Armed Churchgoers In NEW JERSEY? When Hell Freezes Over!

A Republican state lawmaker wants to make sure all New Jersey churches, synagogues, and mosques have someone with a gun on hand to protect congregants.

  Assemblyman Ron Dancer, R-Monmouth, has introduced legislation that would allow the state's places of worship to select a "qualified person" to carry a concealed handgun during services.  "Especially in this era, places of worship are a terrorist target," Dancer told NJ Advance Media on Thursday. "These are worshippers. They're praying. They're totally defenseless."

Whether the bill will get far in the Democratic-controlled state Legislature is another story. 

Now that Chris Christie has been retired,  the new Democratic Governor Phil Murphy is busy undermining all of Christie's more 'lenient' Gun Control decisions.

NJ.COM:

Throughout former Gov. Chris Christie's tenure the state Legislature was controlled by Democrats. But over eight years, they were never able to mount a veto override, allowing the Republican governor to kill bills strengthening gun control, funding family planning services and and raising the minimum wage.
But with a new governor, one who's vowed to sign every gun bill that hits his desk and signed an equal pay executive order within hours of taking office, many of those bills are expected to resurface with different results this time around.
Starting Monday, the Legislature will revisit bills felled by Christie's veto pen, including those that would have the state rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and restore funding for family planning services.

(Funny, I always thought that the Democrats were suppose to be the  all-accepting Party, and the Republicans were the party of "imposing restrictions";  it appears I was wrong, all these years.  What would Jack K. Say?)

This may be the Opening Round of Republican vs Democratic 2nd Amendment controversy under the (Democratic) Murphy Regime.

As strange as it sounds, New Jersey-ites who support the Second Amendment have been "spoiled" by the former governor.

Salon Surprise

We can always expect from Salon (and her friends) the least reasonable interpretation of "Cause and Effect": she thinks that firearms violence stems from the "Right to Carry" laws ... which  encourages law-abiding citizens to exercise their right  to carry a firearm.

And she thinks that this is a HUGE surprise problem?

Right-to-carry laws lead to more violent crime: Isn’t that a huge surprise? - Salon.com:

One of the most contentious arguments within the larger gun control debate is over whether right-to-carry laws that make it legal for gun owners to carry loaded weapons in public, usually concealed on their person, make people safer. Gun rights advocates argue that packing heat is a prevention against crime and violence, invoking slogans like, "An armed society is a polite society." Gun control proponents, however, argue that a proliferation of loaded weapons is bound to lead to more violence, if only because people have easier access to the means to harm others.

Salon (and I speak of her as a person, for the sake of discussion) assumes that the proliferation of armed citizens is a factor in firearms violence.  I think she's an illiterate dork who doesn't understand the problems of inner-cities violence, where only the strong survive.
 (Or other violence, which needs no other excuse!)

Okay ... the most aggressive survive.

The fact is that people who legally carry a firearm (CHL, or "Concealed Handgun Licensees")  are NOT the progenitors of violence; they are, however, the persons who may be on the scene to counter illegal firearms aggression .... and they may be "there" before the police (who are often less-well trained than the CHL) arrive.

People who don't know about guns raise the question that, when cops show up at the scene of the shooting, they don't know which person with a gun is the "bad guy", and may end up shooting the "good guy".

This isn't a problem; the Good Guy is the one who lays down his firearm as soon as legitimate authority arrives. The good guys don't feel  that they are the equivalent of the police; they just  feel like the guy who plays his garden hose on a house fire until the firemen show up.

They're the Good Neighbor; they don't start the violence, they just want to stop it!
They are more than willing to yield the scene to (tardy) legitimate Law Enforcement Officers.

Good Neighbors just want all the 'bad stuff' to STOP!

Salon, and her friends who assume the worst of honest citizens, offer the suggestion that armed citizens are "A Problem".  

They're wrong

Good citizens care about their family, their friends and their neighbors.  The fact that they have made the exceedingly difficult decision to arm themselves isn't an indication that they are eager to shoot people; it just means that they have accepted the responsibility to protect themselves, their family, and (under the worst circumstances)  their neighbors. 

They may not even like their neighbors ... but are they still willing and able to protect them under the worst circumstances possible?
Think about it; do you like your neighbors enough to risk your life to save them?

And if you haven't decided to arm yourself to protect your family,
how comfortable are you when you decide to denigrate your neighbor because he or she is willing to lay down his or her life to protect your family?

