Seller Beware!

"They Say" ... it's easier to buy a gun than to buy a used car.

That only goes to show what they know.

Massachusetts man arrested for selling guns without a license:

Rathsomnang Neth, 22, faces one count of dealing in firearms without a license and two counts of possessing and transferring an unregistered shotgun with a shortened barrel, according to a federal indictment unsealed Wednesday. The former carries a maximum sentence of five years and a $250,000 fine. Each latter possession charge, however, carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, according to the Department of Justice.

Who among the readers doesn't have some firearms which are 'superfluous to my needs' and would you like to find them a new home?

Sellers who dispose of more than X-number of firearms in private transactions, during Y-number of months, would be advised to go beyond the usual cautions of vetting their buyers.

If you don't know the values of "X" and "Y", maybe you should just hide them in your gun safe.  Or gift them to a a family member.

It doesn't matter who you sell to, their soon (who knows when) comes a point when you are arbitrarily migrated from the position of "private owner" to "DEALER!!!"
.
If you sell "too many guns" in "too short a time", you are still subject to FEDERAL prosecution regulation.

My case is a lot easier.  I'm old, I'll die soon.  My kids will inherit my firearms as well as my furniture.

They can sell my furniture to anybody .. but they need to go through an arcane number of federal regulations to successfully "vend" firearms.

Somehow this makes my prospects of an early heart attack less threatening, considering that the legal implications are A Fate Worse Than Death!

So .. yes; I believe I WILL have another piece of pie, thank you very much.

God Forbid I should have to face a jury of my peers.

Shall Not Comply

"I Will Not Comply" isn't a catch-phrase.  It's a warning.

The Bloviating Fat Men from Seattle got their come-upence this week, and all True Citizens of the Constitution are laughing at their Hubris.

Seattle Spent More Defending Gun-Tax Lawsuit Than It Collected in Revenue From Tax, Gun Group Claims - Washington Free Beacon:

The city of Seattle spent more to defend a lawsuit against its gun tax than it gathered in revenue from the tax, a gun-rights group claimed on Friday. King County Superior Court Judge Lori K. Smith ruled in favor of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on Friday in a Public Records Act suit over Seattle's refusal to disclose the exact amount of revenue collected through their "gun violence tax." The gun-rights group filed suit after the city refused to fulfill a public record request from Dave Workman, editor of SAF-owned TheGunMag.com. The group said the real revenue numbers revealed in court documents appear to fall short of the city's projections.

Apparently, Seattle thought that "I Will Not Comply" was nothing more than a threat of passive resistance.

The "City Fathers" (and a more mordant bunch of Maroons have not recently been found) thought that they could arbitrarily tax a Constitutional Right to death, and their citizens would roll over, uttering only meek objections.

They didn't expect that a citizens' group would actual sue their arrogant asses into infinity.

Thanks to Dave Workman and his Second Amendment Foundation crew, there was no need for a Malheur-Crew of protesters to endure prison and risk death in the process; a simple legal requirement seemed adequate to prove that the anti-gun politicians were just blowing smoke.

Politicians have no sand.

What they DO have is monumental egos, which allows them to convince themselves that they can make any laws which catch their fancy, and their subjects constituents have no alternative but to roll over and say "Thank You Sir, May I Have Another?"

We can only hope that this serves notice to other unscrupulous politicians (are there any other kinds?) that Americans are serious about this whole "Shall Not Be Abridged" thingie.

Oh, yeah, almost forgot this archaic warning:

What a bunch of maroons.

Oh .. and Thanks, Dave and Crew; from all of us to all of you.

Washington State Background Check Failure

New Washington State Background Check Failure Reporting Law Raises Questions:

So much for Michael Bloomberg’s I-594 living up to its promises. Not that anyone expected it to have any effect whatsoever on predators. What it did do, aside from forcing “law-abiding” gun owners to give up private transfers, was create and put a new class of “criminal” at risk for life-destroying consequences —the previously “law-abiding” who chose “I will not comply” civil disobedience over submission to new Intolerable Acts.

- David Codrea

Yep.   Look for the same results here in Oregon.   We always tread on Washington's coat tails.

Einstein's Definition of Insanity:  Trying the same thing over again, expecting different results

NOTE:   Also posted by IRONS

The Zombification of America

One Gun A Month: Not Just A Bad Idea

Liberals often wonder aloud why Gun Nuts can't accept a "Reasonable Compromise" on the subject of Gun Rights.

