Gun laws in neighboring states

My daughter lives in California.  Which is among the most gun-free states in the nation.

My son ("Davy who is in the Navy, and probably will be for life") is stationed in Washington.
Folks there are also more "civilized" when it comes to 2nd Amendment rights.

They're against it.

I would love to visit either or both of my children, but there is a small problem, 
I live in Oregon; a state which respects the right of its citizens to defend themselves ...because it's burdensome to carry a cop in your hip pocket.  Pistols are smaller, lighter, and perhaps more reliable.

Both California and Washington frown on people carrying firearm.

  There is no reciprocity between the states.

Because both of these adjacent states refuse reciprocity with Oregon handgun licences (CHL), I am denied the right to defend myself if I wish to visit my children, and my grandchildren.   (No, I'm not worried that they will attack me ... but I don't know their neighbors!) 

I miss my family, but they cannot (or will not) move closer to me, and I am reluctant to violate the laws of their chosen state of residence.  I'm talking about Carrying Conceal Weapons. 

They won't move because they have good jobs with high wages.  Even though they their Civil Rights are  often denied by state law.  Disappointing ... I should have raised them better. 
(Oh, and The Son is in the Navy .. he goes where they send him.)

Have you ever been shot at? 
Not fun .... I've been shot at many times, in Viet Nam (I was drafted ... it wasn't my first choice of a vacation in "The Orient") so I've since been inclined to carry a firearm for my personal defense, and I have held an Oregon Concealed Handgun License (CHL) for many years.

My sojourn to The Orient convinced me that if you're going to be shot at, it's better to have a means of defense be an armed combatant than to be cowering target.  This isn't paranoia ... it's experience.
Generally speaking, the "Bad Guys" prefer that their victims be disarmed; it is much safer for them.

I'm not sure why my neighboring states (especially California, which has one of the highest crime rates in the nation) refuse to grant that their citizens are constitutionally protected by the Second Amendment, but that's their choice ... the otherwise-sane citizens of those states elected their lawmakers and have acceded to their judgement.   It's difficult to get a license to carry there.
You get the politicians you deserve.  Fucking idiots!

(Note: I have been a resident of both California and Washington, upon occasion, but I keep  coming back to Oregon ... which is also a "Liberal" state; but my neighbors here are not CRAZY!")

For the past 20 years, I have chosen to live in a state where I am "allowed" to exercise ALL of my Constitutional rights.  I guess I've been spoiled by that; but I ain't gonna move closer to my kids.

The'll come to their senses, eventually.

\

Don't take advice from Joe Biden

Oh, this is wrong in so many ways!

Man fires gun to scare off suspects in attempted Antioch carjacking | WKRN News 2:
(December 29, 2016)

 ANTIOCH, Tenn. (WKRN) – An attempted carjacking victim scared off a group of people who tried to steal his car in Antioch early Thursday morning. It happened on Lori Drive around 1 a.m. Metro police told News 2 the man said he was in his car when three white men with bandanas over their faces approached him and attempted to open the car door. The man fired his legally-owned weapon in self-defense and the three men ran away, according to police. One of the suspects fired a shot as the group was fleeing the scene.

[emphasis added]

Note that the news article reports that the driver 'received' return fire;  the "suspects" were obviously armed.    If you're assaulted by armed hooligans, and you are in fear for your life, trying to scare them away by 'firing a shot' only warns them that you are armed.  They could as easily have shot the man.

In 2013, Dumb Joe suggested last year that people fire a gun "into the air" to frighten away attackers.

Bad idea.
It could get you arrested for 'firing a gun inside city limits'.  And you need to be aware of where that bullet is going to end up.

(Even the Huff 'n Puff Post knows better!)

That it wasn't a 'Battle' ... That was the Point

That Time the NRA Tied the Tiananmen Square Massacre to American Gun Rights - The Trace:

 Andrew J. Nathan, a political science professor at Columbia University, tells The Trace that if the Chinese students had handguns at Tiananmen Square, “the result would have been an even worse disaster than what occurred. The students were outmanned by huge numbers” — an estimated 10,000 troops — ”and there is no way that, even armed, they could have won that battle.”

The egrigious comments made at the "The Trace" website demonstrate how far The Left is from understanding the underlying character of the American Citizenry.

In 1989, citizens in Communist China rallied by the thousands to protest against governmental controls on their (non-existent) political rights     There were thousands of unarmed (by fiat) citizens; there were thousands of armed troops, along with tanks, sent by the government to put down a 'riot' by 'hooligans'.