Las Vegas Trade Show

Gun industry converges near Las Vegas mass shooting site:

The gun industry is holding its biggest annual trade show this week just a few miles from the site where a gunman slaughtered 58 concertgoers outside his high-rise Las Vegas hotel room in October using a display case worth of weapons, many fitted with bump stocks that enabled them to mimic fully automatic fire. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, pointed to the irony of the location and planned a protest to renew calls for tighter gun sale regulations, including expanded background checks.

Vegas has been the site of firearms trade shows for decades ... for the sponsors of the show to change the venue at the last minute because of the recent massacre by a crazed man would generate even more press, and at the same time validate the insane political statement (whatever it was) he gave his life to make.

To cancel the show would have the same effect.

But to continue with the planned schedule and venue sent the message that firearms were not the issue in his maniacal massacre; any effort to depict the private ownership of firearms in a negative light was ignored as not being worth the effort.  The Second Amendment stands on its own, even when the rights acknowledged are abuse by maniacs.

The National Rifle Association influences politicians by spending $14 MILLIONS in political contributions!

NRA’s influence comes from $14 million in spending — not just campaign contributions : Sunlight Foundation:
The National Rifle Association ("NRA") is 'accused' of contributing (according to "Open Secrets") a LOT of money to "Private Interests".

QUOTE:

All of this money, of course, is invested by the contributions and membership dues of the NRA. When people talk about money in politics, they often point to the money that a candidate receives from a special interest (regardless of the amount of that contribution) as evidence of undue influence. Nowhere is this more true than with the National Rifle Association. .... The NRA, according to OpenSecrets.org, has contributed about $593,000 in 2016, almost entirely to Republicans. And while contributions certainly tell part of the story, it is the NRA’s big campaign spending that makes up most of its influence: The group’s two political arms, the NRA Institute for Legal Action and the NRA Political Victory Fund, have spent $14.5 million opposing and supporting federal candidates, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by the Sunlight Foundation.

(emphasis added)

Hmmm ... so people who support the Second Amendment of the United States Contribution are willing to contribute (in membership fees, and voluntary contributions), to defend your constitutional rights?   And this is "A Bad Thing"?

Don't Americans have the right to give money to institutions which support their Constitution?
If so ... why should they be publically castigated. when more frivolous issues are supported with no comment at all?

Here is just a short list of charities which enjoy an annual contribution of $13,000,000 and up (and not all of these fundings are from private contributions):

You can get an "overview" here; note that most of the major participants are labor and educations unions.   But there are some "outliers", such as ....

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

TOTAL FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES

$46,114,330

WETA: "Washington's source for compelling television and inspiring classical music"
Net Assets:                                                                                                                          $136,239,734

The Washingtone

Founded in 1961, WETA (The Greater Washington Educational Telecommunications Association) is the leading public broadcasting station in the nation's capital, serving Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia with educational, cultural, news and public affairs programs and services. WETA's mission is to produce and broadcast programs of intellectual integrity and cultural merit that recognize viewers' and listeners' intelligence, curiosity and interest in the world around them.

So we are willing to accept the societal expenditure of $46M to save puppies, and $136M  for "compelling television and inspiring classical music", but we are unwilling to accept the societal expenditure of $14M to protect our constitutional rights?

Oh ... and that fourteen million dollars contributed to the NRA is privately donated ... voluntarily, by the participants.

But the puppy-fund and the television funds are ... you guessed it ... supported by your tax dollars.   You don't get to choose; it's federal!

Don't you sometimes wish that you had the option of deciding which cause your tax dollars went to?

Wouldn't you rather contribute to the Society for Maintenance of Ethnic Russian/Siberian Huskies (SMERSH) than the Preservation of Urasian French Female Siberians (PUFFS)?

I'm telling you ... this society is going to the dogs!

Yeah ... right!: (Virginia Guns Rules)

One gun a month, three guns a month , 20 guns a month ... who are they to determine what is the "correct number"  of guns should be appropriate for someone to exercise their Second Amendment Rights?

Assembly 2018: One-Gun-a-Month Bill Dies in Senate Courts | Community Idea Stations:

“When people roll up to New York and they laughing at how many guns they were able to collect in Richmond, that should be a problem for everyone. And to think those guns are all going in the hands of legal, law-abiding citizens, that's laughable, because you know it's not," he said. "We need the General Assembly to step up."

"Legal, law-abiding citizens?  What's the problem here?  Is it in your stars, or in your selves?