The answer (as they know very well) is that there is no "Reasonable Compromise" on the table.  .
Once you start down that road, there is no turning back.

Ever.
(Note: this is an expansion of my April 01, 2017 article)

Editorial: How many guns do you need? - Daily Press:

Those who oppose the one-per-month rule and similar legislation frequently speak in defense of "responsible gun owners." But isn't that precisely who should be supporting these measures? Shouldn't legal gun owners want laws that target those who circumvent and abuse our state's lax gun laws? If you keep a licensed handgun to protect your home, wouldn't you rather make it harder for that intruder to have an unlicensed one?

Gun Control Zombies want to undermine, and ultimately eliminate, our Second Amendment Rights.

They have no respect for it, and cannot understand those of us who consider it as anathema.

It would be different (but only in the degree of outrage generated) should the Gun Control Zombies propose something of a quid pro quo agreement, if only as a beginning discussion point.

But I'm not sure what would be their valid initial proposal:

"Tell you what: we'll give up all the Anti-Gun Pro-Reasonable Gun Control Editorials in the New York Times for the next year   three months  week if you'll just give up your opposition to ... say .... "One Gun A Month".  How's that?   You could be just like us!"

Hmm ... no,  I don't see that happening.

However, I DO see that as being assumed a "reasonable starting point" for discussion .., from their point of view.

The author of the editorial which began this thesis seems to be thoroughly encamped in the community which would  accept the (farcical) proposal as "reasonable".

(I'm not calling him a "Gun Control Zombie", I'm only saying that his comments feed the political viewpoint which might eventually lead to even more infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights.)

Washington State: What part of "Will Not Comply" is still unclear to you?

FBI: Washington State Gun Owners Not Complying With New Background Check Law - The Truth About Guns:

 The FBI has just released a report showing that private party transfers in Washington following the new law accounted for only 2% of the total background checks.

Duh!
Nobody wants to comply, because (a) it's expensive and inconvenient, (b) since firearms serial numbers are necessarily included, it is tantamount to Registration [the first step to confiscation], and (c) only law-abiding citizens will obey the law ... which is supposedly framed to prevent sale of firearms to criminals.

Criminals will ignore it, rendering the law moot and ineffective as a means to its stated goal.
 Do you not recognize the dichotomy of the situation?

In America, private individuals have been loaning, exchanging and selling firearms to each other for hundreds of years,  To begin penalizing (imprisoning them?) now for exercising their constitutional rights would be the same as penalizing (imprisoning them?) for going to the church of their choice or speaking their mind in a public forum.

If the law would accomplish its goal, it might be acceptable by the citizenry ... if it were better written!
But this POS law will not really be effective in Washington.  Or Oregon.  Or Nevada or Connecticut ... etc.


For a detailed explanations of just why "Universal Background Checks" are A Bad Idea, read Dr. John Lott's recent explanation.

Oregon, and the Right to Keep and Bear Knobkerries

Oregon bans weapons in state workplaces:

Oregon officials have banned state employees from carrying weapons in the workplace unless they're needed for their jobs. The move caused consternation Thursday among Republican leaders in the Legislature. The Oregon Department of Administrative Services said it imposed the ban, which became effective on Jan. 6, in hopes of "providing a safe and secure environment for employees and visitors." Banned are firearms, daggers, slingshots, and a host of other specified weapons. Oddly, even knobkerries were mentioned. Knobkerries are clubs used by indigenous people like the Zulus in southern Africa, and are probably unknown to most Oregonians.

You realize that this would not make for a "safe and secure environment", right?

But if I was still working for The State, I would be a criminal.   Because what I did legally last month, would be illegal today.

For almost 20 years I carried a concealed Knobkerry at work, in a State Office, every day.  Nobody knew because it was ... well ... concealed.  
And I certainly wasn't going to mention it.

It was legal, because of state laws in effect in Oregon at the time, and I had a "CKL" (Concealed Knobkerry License".  But the place where I worked had an administrative rule disallowing the possession of knobkerries ... either open or concealed carry.    They could have fired me for wanting to exercise my God Given Right to Keep and Bear Knobkerries  (RKBK).  

But I would not have been subject to legal action;   I was not breaking any laws.

My thinking was that Knobkerry Free Zones (such as schools) were a prime target of 'mischief makers', and if  'mischief' were to occur at my work place,  I wanted to have options.  

I always felt much more "safe and secure" knowing that I could pull out my trusty knobkerry and pound the living crap out of anyone who decided to use an illegal knobkerry to attack my workplace.