Not a protest by citizens, but a "riot by hooligans".

There never was a battle; nor was a battle planned by the protesters.

Instead, there was a massacre by armed government, with tanks and mortars to back them up, against their own citizens.

Think about that.


ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

Today in America ...

... free citizens demand their First Amendment Constitutional Rights to protest, to assemble, to speak; and they are not machine-gunned by federal troops because of one of the Constitutional Rights which has received a lot of bad press in the past few decades:  the Second Amendment.

Yes, the Chinese in Tienanmen Square would have still been massacred; against tanks, and massed troops with fully automatic weapons, any citizen who tried to fire upon the Government Troops would have been shot down, or crushed by tanks.

Which, by the way, was exactly what happened.   But what if those unarmed citizens had been armed?

They would still have been machine-gunned, still have been crushed by the treads of tanks, and the "rebellion" would still have been crushed along with their bodies.

... but in America there is a constitutional right to be armed.   And as bad as the Chinese devastation of their own people was, an American devastation would not be entirely one-sided.

That would result in more than a highly publicized protest; that would result in a Civil War.  One which was not sparked by regional differences, or a demand to Secession  as our own Civil War was.

This would have been clearly understood as a People demanding their right against a Totalitarian, Tyrannical government ... and  it would have resulted in blood being shed on both sides.  It wouldn't been 10,000 troops against unarmed civilians.  It would have resulted in many, many deaths on both sides.  American troops are reluctant to fire on unarmed civilians, but they are more reluctant to fire on armed civilians who are protesting their rights.

OREGON:

Earlier this year we witnessed an attempted protest by ranchers in my home state.  It wasn't settled by the murder of hundreds of protesters; it was settled by the murder of a single leader of the protest.

(And aren't we SO much more 'civilized' than the Red Chinese?)

WAS this a murder?   It was a protest, not a battle.   One can't help but wonder how Andrew J. Nathan, a political science professor at Columbia University might have compared it to Tienanmen Square.

The only difference between China and the current administration in America is that the Chinese government is at least open in it's thuggery; the current administration in America is more .....
,,, selective.

It's nice to live in a civilized society, isn't it?

"Smart" Guns

Is the U.S. ready for smart guns? - CBS News:
(November 01, 2015)

Every time there's a massacre at a school, like the recent one in Oregon, it reignites the debate for more gun control -- not only because of the mass shootings, but because of the hundreds of incidents of gun violence every day on our streets and in our homes. One idea that keeps coming up is smart guns. These are firearms that only work when they're fired by their owner. It seems that "gee whiz" technology is seeping into every corner of our lives. Why not guns? *

CBS had a "feature" about Smart Guns, which did not convince me that they are the "wave of the future"/

Why am I not convinced?

I have a Smart Phone.  It turns itself off and on willy-nilly, and I have no idea why.  So I have to wait a few minutes for it to sort itself out.

Which might not ever happen; too often, I have to turn it off and wait "a while", whether I would prefer to or not.

That's marginal in a cell phone; that's unacceptable in a defensive weapon.

If I have the need to use my firearm, I am not willing to 'wait a minute' for it to sort itself out.

Whether in a competitive environment (when two seconds is an eternity) or in a home defense situation (when two seconds is LITERALLY the difference between a few more years of life, or an eternity without it) ... firearm reliability is always ALWAYS the most important characteristic of a gun I can bet my life on.  Whether it's appropriate to shoot?   Whether the target needs to be engaged?

 That determination is MY job;  If I make a mistake, at least I know I won't die waiting for the chip to warm up!

For me, Gun Control means that I'm in total control of my firearms.  It doesn't mean that I willingly relinquish my ability to use my defensive (or hunting, or competitive) firearm when, where and how I require.

* It seems that "gee whiz" technology is seeping into every corner of our lives. Why not guns?

Cell phones are just toys; guns are weapons.  And whenever we relinquish control of our weapons to 'technology', we put our lives on the line.

I'm not willing to abrogate my life to (an reliable) computer chip.

Are you?


(For More Information Press 1.  If that doesn't work, Press 2.  If that doesn't pfffsszzzzzzz ....)

Response to comment on "Open Carry": The Noisy Cricket is the right gun for me!

When I wrote my November 07, 2015 article about "Open Carry", I expected to get some outraged feedback from Open Carry Advocates.

Disappointing that I only received one response.  But at least the author had a valid question:

Anonymous said...