What?  Are they embarrassed because someone is "laughing about how many guns they were able to collect"?  How DARE they (Virginia Legislature) assume that the number of guns a month purchased should be considered an indicator of probity?

I never knew a politician who was so embarrassed by his constituents laughing at him that he took "stern measures";

The measure is one that both former Governor Doug Wilder and Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney have called for reinstating.
“There’s no reason that a person needs to have more than 12 guns in a year to go purchase. I think that’s just something that's common sense that needs to be brought back, it’s practical,” said Mayor Stoney.

If it were the First Amendment issue, they are liable to being  stoned by their constituents for their obvious willingness to restrict their constitutional right;  everybody like to shoot their mouth off,.

But a "Second Amendment issue" is different; not "everybody" likes to own guns, so it's an easy target.  (forgive the pun)  Not everybody is eager to shoot their guns off.

In contrast; how many statements in opposition to their opinions are to be legally allowable, and who may chose which statements (guns?) are permissible?

Who are they to decree what is the "Practical" number of guns a law-abiding citizen should purchase?

Are they merely embarrassed by "people who roll up to New York" and "laughing at how many guns the were able to collect in Richmond"?

Are Virginia legislators more concerned about their "image" than their service to their constituents?

Or is this something more personal? 
Is Virginia all that eager to obviate the Second Amendment Rights of its' citizens?

(Hard to believer, from one of the original 13 colonies!"

"the fault, dear brutus is not in our stars, but in our selves that we are underlinings"

Firearms Safety Classes: Teaching "Beginners"

It surprises me to learn that some people dismiss the challenge of teaching "Beginning Shooter" classes.

Rodney Dangerfield must’ve taught beginners | Cornered Cat:

 ... teaching beginners is the most dangerous and difficult task any shooting instructor ever faces. And yet we tend to look down on people who teach such classes. Even instructors sometimes look down on themselves for not teaching ‘real’ classes.

I've been teaching "advanced" classes for eight years, and I have never volunteered to teach "Beginners" because I'm a big coward.

Sometimes, though, it's impossible to avoid that challenge; this is especially true when beginners over-value their gun-handling skills because of ignorance, or bad habits which can be developed because they have become accustomed to handling guns without proper supervision.
Because  they over-rate their gun-handling skills, they often sign up for "advanced" courses ... and they show up at one of my "Introduction to USPSA" classes because they expect me to teach them the advanced techniques of skills they haven't already developed for themselves.

Ultimately, though, no matter how "experienced" the student population may seem to be ... we are all "beginners" when it comes to learning new techniques ... such as drawing from a holster, and competing under the pressure-cooker of a limited amount of time to competitively complete a course of fire.

This is the purpose of the first hour of an "Introduction to USPSA" class which I teach monthly; it is designed to identify and correct "bad" gun-handling practices.

Even though I'm careful to confirm that my students are experienced ...(and during the first hour ... the "Lecture" hour ... of a class, I ask each student to describe his/her experience with his pistol,, with competitive shooting and simply "Drawing From The Holster") ... I am still surprised by the occasional student who seems "Unclear On The Concept".

This class was originally envisioned as an "Advanced Course"; designed to hone skills which have already been learned and practiced, but not to the level of achievement needed to compete successfully.  Over the six or seven years I've been teaching it, the course has been modified to teach competent, experienced pistol shooters to compete in a narrow range of gun-handling skills specifically tailored for competition.

Unfortunately, it has been interpreted by prospective students as a class which would teach only 'advanced' (slightly) 'gun-handling skills' for people who have never learned to draw from the holster and engage a myriad of targets.

Well .. that's okay by me.  I can do that.  In fact, I think it's a better use of my time, because the people who already compete in USPSA classes probably already think they know everything they need to know, and this class may serve to introduce new competitors to the sport.

But I don't willingly teach "beginner" students; still, from time to time I find myself confronted by students who are unfamiliar with the controls of his/her firearm ("oh, this gun doesn't have a safety") or who do not know how to safely draw and re-holster a firearm, or whose grip is unsafe.

Even so, the class still serves several useful purposes.

Every year I have to correct the grip of at least one unsafe  student who practices the "Left Thumb Over The Right Wrist" grip, because he/she is unaware that the slide on a semi-automatic pistol WILL recoil and chew their support-hand thumb!

I suspect that these people are accustomed to shooting revolvers, in which practice it is a viable technique to manage recoil.