Well, that has all changed now.   Because we are defenseless ... by legal fiat.

I am disgusted ... California Politics are creeping into Oregon.

Why "Gun Control" is doomed to fail

Remember Jeff Goldbloom's annoying character "Malcom" in that dinosaur movie?



Goldbloom is still annoying, but the philosophy which the (brilliant) writers imposed on him is absolutely correct: Life Finds A Way.

And so do Armed Citizens:

Homemade submachine guns used in Tel Aviv shooting - The Firearm Blog:

Efforts by terrorists and rebel groups to produce homemade submachine guns isn’t anything new. Small workshops in Northern Ireland during ‘The Troubles’ churned out hundreds of crude but entirely functional weapons which were used in sectarian killings by Loyalist paramilitary groups.

In the 1970s various rebel groups across South America including Argentina’s Maoist ERP set up factories to produce homemade submachine guns including close copies of the Swedish K / M45. Security forces In Colombia have in the past closed down factories operated by FARC which produced versions of the British 9mm STEN as well as MAC-10 submachine guns. 

We’ll likely continue to see more attacks perpetrated with this type of weapon in future, especially in areas in which the smuggling of conventional arms may present difficulties, thus leaving a void for entrepreneurs with drills and hacksaws to fill.

It doesn't really matter whether you are "A Good Guy With A Gun" or  "A Bad Guy With A Gun".

If you want one, you will find a way.

Laws are only obeyed by honest people.

When dishonest laws are imposed, they make honest people criminals.
Witness  "Will Not Comply".


One wonders how the Diane Feinsteins of this world manage to delude themselves into believing that they can make laws which contravene the Constitution,and Free Citizens will meekly bow their heads and comply.

Well .. it may have something to do with the fact that the only people she actually TALKS to are Liberals.

I hate spectator sports

Bryan Fumble Gumble doesn't think that Americans realize just how frail our Second Amendment Constitutional protections are under the current (and the expected "next") presidential Administration.

What he doesn't realize is, we don't care.  We know our rights.  We are willing and able to protect and defend ourselves, our country and our  Constitution;
,,, even if our elected "representatives" have lost track of their personal oaths of fealty.

Bryant Gumble, Streaming Video, and the Supreme Court:

 I still remember a trip to California early in 1994 , when the Clinton Gun Ban was being debated in congress. Each night on the local ABC station in Los Angeles, the anchor would update the progress of the bill that would limit magazine capacity to ten rounds.
And each night they aired B-Roll of some hapless IPSC shooter blazing away with his 21-round race-gun to illustrate how dangerous those big magazines were. Back then, there was no streaming, so that IPSC shooter had gotten into the file tape, likely during sports coverage of a local match.
But once in their system, ABC could do anything they wanted with the video.

Now, with bloggers posting i-phone video, and with the rush by Firearms manufacturers to post their video on YouTube, you need to know you’re offering the liberal media anything they want to take to make their anti-gun point. Before you prompt your techies to post that new video demo of your AR running smoothly, as it empties a 30 round mag, you need to ask if you’re going to be happy seeing that video in the next Bryant Gumble anti-gun special, or posted on the New York Times website. The Supremes have ruled the media can do anything they want with your copyrighted video. 

(emphasis added)

With all respect to Bryant Gumble and the Drunken Golf Junkie ... that's Bullshit!

IPSC IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST:
NOBODY competes in the shooting sports because they think it will make them popular, or that if people approve of what they do in their sport they will "grow the sport".   We're not here to popularize our sport, and we don't ask anyone to 'validate' our glee in enjoying the virtues of our Second Amendment rights.

We're just here to have fun.  Safely, under strict rules of safety and competition,  We're not celebrating the Second Amendment, we're just enjoying a small aspect of the consequences of the Inalienable Constitutional Right, and at the same time spending a lot of time and money to play a little "OneUpsman-ship with our friends and neighbors.   We like our "high-capacity magazines, although few of us use them any more.

And BTW B. some of them can hold up to 30 rounds of .38 super ammunition.  Pushing a 115 grain hollow-point bullet at up to 1400 feet per second, this load allows us to have the highest possible score on every target zone but the load still enables the shooter to get the rounds down-range in the quickest time.

Here's an example, which you may suppress at your leisure if you think it's going to undermind our Second Amendment Rights:

(In the past 30 years that I've been competing in IPSC/USPSA competition, nobody has ever died.  Bryant Gumble and Drunken Golf Junkie can't make the same claim about the VERY DANGEROUS sport of High-School Football!)