Cannot a citizen who is open carrying a more effective pistol or maybe rifle take out a mass murderer? Generally the pistols/revolvers that can be carried concealed are not really suitable for shooting further than across the room and may be a marginal caliber. In parts of the country with warm weather year round it is have to carry a standard service sized sidearm concealed under a t-shirt and Bermuda shorts.
Just call me Anon. Try shooting one of the lightweight compact or sub compact sidearms both rapidly and accurately when using full power 40 S&W or 45acp.
November 08, 2015 12:47 PM

I'm pretty sure that "Call Me Anons" rides a white horse.

Yes, I think it would be a wonderful thing if a Citizen could save a lot of lives by virtue of carrying a Major Weapon AND making sure that it can take out a terrorist  from the other side of the Food Court.  (It might be tempting to take out the "restaurant manager" at the same time, but that would be A Bad Thing.  Tempting .. but still Bad.  There might be innocent people present, too.)

Being at the right place at the right time, and doing the right thing, is laudable.

If the police (who will eventually show up) can tell the difference between the mass murderer and the guy with a smoking AR15 and a red do-rag around his head and a Sylvester Stallone Sweaty body and a smug smirk on his face ... Call Me Anonymous might even survive the experience.

(No, I don't really believe that, but he seems like a genuinely nice guy and I wouldn't want to feel as if I hadn't made at least some effort to validate his life.  As long as he had it, anyway.)

But I don't really want to rescue the entire K-Mart or Wall-Mart or Wally-World shopping contingent on any given Black Friday.   I don't prance through the Mall with an AR15 slung across my brawny shoulders and a couple of Banana-Clips poking out of my hip pockets in the hope that I'll stop America's Most Popular Mall-Shooter Of The Week.  That's just so ... not me!

I'm sorry if I don't sound like the super-hero type of Blogger (is there one?) and I don't want to disappoint my readership.  So I'll tell this story just once, and then I'll STFU, okay?

I've been shot at before.  There is nothing (I know some famous writer that I can't remember said this before me, but ...) .. there is nothing so rewarding as being shot at and missed.  However, my PERSONAL version goes something like:

There is nothing so rewarding as not being shot at all day, and I intend to pursue that personal gratification every day for the rest of my life, thank you very much.  

Those of you whose personal mission in life is to save the world from tyranny and/or Shopping Mall Massacres, have at it.  I'll gladly step aside and allow you all the glory.

Remember that scene in the movie "Men In Black" (#1) where Wil Smith is issued his ordnance?  He gets the "Noisy Cricket"  and he's disappointed,

"KAY ..... Give The Kid A Weapon!"





That's what **I'm** Talking about!

No, it's not. That is SO not "what I'm talking about!

For myself, I'll take a Belly Gun every day. 

No, it's not a large caliber.  No, it won't take out a terrorist mission across the width of a shopping mall or even the width of the "Ye Olde Antique Mall Shopping Mart Boutique", but if some ass ......   jerk puts his pot-belly within reach I can put my sneaky/femininistic/no-testical-man little P3AT in his belly-button and extend THAT the the opposite side of the shopping mall.

No, Brother, I don't want to save the world.  Been there, done that, got the olive-drab t-shirt.

I just want to save my own precious lilly-white ass, thank you very much.   Yes,even the parts with pimples on it ... when I really think it through, that part is precious to me, as well.   No, don't ask.

I've said it before, I'll say it again:  If the threat is so far away that I can't hit him with my .380, he probably can't hit me with his lever-action shotgun which he stole from the Terminator.    So I'll just turn my back and run away!

And I won't even feel guilty about that, because I know there's some Terminator-Wanna-Be with a black rifle and a couple of 30-round Banana Clips * who is just chomping at the bit for the opportunity to Take Down A Terrorist from across the street,  and Save Western Civilization and The World AS We Know It!

( * No, I do NOT feel guilty about calling them "banana clips"; this is my blog, I can murder words before I murder people.)

So you all can do what you want to do, just give me a couple of seconds notice before you start blasting away across the shopping mall.  I don't move as fast as I use to, so I would appreciate the advance warning.  Otherwise, I'll just have to "Duck and Cover" like they use to teach us in school to do, in case the Ruskies drop "The Bomb" on us. 

Which ... may not be all that far-fetched.

And that's all I have to say about it.

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?

Subjects.

Perhaps your role in life is to serve as an example to others

Police: Alabama woman who shot home invader shot by officers after failing to drop her weapon | Fox News:

Police in Alabama say officers shot a woman who had shot an intruder during a home invasion after she didn't drop her weapon.

