Thursday, September 27, 2018

Slippery Slope

The issue of bump-fire stocks has created an entirely new aspect of the Second Amendment.

Whether a bump-fire stock (see below) obscures the fine line between  "semi-automatic fire" and "Full automatic fire" is either an excuse for the Federales to impose new restrictions on the (supposedly) impermeable Second Amendment,  or it's a "loophole" which law-abiding American Citizens are using to grandfather a new generation of (more or less) "AUTOMATIC WEAPONS" which had not been anticipated by previous law-makers; that is the question.

I personally have no use for a "Bump-Fire stock".  I'm not "flock-shooting" so I have no dog in this hunt.

But (if and) when the Federal Government arbitrarily decrees that a technological innovation "cleverly" eludes their published laws, they either need to change their laws (imposing the possibility of a "grandfather" effect on previously owned weapons) or they need to think whether their Federal mandate covers their ass.   

Which it does not.

If I read this clearly, Uncle Sam has three options; any of which will probably not meet their goal of keeping fully-automatic weapons out of the hands of law-abiding AMERICANS:

(1) Write a bunch of rules specific to "Bump Stocks" which will be obviated as soon as the firearms manufacturers change one tiny feature of their product:
(2) write some other rules which SPECIFICALLY deny the "Bump Stocks" by name;
(3) give it up, and let the manufacturers build whatever they want;  and ... by the way ... delete the "full automatic" rules currently in place.

My best guess is that none of these arbitrary measures well be adopted, or enacted as LAW, because people will always find a way.     It's better to just delete all the fully-automatic weapons laws and let Americans seek their own best protection. 

What ... gangsters don't already have machine guns?
Why shouldn't we?

Want to start a rebellion?

Impose the  most strict laws possible, then wait and see how many people disobey the law; you will have lawsuits up the ass trying to resist the natural instinct of otherwise law-abiding citizens who recognize a bad law when they see it.   Many people, otherwise law-abiding, will deliberately violate laws  which they believe stomp on the Constitutional Rights which we have all been assured will be protected by our elected representatives.
Gun Owners Foundation Submits Comments to ATF Over Proposed Bump Stock Ban: If this administration outlaws bump stocks, without regard for the limitations on ATF authority under federal law, it will put into place a slippery slope for future, anti-gun presidents. If ATF chooses to ignore the statutory definition of a machinegun [sic], and instead creates a new definition based on anything that “increases the rate of fire” of a semi-automatic firearm, then far more is at risk than mere bump stocks.
Would-be lawmakers want to pay close attention to the Maverick personalities of the American Citizen.   Many people would deliberately disobey such ... a law if only to register their disgust at the distrust of their government to assume that owning a "questionable" firearm is equivalent to violent intentions.

I've been to war, and I didn't like it; but when it comes to American Constitutional Freedoms, any administrative official who tramples on our (narrowly defined) Rights must be prepared to discuss just WHY he doesn't trust the honor of the people who voted him into office.

That, which is specifically prohibited, is prohibited.
That which is not prohibited, is allowed.
That which is specifically allowed, is  allowed;
that which is not specifically allowed, is prohibited.

Which world-state would YOU prefer?

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

2nd Amendment Felonious?

Going for a Sunday drive?

Got a gun in your car?'

Under "certain circumstances" and in "some areas", you may be treated as if you were a felon if you're pulled over, and if a subsequent search of your car reveals that you are in possession of a gun.

Apparently, it doesn't matter that you don't have a criminal record, or that you are not a "fugitive", or that you have a Concealed Carry Permit..  All that matters is that you are someone who they don't know personally, and you are in possession of a firearm (see: Second Amendment).

I don't know more about the issue than you can learn from the link (below); but I know that it infringes on MY Constitutional Rights.  If I can be disarmed ... or arrested ... by police simply because I have a gun in my car, then my Second Amendment rights have just been abridged.  And the Constitution says that is "NOT OKAY!"

Curious ... I wonder if I can confiscate the firearms worn by the police who would search my automobile; certainly, if they can take my guns, why can't I take theirs?  They have no more rights than I do,  (Well, they have the force which they may impose upon me ... but is that American?)