EVERYBODY competes in the shooting sports for one or more of the following reasons:

1. They like to shoot, and shooting in competition provides them with an opportunity to shoot.
2. They like people who like to shoot, because they share a common interest AND because they share a common philosophy.   See #1.
3. An armed society is a polite society; you meet the nicest people there.
4. Shooting sports are loud and raucous, and at the same time extremely controlled and controlling.  Many shooters are (and this will come as a surprise to non-shooters) almost excessively disciplined; if they're not, they rapidly tire of the sport and go somewhere else on their Saturdays.   The rest of us get to make a lot of noise and spend a lot of money in the company of people whose common interest is to break out of our controlling shells.
5. We are the kind of people who want to see how we compare to other competitors.  Most of us win rarely.  Fortunately, the people who hold matches give awards (usually dirt-cheep pins or ribbons) to almost everyone, and those who go home with no cheap awards come back next month determined to spend $50 or more in the hopes of winning a fifty-cent ribbon.
6. Mostly, we don't care about what other people think of us.  If we did, we wouldn't be competing in a sport which openly involves "shooting at human shaped targets" and "teaching people to kill people".  (These are actual quotes from critics who know nothing about the sport.)
7. This sport is so not-politically-correct that several years ago the International Practical Shooting Confederation applied to the International Olympic Committee to make IPSC competition a "demonstration sport" for the Olympics.  Not trying to actually compete, you understand .. they just wanted to get into The Big Show.  The IOC turned IPSC/USPSA down flat.  Their justification was that they didn't want to "show people killing people" in the Olympics.  I wonder how they justified the Javelin competition, which was doing the same thing???  (Not that anyone was terribly disappointed .. leadership cadre keep trying to justify themselves in any sport, but the Hoi Polloi in this sport just want to be left alone.  Except for the professionals, of course.)
8. Perhaps the final reason for the wide interest in IPSC/USPSA competition is precisely because this sport is almost universally disapproved-of by the Makers&Shakers.  As Groucho Marx once said: "I wouldn't want to join any club which would have me as a member".  Shooting Ports members (except for various shotgun variations) aren't looking for "acceptance".  We just want to spend a day with our goofy friends and shoot a lot of ammunition at carboard and steel targets.  Is that too much to ask?

GROWING:

Over the past six years, I've taught hundreds of people who want to compete in this "outlaw" sport.

(I use the term "OUTLAW" thanks to the IOC .. bless their little narrow-visioned hearts!)

Of the people who care enough about joining the sport to take the course of instruction, there have been so few of the 'students' who were not able to learn safe gun-handling practices that I can count them on the fingers of both hands and feet.  

And as for the worries that America will frown upon Practical Pistol competitions (with the '30 round magazines' and all) .. what could be more reassuring than for the American public to see that there are legitimate competition venues where a "high capacity magazine" actually has a "Sporting Purpose"??

We don't need approval. We don't need approbation.  All WE want is to spend an enjoyable Saturday with our friends who share common interests.   

And there are many of them.

COMING TO AMERICA:

We have friends from Canada, who can't legally possess "high-round count magazines".  They come to American and acquire the equipment which qualifies them to compete in "OPEN DIVISION", and they leave the equipment (guns and magazines; often even ammunition) with their friends in Free America.  Then they sneak across the border to compete in matches with those physical items which are legal in America, but verboten in Canada.

Their friends could steal their expensive equipment without fear of reprisal from legal authorities, but they don't.  Because "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society", and friends who face the possibility of federal bans ... are the best friends in the world.

Next week our Canadian Friends might be holding our guns and magazines and ammunition for US. 

In our current political situation, where we can't trust our Government (and certainly not our PRESIDENT!) to guard and protect our Constitutional Rights, we form relationships with other people (who are willing to obey 'constitutional laws', but not 'arbitrary laws') so that we may enjoy our natural liberties.

But we still don't care what other people think about us.  We are certainly not Politically Correct, but we are safe, and sane, and Rule Number One is always:  "NOBODY BLEEDS!"

(Rule Number Two is: "Everybody Goes Home And Has Pizza And Beer!")

Now, that's MY idea of The Perfect Sport.

Connecticut 2014: "Will Not Comply!" (Where Are They Now?)