Learn from this.  The cops are just as frightened as you are.

The Golden Rule

Fort Hood shooting victim denied benefits, despite Purple Heart decision | Fox News:

 The Obama administration has finally acknowledged that those hurt and killed in the 2009 Fort Hood shootings were victims of terrorism -- and not “workplace violence,” as it was previously described. But while formal recognition of that is set for Friday, when victims will receive the Purple Heart, it may only be symbolic.

I find it bizarre that a government denies it's military (who defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic) compensation for injuries while serving ... which as a matter of policy refuses to allow servicemen on duty to carry a weapon ... can deny full benefits for victims of wounds and other injuries.

Surely, some of those injured were not activly "on duty" at the time; but others were.   What's the difference between those who were actively "on duty" (an MP?) and those who were 'on base'?

 When I was in the army, when I was in a military base I was always assumed to be "on duty" even if I was not carrying a firearm at the time.

This was obviously a cost-cutting decision, made with no consideration of how the professional service men and women (the person who cut down the murderer was an MP ... but she couldn't be EVERYWHERE!) would react to this patent lack of faith.

The lesson I learned in the military is that loyalty must not only go up the chain of command, but down.  I guess Obama has no understanding of the concepts of loyalty, duty, honor and country.

We're not talking about "Stand Your Ground" civilians here; we're talking about people who were targeted specifically because they were members of the military!

BUT:

The Golden Rule applies here!

Four Minutes of Terror

Not EVERYBODY reads gunbloggers.com on a daily basis; if you read THIS blog, you should read that blogfeed.

Here's why: I call it Four Minutes of Terror

Hard to watch | Cornered Cat: In the video below, you’ll see an incredible event: a machete-wielding attacker literally hacks his way through a locked apartment door. The resident does what he needs to do to protect himself and others in the home. It’s like a scene out of a horror movie — but most directors wouldn’t use the footage, because what audience would believe that a door could be so flimsy? Or that someone with a machete would hack his way through it? Nevertheless, this really happened

(The video is embedded in the linked website; click on "Cornered Cat".)

Unfortunately, the Liberal Press contends that home invasions are rare, to the point of 'never happen'.  The video embedded in the above proves otherwise (as does this video link).

Fortunately, the family situation depicted by Cornered Cat turned out .. um, not well (the invader was shot), but the family was uninjured.  Traumatized, of course, but physically unharmed.

The police described this as a justifiable self-defense shooting.

Some anti-gun folks contend that there is no reason why anyone should have a gun.

This shows one reason why people might choose to have a gun.
It may make the difference between being a victim, or a being a survivor.

PS: I need a stronger door.

So what if you DO save your family and home from predation?

[Video] Couple Who Shot, Killed Burglar Last Year Discuss the Toll the Incident Has Taken on Them:

.... one thing that we don’t talk about often enough is the toll that is taken on you and your family after a defensive shooting.

Guns Save Lives is one of the few websites which I visit every day.

But this day, Dan Cannon talked about the burden which defending your family against a home-invasion imposes on the people who choose to defend themselves, their home, and their families.

It's a subject which deserves your attention.

Is it better to shoot?  Or to be shot?

Is The Law less threatening than the Lawless?

Want to win a gunfight? Train under pressure

Want to win a gunfight? Train under pressure:
September 16, 2014:

Psychological in Nature Pressure is a compelling sense of urgency that forces you out of a normal mode of operating.
 Pressure puts you into a higher state of arousal. It’s psychological. Pressure changes your mental state and forces you to deal with challenge over arousal, fear, doubt, and other emotions. If you want to reach higher levels of competency and skill, learn to stay calm in dangerous situations; make good decisions while under duress.
You absolutely have to have pressure on a regular basis and learn to thrive under it. Pressure is created by making a test of your skill, your will, and your self-image — a test that you care about and that matters to you. It forces you to question your abilities, skills, and your self-confidence.
 There should be risk of failure and reward built into this test. It can be light, moderate or heavy; depending on what level of training you are at. Above all, it must be appropriate to the skill level of the participants and they must be agreeable to the test. If they don’t want to do it or complain about it all the time, it won’t work out too well.

This post by Ron Avery (one of my personal heroes of Shooting Excellence) provides some valuable insight into the process of developing excellent shooting skills.

My emphasis is on Competition, but in fact this training technique is apparently positioned in the "Self Defense" area.