Robinson v. US:
On July 24, Gun Owners and Gun Owners Foundation filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Robinson v. United States. Click -the link above - to read the brief. This brief urges the High Court to review a court of appeals decision that authorizes the police to search and disarm a gun owner at a traffic stop — even if the firearm is being lawfully carried under state law.    (emphasis added) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had ruled that the police are justified in treating anyone who may have a gun as if he were an armed and dangerous criminal — including drawing their guns, ordering him out of the car, and disarming him.
Our brief argued that lawful gun carriers actually are among the most trustworthy people in our society, and pose virtually no danger to the police. Not only did the Second Amendment’s framers trust gun owners, most state governments do as well, along with the overwhelming majority of police officers. It appears that it is only unelected, liberal federal judges distrust lawful gun owners. We explain that a citizen’s exercise of his Second Amendment rights to bear arms should not cause him to waive his Fourth Amendment rights to be free from searches and seizures of his property. Lastly, our brief dispelled the notion that firearms themselves are “inherently dangerous,” and that the lower court’s opinion will only serve to create problems between the police and gun owners during traffic stops.
I suggest that I have had more rounds aimed at me .. by weight and count ... from "Friendly Fire" than nine out of ten police have cringed under. I have had mornings in Viet Nam when I had to shake out my bed-tarp to rid it of shrapnel,  myself having spent my night in a tree.

It's not that policemen are wimps; it's just that they take incoming fire more personally.
But when the Democrats come after me because I have a gun in my car , even though I have a concealed carry permit (and even though I am protected by the Second Amendment), I begin to wonder just whose side they are on.

Certainly, they're not on MY side; they don't want me to have a gun because ... I don't know; they don't trust me to be armed and not a felon?  (Considering the recent legislation, which seems to provide more rights to convicted felons, I wonder if the Democrats like them more than Registered Republicans~!)

femiistas more more Maacho?

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Criminals and the Guns They Carry

This 2015 article about crime guns contains some information which  you may find interesting.

It speaks to the caliber and conformation (eg: revolver vs pistol) of firearms commonly carried by criminals, and more interestingly describes the maintenance level which felons use in their weapons.

Most importantly, it speaks to the various actions which you might take (or not take) when confronted by an assailant .. whose gun may or may not be functinable.

Criminals and the Guns They Carry | Active Response Training:
“If you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.” Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu said this over 2000 years ago in his book The Art of War It’s hardly new advice. Yet it is just as useful now as it was so many centuries ago.
Curiously, the article suggests that criminals are often not familiar with their weapons, to the point where they are not aware of basic maintenance procedures.   Some guns taken from felons have been found to be non-functional; that means, they don't work.

Don't assume, ever, that their weapons are not functional!

Concealed carry Driver

Police are just people; if you treat them with respect (and don't take it personally when they pull over for speeding) they will return your respect. 

So that's why I have never disrespected police for giving me speeding tickets .. which I quit doing!

I've talked before about carrying a weapon and being stopped by police for a traffic offense.   I'm going to repeat it because of the following published story from a policeman:
Purse Carry, CCW, and Police Interactions | Active Response Training: I do what I can to avoid treating CCW carriers with paranoia.  I work hard to ensure that should I stop a CCW licensee, the encounter goes positively for both of us.  After all, if the person I’m stopping has gone to the trouble of getting a CCW license, I know he doesn’t have a serious criminal record.   If the CCW carrier informs me that he or she is carrying, I know that the person is trying to obey our state’s LE notification law and probably isn’t trying to kill me.
After I was stopped (this wasn't the incident reported above), the police car sat behind me with red-lights flashing for two or three minutes while I fished out my drivers license Concealed Handgun License, and other identification cards ... plus my insurance form.   I did this because I knew the cop had called in the license plate, identified me as the owner, and ran a check on my name.   He knew I was (probably) carrying a gun and exercised proper diligence when he left the car and approached me.

When the cop finally got out ot the car, he had one hand on his pistol and the other hand held a flashlight.  I had already killed the engine and turned on the interior lights (it was a night-time stop) so he could see clearly that I had both hands on the steering wheel, I was holding my papers in my left hand, the window was rolled all the way down ... and I had not opened my door.

When he asked for license and insurance, I simply gave them to him while my right hand remained on the steering wheel.  I kept my face toward him, and wore a chagrined grin.   (Well, I WAS speeding .. I was going to the drug store to get a refill of pain medication for my Significant Other.)

I explained why I was hurrying, admitted that I exercised poor judgement, and asked him to please just write the ticket and let me go before the pharmacy closed.

Perhaps I wasn't as calm as I should have been, but he recognized the situation as I explained it to him and returned my papers with a simple caution to obey the speed limit; it's better to be slow returning home than to not return due to an accident.   Or something like that.

Abuse of Authority:

I know that there are "Bad Cops"; my distant cousin was married to one.  I never liked him, and after a few years he lost his job.  Not because of anything I said or did ... I was only 12 at the time.

My cousin divorced him, too, which was A Good Thing; I liked my cousin, but she wasn't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.

 One nice thing about shooting matches, folks just naturally assume that if you're carrying a gun at a shooting match, you're probably not a convicted felon.  Or a druggie.