However, when shooting semi-automatic pistols, gripping your pistol so that your thumb is in the way of the slide-recoil is a Bad Habit because if you put your thumb in the path of a recoiling slide, you  may need to spend an uncomfortable period of time learning to shoot a semi-automatic pistol without benefit of the supporting thumb.  That recoiling slide will at least break your thumb; and that is the BEST outcome you should expect.

So keep your thumb along the side of the grip, and you won't be hiring a surgeon to replace your thumb with your big toe.

No, I'm not kidding about this.

There are several indications that The Student is not  competent to undertake an Advanced Pistol Course:

• The Student cannot holster his/ pistol using one hand, without using the other hand to find where his holster is. We can teach this, even though it may not be the most 'important' lesson;
• The Student cannot find his safety without looking, or does not automatically "safe" his pistol when holstering.  This should not be part of an advanced course, but it is still important.
• The Student is unaware that his pistol, if so equipped, has a thumb safety which must be engaged before holstering; and which must be dis-engaged up on the draw; I'm not sure that this student is ready for a competition course, but perhaps he/she missed the "Introduction" course.  Better that they learn it here than not know it at all;
• The student, when responding to commands or instruction when holding his/her pistol, pivots his/her body in such a manner as to point his/her pistol at the instructor when receiving instructions.  I'd rather this student learn from a different instructor; I get nervous when people point guns at me!

One of the most difficult of "Bad Habits which a "new competitor must overcome is the nonchalant gun-handling skills which one develops when he goes to the range in a casual environment of "shooting at the range with friends", 

This encourages them to leave handguns on the counter, to casually be picked up and otherwise handled without supervision,

Even though I invariably announce that the ("New Shooter") class will be taught using USPSA rules of gun handling, I still see students wandering around the shooting bay with a pistol in their hand, usually with the purpose of asking me a question about some semi-obscure nuance of gun-handling practices.

Perhaps I need to loudly announce: "STARTING NOW! to emphasize the onset of strict firearm safety practices on the range.  One would expect that intelligent firearms owners would understand immediately, but they have been desensitized by years of casual firearms-handling practices.

(That's what you get when you go to the range with "friends", who excuse your execrable gun\-handling habits.  They are not your friends, if they let you get away with being unsafe.Still, the course advances the purpose of training pistol-shooters in "best practices" of safely handling a pistol.)

They do not realize that the rules of safe gun-handling are in effect ANY time you are shooting.  Even in the company of close friends (who are willing to forgive you if you are an unsafe dork).

If you are in my class, and you break tis basic rule of Firearms Safety ... I won't forgive you.
In fact, I'll yell at you.  With any luck, I'll embarrass you in front of your friends; perhaps I'll convince you that you should never carry a gun.

Then you need to convince me (and yourself) that you are Competent.
That's the best possible outcome of a training session.

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?

Listening to "The Lizard Brain" will get you killed.

In this video, the man was confronted by "polite police", and then it went bad.   It's usually not a good idea to wave a gun at the police when you're outnumbered and being arrested

Teen's Friends Claim He was "Executed" by Police. Then the Cops Release the Dashcam. [VIDEO] | Tribunist

Folks will say all kind of shit make bizarre statements to excuse the actions of their friends.  But your friends aren't listening to you; they're listening to "The Lizard".    That's the back-part of your brain which causes you to react emotionally rather than with reason.  You know ... the Mini-Me.

Here's the five-minute video: if you don't want to watch somebody being shot, don't watch it.




Referencing the comments to the original video, someone said "he tried to cock the gun" (racked the slide on his semi-auto pistol); nobody can figure out why that comment was made, because it has no bearing on the consequences of the (ineffective) resistance shown here.

"there would be no need to cock it now"
That's true, but irrelevant.  In times of stress,  even experienced shooters will do dumb things.

Example: in training for pistol competition (IPSC or USPSA ... look it up) people who are familiar with their pistol, but not experienced in the time-pressure of competition, often "rack the slide" after performing a reload ... even though they "know" there is already a round  in the chamber.   This wastes precious time and does not reward the shooter.  That's what is happening in the video.

But The Lizard Will Not Be Denied.

The "Lizard Brain" instinctively over-rides the "Primate Brain" because the shooter desperately wants to know that there is a round in the chamber, so he does the one thing that he knows will chamber a round.   This is a waste of time, in a moment when survival depends on Correct Decisions made in a matter of  micro-seconds.   If these people were capable of Correct Decisions, they would have found a more demanding, but safer, line of work.

People have died from this instinctive inability to correctly prioritize response to aggression.  As you see here.