Thousands in Connecticut refuse to register guns under new law - YouTube:

 *Originally Published on Feb 15, 2014*

The state of Connecticut passed restrictive new gun laws last year in the wake of Newtown's Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that left more than two dozen - mostly children - dead. One of those laws, which recently went into effect, requires residents to register all "military-style weapons" with the state.

But tens of thousands of Connecticut residents refuse to register their guns, and they could soon be considered felons by the state if they continue to ignore the requirement. RT's Perianne Boring sits down with Bryan Crosswhite, founder of 2AO (2amendment.org), about the constitutionality of the registration requirement and other gun control measures.

("Soon"?)

With a demure attitude, one spokesman went on to the air to confirm that Connecticut gun owners "will not comply" with an illegal law.




(Soon?)

Also in "The Kelly File" in February of 2014, we have this evidence that Connecticut folks "Will Not Comply".



   ,,,,,,   That was then.

THIS IS NOW: THE FOLLOW-UP

I did a search today for FIREARMS CONFISCATION CONNECTICUT

In THE :BLAZE  (May 3, 2016) I did find an ONE article about firearms confiscation in Connecticut:

Connecticut lawmakers have passed legislation to permit law enforcement to confiscate guns and ammunition from anyone accused of domestic abuse. The bill is headed to the desk of Gov. Dannel Malloy and he’s expected to sign it.

So, the rhetoric has changed?   Did someone blink?

I'm still wondering: Did they really have a "Confiscation", and nobody came?

Or did I just sleep through it ... ?

Wisconsin AG: "Lock Them Up!"

Morning Minute: AG Schimel on Solving Gun Violence | | wiscnews.com:

"We are not going to give in to those demands to make it harder for law abiding gun owners to exercise their second amendment rights...we're gonna find the people that are using guns to commit crimes and lock them up. That's how you solve the gun violence problem," 

(Attorney General Brad Schimel said last weekend at the Republican Party of Wisconsin state convention.)

Funny, I knew that Wisconsin had men, but I didn't realize they clanged when they walked.

Who is this, who tells me that I MUST denounce firearms ownership?

In BALTIMORE, one of the most violent cities in America, the Catholic Church will propose a Fatwa against law-abiding owners of firearms in America.  Isn't THAT ironic?

Is the Pope U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops aware that the level of firearms violence in MOST of America is not comparable to BALTIMORE?


Protect life: limit access to guns - Baltimore Sun:

Next week, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will meet in Baltimore to update its "quadrennial statement on political responsibility, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship." The document, which is essentially a voters guide for American Catholics circulated before presidential elections, outlines key church teachings, areas of emphasis that should inform how Catholics decide upon various candidates. The bishops must urge the faithful to support candidates who stand up to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and advance the cause of gun control.

   A "Voters Guide for American Catholics" makes Peck a Bad Boy?


If I (we) are Bad .. it is NOT because "they" (you and I) are trouble makers ... but because we have a similar level of interest in firearms ownership as criminals who use their guns for violent actions (while we keep them for sporting purposes, and to defend ourselves against violent action).

So why is the Catholic Church in America picking on me?  

I am so very proud to have been singled out by "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship".
As if I have no conscience, and am not a citizen (regardless of my "Faith", which is none of your business thank-you-very-much).

Yes, I am insulted. I resent the insinuation that because I own guns I am a faithless marauder.

 Gun violence in America disproportionately afflicts the poor and marginalized, especially impoverished black communities in our cities. Jeffrey Goldberg writes in the Atlantic that between "1980 and 2013, 262,000 black males were killed in America," the vast majority from guns. The murder rate for African Americans is eight times higher than it is for white Americans and 12 times higher than other developed nations, reports statistician and blogger Nate Silver; the closest comparable murder rates are found in the developing world. Urban murder rates have soared again this year — especially here in Baltimore, right under the bishops' noses.

"The murder rate for African Americans is eight times higher than it is for white Americans and 12 times higher than other developed nations."

Yes. Well, I haven't murdered anyone for ... oh, I can't say; it has been SO LONG since I have murdered anyone I can't even remember it.  Am I bad?

Maybe the Catholic Church should go to those "impoverished black communities in our cities", and take a close look at exactly WHO is responsible for that disproportionate level of Gun Violence.

Here's a hint:  They Are Not Catholic!

I live in a college town in the Pacific NorthWet, and I suppose I should not feel offended by this sweeping accusation.
But I do.
Most of my friends are Friends Of Guns.  We have shooting competitions regularly. Many of my friends hunt regularly.

None of my friends murder people regularly.

Where in this "Document" does it mention that the majority of Americans do no indulge in frivolous mayhem?

