A Bad Thing"

Aren't you glad you live in America?


Man charged after police allegedly find 109 unregistered guns:

Don't you wish everyone did?