When considering a life style which includes firearms, Training and Practice can imprint more productive instincts, such as always knowing how many rounds are left in the pistol and whether a reload is necessary.

Criminals who are accustomed to using a firearm as a means of intimidating a victim are not likely to have sought training, nor have they practiced to establish "correct actions" in their Lizard Brain.   "Correct Actions" are foreign to them, as is retrospect and comparing the rewards of their actions vis a vis the potential dire consequences.   They are merely thugs, and bullies. To them, a gun is not an instrument of survival; it's just a tool, which they consider needs no more expertise  than to know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.   Crime is easier than work; that's all they know, and all they need to know.

We are fortunate that thugs and bullies are so arrogant that they don't even bother to learn the nuances of their tools; they are too lazy to learn a productive skill.  If they were not thus, they would become carpenters and live a long and (ultimately) more productive life.

And they would not resort to common thuggery if it were not so easy to do; they might find it a difficult lifestyle to survive in a nation of armed citizens.

Liberals, of course, do not acknowledge this lesson.   They find it "uncomfortable" to be critical of their philosophical brethren.

NY Assemblyman: " Limit gun owners to one gun, one bullet"

"That does not repeal the Second Amendment!    It just makes it work for everyone."

[Video] NY Assemblyman Thomas J Abinanti: Ban guns with military origins, register all guns. - The Gun Feed: [Video] 

Um ... no.
That doesn't work to reduce gun violence; it only serves to impose arbitrary restrictions on the law-abiding ... who aren't part of the problem, but are part of the solution.

"Whether it's guns on the street, or people with mental problems ... " does a good job of defining the two most likely sources of gun violence; but doesn't address the question of how he plans to make these progenitors of gun violence abide by gun-control laws.

I challenge you to put more money into mental health facilities, rather than cutting the services which are out there today.

Um ... yes.   

Nobody doesn't think this is important, but even this doesn't shield us from people who are just evil, or politically motivated.    Or are just all "I'm Mad As Hell, And I'm Not Going To Take This any More!"   Against these classes, there is no defense except retaining our right to defend ourselves, our families, and our communities.

As for the mentally ill, Psychologists and other mental-health practitioners will be the first to state categorically that it's impossible to predict when someone will reach his tipping point and rampage.

Which rather obviates his original thesis, which is that gun control can limit rampage.  It can't.

The criminals, the crazies, they will find a way.

And then you're all on your own, cursing the New York Assemblyman who has a plethora of ways to keep firearms out of the hands of the innocents, but knows better than to suggest a way to keep firearms out of the hands of murderers.

OH!  And about that ... if he REALLY want's to minimize firearms violence, he should be campaigning to impose the maximum sentence against those who commit violent crimes while in possession of a firearm.

Crooks understand "added time in prison".

Ring Ring!

Ring Ring:

"Allo, Mamacita?  I am sending you some money.  Use it to pay los coyotes to bring Pablito to San Diego.  Next month we can bring Estevez and his sister to El Norte".

Cash Remittances to Mexico Set $26B Record in 2017, Says Central Bank:

The latest figures from Mexico’s Central Bank (Banxico) show 2017 being a record-breaking year for receiving remittances by Mexicans abroad. From January to November 2017, Mexicans sent $26,167,00,000, the highest figure to date. In 2016,another record-setting year, Mexicans sent $24.1 billion. Banxico reports that 97 percent of the funds sent to Mexico came through wire transfers. Mexico’s second largest source of income was the export of oil for $18.5 billion in the first 10 months of 2017.

"A billion here, a billion there ... pretty soon you're talking Real Money ..."
(Everett Dirksen apparently didn't say that .... exactly)

A gun in your home increases your risk of death

A 2014 study by the American College of Physicians has "determined" that having a gun in your home increases your risk of violent death.

Well, we're all going to die ... that's a 100% data factum which has not been addressed by this study.

Drum roll, please:

The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household MembersA Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians:

 Background: Research suggests that access to firearms in the home increases the risk for violent death.
 Purpose: To understand current estimates of the association between firearm availability and suicide or homicide.
Firearm accessibility was determined by survey interviews in most studies; misclassification of accessibility may have occurred. Heterogeneous populations of varying risks were synthesized to estimate pooled odds of death.

 Conclusion: Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.

Keep an eye on that balderdash-ish statement about "misclassification", because here's the punch line, where the authors list their data sources:

The "Kellerman Studies" of 1992 and 1993 are listed among their primary sources.