The bishops must urge the faithful to support candidates who stand up to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and advance the cause of gun control.

What is this word, "must"?

MUST!  Is this, like, a Mandatory thing?  One Catholic Priest decides that the entire community which he heads must follow his arbitrary lead?  And he is unaware of the upset he has allowed in his community?

[Out of respect for the faith, I have deleted several dozens of lines of comments regarding the above subject matter]

My friend, The Hobo Brasser (who happens to be a Catholic) must find himself in something of a quandary here.  He knows that all of the hundreds of "gun nuts" among his plethora of friends are honest, responsible firearms owners.  But still, the Leader of his faith *(or his designated minions)* has declared that my friend MUST hold his nose and vote for the illegitimate bastards who would undermine our constitutional freedoms.  (Is my friend the only conservative voter in his church?)


Which draws a schism between himself and his duty to his church.  (And also between him and me, because my faith does not require me to make such schismatic decisions.)

I haven't been a member of the NRA for 20 years, but only last week I joined just because  I hoped it would piss off the hoplophobic people who denigrate me and my ilk because of our own personal beliefs about our constitutional rights (which are, I remind you .. "God Given".)

Now THE POPE is on record against me?

Brother, I take this as a personal slight.

My best friend must decide who to trust: his religious leader, or his friend of 20 years.

And is my friend going to get rid of his guns?  Well, neither of us are very good at our sport, but we enjoy both the activity and the community of pistol shooting.  I know what I'm going to do .. but what is HE going to do?

In truth, I'm only insulted.  Chagrined.
Dumb-struck by this unexpected shot in the back. (sorry, couldn't resist.)

But my Catholic friend ... I am concerned because this proposed document puts him in the uncomfortable position of having to decide whether to obey his spiritual leader, or do what he knows in his heart is the right thing to do.

How many other devout Catholics find themselves in the same quandary?

And how must the leader of a proud and righteous faith reconcile his good intentions with the harm which his arbitrary, unilateral pronouncements have imposed upon his followers?

I would like to say that I speak more in sorrow than in anger, but that whole anger thing kind of gets in the way of my good intentions.

"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 ....)

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.

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

Oregon shooting: Gunman dead at Umpqua Community College - CNN.com:

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!

Easy?

EASY

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.

Cause and Effect: You're Not In Kansas Any More .. you're in MISSOURI

Missouri’s lax gun laws makes it too easy for criminals to be armed | The Kansas City Star:
(by Mary Sanchez, September 18, 2015)

MARY WRITES AN OP-ED BLAMING HONEST PEOPLE FOR ABUSE OF THE LAW BY DISHONEST PEOPLE!

The question is, how did a felon get the gun? Pretty easily in Missouri or Kentucky was the point made by Kentucky chapters for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which is affiliated with Everytown For Gun Safety. Both Missouri and Kentucky have lax gun laws. Even people with serious records wouldn’t be flagged during many  gun sales. ,,, Studies have indicated a connection between when Missouri repealed its gun permit system in 2007, eliminating background check requirements for private handgun sales, with a doubling of the number of guns winding up at crime scenes. Loosening up the rules for the good guys who want guns also loosens the rules for the bad guys who want guns. It’s that simple.

I question Mary Sanchz's statement that eliminating gun permits doubled the number of "guns ...at crime scenes".   Her statistics may in fact be accurate, but to ascribe that increased statistic to local (state) recognition of the Constitutional Rights of her fellow citizens is wrong-headed.

The rejoinder is obvious, and Ms. Sanchez meets that head-on.

Well, almost:
,,,

 And yet, calls for evaluating gun ownership are always met with a dismissive response. It’s the reply that says: Criminals don’t abide by the law anyway, so don’t bother thinking that gun regulation will affect them? But why make it easier for them? This is what the legislators fail to grasp. Their intention is to stoically protect the Second Amendment. They give credence to conspiracy theories that believe any tracking of guns sold or backgrounds checked will open the door to federal troops confiscating America’s firearms.

You cannot eliminate crime by punishing honest, respectable people.  The only effect is to turn them into, essentially, assumed criminals without any evidence that they have bad intentions.

Mary, you do have a Crime Problem in Missouri.  We've watched your state turn into a shooting gallery over the past several years.