Pressure:

One of the primary reasons why I became involved in IPSC competition was that .... well, I bought a gun.
I own several guns, but this was a 1911 style pistol which I though would allow me to be 'competitive'    But I had no idea how well I would compare with other people, so I got into USPSA just so I could learn if I was as good as I thought I was.

I was not as good as I thought I was.  I'm better, now, but still not really very good.

The thing is, when you are shooting under pressure, the whole shooting thingie comes down to one thing:

You're not prepared When Things Go Wrong.

I've been competing for over 20 years now (okay, 30 years ... but who's counting?) and the one think I've learned is that something ALWAYS goes wrong.  Your individual performance doesn't depend on how accurately you can shoot, nor how quick you are on the draw.  It depends on how you react when the situation goes into the crapper.

Obama is the New Bush!

US launches four airstrikes against Islamic militants in Iraq | Fox News:
(August 09, 2014)

This is the third round of airstrikes against Islamic State forces by the U.S. military since they were authorized by President Obama to protect U.S. personnel and Iraqi religious minorities facing a possible "genocide."
 The latest strikes comes as President Obama prepared Americans for a sustained military involvement in Iraq, saying the United States is ready to continue with air strikes to protect U.S. diplomats and citizens and others under attack from the Islamic State terror group.
 "I don't think we’re going to solve this problem in weeks," the president said on the South Lawn of the White House Saturday. “This is going to be a long-term project.”

What was the quote?  At "Change.gov"?

Encouraging Political Accommodation

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that the U.S. must apply pressure on the Iraqi government to work toward real political accommodation. There is no military solution to Iraq’s political differences. Now is the time to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future and to invest their oil revenues in their own reconstruction ..."

"There is no military solution to Iraq’s political differences ..."

The alternatives seem a lot slimmer now, don't they Barry?  How's that whole "Hope and Change" thing working out for you, now that your finger is on the trigger?

... and now that they're shooting at you, your political view has changed more than you had hoped, eh?

We're looking forward to the day when you actually invite "W" (now that we can say that again) to the White House to discuss "alternative" approaches to the War in Iraq.

You thought you entirely avoided the problem, since GW Jumped The Shark for you.  Surprise!  The Great Shark is still alive and predatory, but now it's YOUR problem!

"Schadenfreude Much?"

Not really.  We've all just been waiting for you to notice the feces and the fan.

So tell me, Mister President . .. how does it FEEL to realize that the Real World's definition of  'Hope and Change' isn't the same as  completely rejects YOUR definition?

Navy Sentry tried to shoot intruder, couldn’t find the Safety Switch!

Mahan sentry tried to shoot intruder, couldn’t disengage gun’s safety | WTKR.com: News from Hampton Roads and Northeast North Carolina':
(May 08, 2014)

Norfolk, Va. – A watchstander on the destroyer Mahan raised her pistol to intruder Jeffrey Savage, but could not disengage the gun’s safety. Savage snatched the pistol and killed another sailor with it before other sailors shot the intruder.

About 11pm on Monday, March 24, 2014, a civilian named Jeffery Savage drove a 2002 Freightliner truck to the entry gate at the Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, Va.   He didn't have a worker's pass which allowed him entry to the base, but waved a "TWIC" ("Temporary Worker Identification Card"?) at the guard station and made hand motions indicating that he wanted to make a u-turn around the guard shack, suggesting that he wasn't trying to enter the base.

(Savage had been previously convicted of manslaughter in civilian courts, but was somehow able to acquire a TWIC.)

But when the guard nodded permission, Savage drove the semi through the entry point and onto Pier 1, where two U.S. Navy ships were docked:  The USS Comfort, a hospital ship, and the USS Mahan, a Destroyer.


After parking his truck, he walked past the hospital ship and then up the entryway to the Mahan.

Sailors watched Savage stumbling down the pier, at times talking to himself and other times screaming. Some remembered Savage flailing his arms. Savage walked to the end of the pier and looked into containers. He reversed and stopped briefly at the brow of the hospital ship Comfort before heading to the Mahan. Savage walked up the destroyer’s brow.

The gangway sentry, a MA2 (Master At Arms Second Class... US Navy ranking for military police who typically are assigned to sentry and guard duties, plus some other patrolling activities) attempted to direct Savage away from the ship.   When Savage continued his approach, the unidentified MA2 drew her service pistol (probably an M92) and when he changed his approach to a rush she attempted to engage him with direct fire.

She was "unable to get a shot off"  (see below the line) before he reached her.  Savage wrested her pistol out of her hands, and turned it in her direction with the obvious attempt to shoot the downed sailor with her own pistol.