The Atlantic ("The False Promise of Gun Control": March, 1994) provided a long-winded (and generally incomprehensible) explanation of why Kellerman's conclusions ("a gun in your home creates a 43% chance that you will die a violent death", or words to that effect). don't prove the point that he .... and this later study ... were trying to make.

Invester's Hub provides a much more to-the-point explanation of why Kellerman has been debunked.

(There are other sources, but this one hasn't been referred to before here, and it seems to be a more legitimate source than the gun-websites I've linked to previously.)


It has been said that "The Best Way To Tell A Lie Is To Tell The Truth Unconvincingly".

The corollary is equally valid; the best way to tell the truth is to tell the lie unconvincingly.

Any study which cites Kellerman as a reference source is readily identifiable as a lie.

The mere fact that you have a firearm in your home is not a sound basis for the conclusion that you will die a violent death ... unless you are a criminal and have a gun in your home to defend yourself against your rivals in crime, which typifies Kellerman's study subjects.

If you are a law-abiding citizen, the presence of a gun in your home only provided you with a valid means of defense against home-invasion. 

If you use that gun to attack family members, it only proves that you are already the victim of your own flawed personality.

Nothing more.

Oh, and the quote about "Pooled odds of Death"?  That's just bullshit.

Registration = Confiscation

Joe presents a frightening (and real-life) scenario illustrating exactly the reasons why firearms owners are so adamantly opposed to Registration:

Miss a deadline, lose your gun rights forever | The View From North Central Idaho:

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
The state of New York wants to .....

This (click on the link above) logically feeds back to Universal Background Checks, where both the buyer and the seller are required under force of law to provide information (to either a state or a federal "clearing house") about both the firearm and the buyer ... and incidentally, about the seller as well.

The New York "SAFE" Act requires a level of reporting all details of an otherwise-legal transaction to the level where it's difficult to believe that the laws might have any other goal than to quell an otherwise legitimate firearms transfer between private citizens.

That the failure to comply with every jot and tittle of the regulations will result in penalties which are not only burdensome, but would deprive participants of their civil rights "forever" ... not to mention the confiscation of private property ... makes it apparent that the goal is not to regulate, but essentially to ban legal transfer of firearms between private citizens.

It's a "Witch Hunt", where civil rights are abrogated and the possibility probability of prosecution because of a simple  misunderstanding may cause the imposition of punishments which are too drastic to risk.

The Constitution was specifically designed to prohibit any level of government to threaten private citizens for exercising their rights.   While the state of New York may smugly continue to brow-beat its citizens, it is unbearable for the rest of us to watch The Lawyers work their sneaky wiles.

The consequences of such a law are that both buyers and sellers will be disinclined to submit to the law.  Honest people may lose their property and their freedom because they have not done anything wrong, in their opinion, than to oppose an unjust and burdensome law.

Any law which will not be obeyed is not a law, but a cause celebre.

It's a publicity stunt, and New York State should be ashamed of itself for imposing such a burden on its citizens.

Incomprehensible

I admit that I've blogged some posts which didn't make the point I intended, over the years, but this author published one post that I absolutely don't understand.

Perhaps someone can explain it to me; I'm old, so my friends tell me, but I didn't think I was mentally feeble until I read this.

View From The Porch: Proof I don't understand Kel-Tec's target demo:

Proof I don't understand Kel-Tec's target demo I mean, I've had a few customers I've thought were piss-drinkers over the years, but I don't know as I'd have called them that to their faces. Maybe I was doing it wrong. Bold strategy, Kel-Tec.

See the link above for the appended photo.

"It isn't Christmas until the lights are strung around the house"

I may be the Gumpy Christmas Blogger, but here's just one more reason I'm glad I don't have to string lights around the house every Christmas.

You could own all of Netflix. Or purchase 747 Boeing 747s, with change to spare. Or erase the national debts of Venezuela, Nigeria, Peru and Iceland, combined. Or, if you're Mary Horomanski, you could pay for one month's worth of electricity.

 Pennsylvania woman gets $284 billion electric bill, wonders whether it's her Christmas lights - Chicago Tribune:

Merry Christmas Eve

In the spirit of Peace on Earth and the universal Good Will Toward Men, here is your vision for the future:

By phasing out a mindset of absolute ownership of guns and creating a mindset of nonviolence, we can start on the path toward a safer and more secure society.

Binod Kumar, UD, nonviolence, gun violence, gun culture:

We expect that the gangsters will read and heed that hopeful message.

Borepatch has a more realistic message: enjoy!