But that isn't caused by the Constitution.  It's caused by societal factors which your state  is unable, to address.   Nobody is pointing the finger at you; we know that these societal ills are endemic to today's social environment, where we try to make it right for poor people by making it more difficult for people who don't share their problems. As in: people who own guns legally are responsible for the crimes caused by people who own guns illegal

Why do people who should not be allowed to buy guns from private persons still get to do so?  It's a two-part question:

1. People who have guns don't want their guns to be registered, because it leads to confiscation.  There's an entire huge body of discussion behind that, but it's still true ... historically.
2. People who own guns and sell them privately do NOT have access the the National Instant Check System, which registered gun dealers do. AND By The Way .. there is no such thing as an non-licensed dealer.  Not in America.   We're either a Dealer, or we're a Private Citizen.  Don't ask me why, I'm not sure .. it should be possible for a private person to call into the NICS system and ask if Joe Blow who wants to buy their gun is legally permitted to do so, but we can't.  So blame it on the NICS, on Congress, on the President ... blame it on the Bossa Nova, but don't blame it on honest private citizens. 

So why is there so much gun crime in Missouri today, if not because of private gun sales?

Single parent homes; low income; dearth of honest jobs; and an entire segment of society that thinks it's admirable to break the law because the criminals they see on the streets have expensive cars, while honest people have to walk to work.  (IF they can find work!)   These are the conditions which lead to violence .. they're not the cause of violence.

Neither is the possession of a firearm a cause of violence.  Still, it is not a "condition of violence", either.  Millions of people own firearms and do not break the law, do not harm their neighbors, do not undermine the economic viability of their neighborhood.

And your presumption of guilt without rational justification isn't helping, Mary.  You're just letting your emotions cloud your thinking.  You think that there's too much violence in your state, and you are correct.  But you also think it's because "It's Too Easy For Criminals To Be Armed".

You have made the rhetorical assumption that Cause and Effect can be determined by your outrage.  In truth, it's much, much more complicated than that.

By conflating gun violence with gun ownership, you not only do a disservice to the millions of law-abiding gun owners who do not deserve to be the object of your outrage, but you distract our attention to the true progenitors of violence in our neighborhoods, in our cities, in our states and in our country.

Not that anybody wants to take your guns away, but ....

Why the US Leads the World in Mass Shootings:
(August 24, 2015)

Lankford says that the main lesson from the study is an obvious one: Mass shootings can be reduced if the number of guns in circulation is reduced, as happened after a spate of shootings in Australia. "I didn't come into this study with any gun control agenda—I just let the data speak for itself," Lankford tells Deutsche Welle. "Whether people are willing to act on it is another question."

Any suggestions, Mr. Lankford, about how this reduction might be accomplished?

How Aggressive, Incompetent Legislators Can Make Felons out of Free Men

Oregon Ex Post Facto Gun Registration Law (ex SB941)
(Which law makes it a felony to transfer a firearm between individuals without involving a third party and registering your gun.)

I'm not sure exactly when Oregon's "Register Your Gun To Transfer Your Gun" law is scheduled to actually become law, but I suspect that I've already violated the terms of that unconstitutional act.

I mentioned the other day last month that I had broken my gun.  (Well, the trigger.)  A friend offered to fix it for me, knowing full well that I and mechanical things don't get along.

Anyway, I gave it to a friend who is more mechanically inclined than I am to fix it.  I ordered the needful parts and had them sent directly to his home.  Then at the next match we were able to meet, he gave my now-fixed gun back to me.

Pretty simple, huh?

But I think .. depending on the day of the week when either transfer took place ... one or both of us may now be felons.

Here's a suggested scenario, which may or may not be true.

I broke my gun on Monday, and gave it to my friend to fix on Tuesday.  Wednesday the law came into effect.  On Thursday my friend returned my repaired gun to me.  On Friday my friend and I were arrested because we didn't go through a third party (someone with a Dealer's license) to register the transfer.

My friend is not a dealer, nor a 'registered' armorer .. which means nothing in this state but surely it's the next step in refining the terms of the bad bill which has been passed but possibly not yet enacted.

 (I don't know if this law applies to us this week.)

So .. when I transferred my gun to my friend to repair, I didn't process the 'transaction' through the (as yet non-existent?) legal process.

But when he gave it back to me, we still didn't ask The State for permission to perform this entirely innocent act ...

So are we both felons now?  Or if not, is ONE of us a felon and the other innocent ... for performing essentially the same act of transferring a firearm between us??

We may both, or one of us, have run afoul of the law.  Which of us should be sent to jail, and is the other innocent merely because of fortuitous timing?