Dear Washington State: You're screwed!

David Codrea details the sad state of Washington under Democrat Leadership:

Anti-gun laws are expected.  Sorry, but if it wasn't y'all, your neighbors voted for those idiots.

Proposed Washington Law Shows Gun-Grabbers Intend to Have It Both Ways | Oath Keepers: “November’s special election will give Democrats control of both the state House and Senate for the first time since 2012 during the next legislative session,” Seattle’s My Northwest reported Tuesday. “November’s special election will give Democrats control of both the state House and Senate for the first time since 2012 during the next legislative session.”

Expect your 2nd Amendment Rights to be thoroughly and painfully "Rogered".

Over-reacting much?

I personally think it's just SWELL that "officials" closed the school because some nerd crayoned the boys-room mirror.   If I was cloistered in a catholic boys-only school, I might not choose this particular means, but I'd be desperate to get the HELL out of there ... whatever it takes.

Thankfully, the "officials"  ... uh ... responded appropriately?

Or maybe just predictably.

Loyola Blakefield closed after racist graffiti in bathroom stall, Towson boys school says - Baltimore Sun:

Officials at Loyola Blakefield, a Catholic boys’ school in Towson, closed the school Thursday after threatening graffiti using a racial slur was discovered in a bathroom stall, administrators said. “We are heartbroken and outraged by this attack on the respect and dignity of members of our community, especially our African-American members who were targeted by this hateful message,” school President Anthony Day said in a statement. “We will discover who did this,” Day said, “and they will no longer be a part of our community.” The Jesuit school enrolls students in grades six through 12. School officials said they were working with Baltimore County police “to investigate this hateful act.”

Adding Insult to Injury in the State of Misery

Good intentions, I'm sure, but how happy will you be to prosecute a parent who has just lost his or her child due to an accident in the home?

Bill would hold adults liable for unsecured guns | Local News | newspressnow.com:

A Missouri state representative is proposing a bill that will hold an adult responsible if a child gains access to an unsecured firearm. Stacey Newman, D-St. Louis, is sponsoring House Bill 1343, which specifies that a person commits the offense of endangering the welfare of a child if he or she knowingly fails to secure a firearm. The goal is to eliminate the cases of children accidentally shooting themselves or others after gaining access to a firearm.

Welcome to England, where our anti-firearms laws are making this a safer hunting ground!

Other than that, remember that you cannot legally defend your person or home with a paring knife!
Or pepper spray.  Or anything else which might inconvenience your friendly  neighborhood home-intruder/murderer.   But you CAN use a Rape Alarm!

Violent crime rising in England and Wales, police figures show | UK news | The Guardian:

There have been “small but genuine” increases in murder and other violent crimes, including 13-14% increases in gun and knife crime in 2016, according to the latest police-recorded crime figures. The Office for National Statistics said the police data showed a 9% rise in overall crime in 2016, but that had to be viewed alongside the more authoritative crime survey of England and Wales, which showed an apparent 5% fall over the same period. These figures do, however, show an increase in violent crime, with a 10% rise in robberies, a 35% increase in public order offences and a 12% rise in sexual offences, including rapes.

,,, which has nothing at all, of course, to do with that when seconds count, the bobby on the block is only an hour or two away; and while you are waiting,  you are free to try to talk to your home intruder ... but you can't hurt him!

also check the Bearing Arms article here ...

Molan Labe

California Lt. Gov Gavin Newsome to NRA: "We ARE Coming for Your Guns":

 “We have a message for the NRA – National Rifle Association of America: If you hurt people, we ARE coming for your guns,” wrote Newsome. The message was accompanied by a video featuring Newsome speaking on how the only thing more certain than another mass shooting is the “moral cowardice” of Republicans who ignore it.

Hat Tip: Red State


What in the  WORLD is this asshole talking about?

What ever gave him the idea that NRA members want to "hurt people"?

I have no information which suggests that the NRA, or members of this organization, have ever  (Individually or as a group) deliberately hurt people except in defense of  innocents who were arbitrarily attacked by other  people.  So I don't know what this means.

And what has all this to do with "Mass Shootings".  Has he information about NRA membership of murderers in the news, recently?  If so, I've not been privy to that news.

The charge of "moral cowardice" is equally as confusing;. As far as I know, the only moral cowardice possible is the dis-inclination to defend self, home and family against assault by those who choose to attack those who they assume are unarmed ... Lord knows the attackers are never, ever, members of the NRA! 