Oregon Universal Registration Rules Contain Hidden Boobytraps

Gun Owner Registration Bill Gets Worse | Oregon Firearms Federation:
(June 02, 2015)

Still need a background check to loan a gun.  But if some way the loaned gun is involved in a felony, you are liable to face the same penalties as if you had not complied with the law.

This is Deja Vu all over again.

They've got you coming and going, so there is little or no incentive to comply.

As if Oregonians had any intention to do so.

 ...  

NYC: Why should you need a firearm?

Judge nixes New York City gun permit for firearms dealer | Fox News:
(May 24, 2015)

A judge won’t let a traveling firearms dealer carry a concealed weapon in New York City to protect himself and his wares from “criminals and terrorists.” Cavalier Knight applied for a gun permit from the New York City Police Department in 2014. He went to court when the application was denied. He claimed the NYPD violated his Second Amendment rights. But in a decision posted Friday, a judge rejected that claim while upholding New York’s tough gun control law, the New York Daily News reported Saturday.

The judge's decision was based on the premise that it was "pure speculation" that he might be subject to attack, and;

1. why should he be any more at risk than others in his business, who haven't asked for similar 'rights', and;
2. he has been selling guns for years and he has not been attacked yet, so why should he now be concerned?

Am I missing something here?

The Last Bulwark?

ISIS Names U.S. States for Attacks | PJ Tatler:

 “Out of the 71 trained soldiers 23 have signed up for missions like Sunday, We are increasing in number bithnillah. Of the 15 states, 5 we will name… Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, California, and Michigan,” the posting continues. 

Interesting:   we have a lot of states with strong gun control laws, and those are are ares which are threatened?

I just watched a Fox News video where we (individual citizens) are encouraged to protect ourselves.


That seems entirely reasonable to me.  Unfortunately, people in some states ( Maryland, Illinois, California and Michigan including others such as New York and New Jersey smf D.C.) will have problems protecting themselves when they have no guns because their LEGAL access to personal firearms is highly restricted by state/district law.

Because ... NOT Second Amendment Friendly. (Note: attached image from 2013 regarding Concealed Carry laws; not all information may be accurate today.   That might change tomorrow if the Dems have their way.)

Let's look at these states:

• VIRGINIA: What they really mean is DC.  Strong resistance to apportioning Concealled Carry Licenses.  Nobody likes guns except for (a) gangbangers and (b) those who want to defend themselves against gangbangers.   
• MARYLAND: See Virginia.  Read: BALTIMORE.
• ILLINOIS: Stay out of Chicago, ISIS.   The only ones with guns there are the gangbangers, but they ALL have guns.  Chi-town is just pleased as punch when they only have 499 murders per year within the city limits.   Recommend you look at MORTON GROVE.
• CALIFORNIA: Making strong inroads toward restricting "authorized" ownership of many most all firearms, because SAFETY.  Wide open to illegals of all sorts; y'all stop by y'hear?
• MICHIGAN: Thoroughly democratic to the point where they're almost as opposed to anyone owning a firearm as they are opposed to electing a non-Democrat to any public office ... right down to the Commissioner of Police in any major city ... both of them.   Avoid DETROIT; Nobody there has a job or any money, but they all have guns and they have nothing to lose.

Still .... we know what Colorado citizens said when their Governor started demanding restrictive firearms laws:   Shall Not Comply.   This is a new trend, and the timing is right because if ISIS Assholes Warriors start invading any Shall Not Comply state, they may discover that the police are as reluctant to enforce gun-control laws as the citizens are reluctant to obey those laws.   Politicians be damned, this is a true American State and the 'whole' population will not be ruled by the namby pambies who occupy Denver like a plague of locusts.

American Democrats hav always been just a little bit ... iconoclastic.  They think that 'cherished beliefs and traditions' are based on "error, superstition, or lack of crativity".

Not at all.  We're still pioneers in America, and we won't be ruled by Geneva.

American Conservatives "cleave to their guns and their God" (the nicest thing that President Obama has ever said about Conservatives), and not are so much invested in "Hope and Change". 

(We've seen how well that has worked out.)

In a very quirky way, this latest threat from the Muslim Fanatics serves to validate the Second Amendment.

For decades, Conservatives have insisted that the Constitution defines and supports traditional values and beliefs, and have ignored Liberal extremists who contend that we must change our ways, because the 'old ways' are outdated (and therefore wrong!)

Maybe the Second Amendment is the first bulwark against not only an American leadership gone wrong, but also against foreign intervention.

You think?