Is he accusing Republicans of "Moral Cowardice" because of their political affiliation?  Someone should tell the Republican Party that their membership is composed of "Moral Cowards".  I'm sure that would be news to them!

I am currently a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA); but the moral equivalence of the NRA has never been an issue; if anything, I sometimes feel that the NRA is insufficiently supportive of the Second Amendment.


An "armed society" is a "respectful society".  So saith the memorable author Robert Heinlein, and more people know his name than know the name of Gavin Knowsless!

And not all members of the NRA are "Republicans" who "ignore"  ... well, the original article is lacking in the definition of moral fiber which is, in his view, ignored by NRA members.  Many of our members are Democrats, and members of other policies; our common ground is to just be left alone to enjoy a day hunting, or shooting a match on the range.

God knows that our intention is not to "hurt people"!

Newsome speaks of "Moral Cowardice", but I'm sure that my brothers who are armed are as astounded as I am to learn that we are so charged.   Many of us are veterans, as I am, and whatever cowardice we may rightfully be accused of is to go to a foreign country and fight a war for a cause which we did not agree ... but we went there, and fought a war we did not believe in, only because our National Leaders decreed that we should do so.

So to my mind, the only "Moral Cowardice" of which we may be accused, is the we didn't emigrate to Canada instead of allowing ourselves to be drafted.  Did Newsome ever face such a moral quandary?

Newsome, you've spent too much time in The Land of Fruits and Nuts.  You should get out more.  Go visit folks in flyover country and discover America.  You may be surprised to learn that most Americans love their country more than their state or their selves, and are willing to get shot at when they are drafted into that "Crazy Asian War" which you so conveniently missed.

Newsome's entire screed is based on disrespect for his country, his people, and anyone whose political viewpoint differs from his.

I lived in California for a couple of years in the 1970's; The weather was great, but  I sure am glad I  moved out of there before people like THIS nimrod came into power!

"Shot At And Missed"

Good intentions notwithstanding; if you have reason to shoot, it's better to hit your target than to miss.

Having been 'shot at and missed' is not a felon's deterrent to future crime escapades.

Robber killed by citizen shooter was shot at weeks earlier - San Antonio Express-News:

When local real estate broker Stephen Manion saw the news that a young father, carrying a concealed weapon and having dinner with his two children at a Popeyes restaurant on the South Side, had shot and killed a masked robber last week at about 8:30 p.m. Wednesday, it struck him as weirdly familiar.
 Around 8:30 p.m. on a Tuesday two weeks prior, Manion said, he was at a Dollar General on W.W. White Road “and stopped a robbery by firing at the very same guy.” Manion missed. A San Antonio Police Department spokesman, Officer Doug Greene, confirmed that detectives believe the suspect who fled the Dollar General that night was Andres Herrera, 19, who was killed a week later at Popeyes.

Has America Gone Crazy?

Sandy Hook Anniversary: These Are the Gun Control Laws That Have Failed Since the Newtown Shooting:

What seemed at the time like the horrifying turning point in the American gun debate—a gunman in Newtown, Connecticut, slaughtering 20 children and six adult employees during the school day after killing his mother—now instead seems like the moment the United States decided no tragedy was too great to change federal gun laws. More than 200 state-level gun laws have passed since Sandy Hook, but every major attempt at federal legislation has failed, even as shootings with ever-higher body counts keep coming. 

Yes.

Madmen arise in any society; they don't obey laws, but here ... in America ... they take advantage of the freedoms which our country holds most dear.

There is little we can do about that, without infringing on our own constitutional rights.

The problem isn't with the constitution; the problem is with our society.   Will we give up the rights which our progenitors fought for, because we now realize that we have created a "sick" society?

Our system of government is deliberately "skewed" to protect our rights.  That some people abuse those rights is not the fault of the laws, nor the Constitution; it's something in our national character which promoted aberration.

It may have begun when President Reagan undermined the Mental Health System.

Reagan observed a system which regularly locked up people with mild psychotic symptoms, and determined that it undermined the civil rights of people who were "just different".  He acted to correct this social injustice, and people who were committed for no greater offense than being 'different" were set free and thus protected from the distrust of their society.

Was Reagan wrong?  Is he the cause of the slaughter we have recently experienced?

As is the case in many decisions to protect individuals at the expense of the general population, this single act may have served to ignore delusional people, who have become a larger portion of our population than was earlier allowed to remain free. 

Whatever the cause or the effect, America today seems to have its fair share of crazies who feel no compunction against acting out their rage.

And the few sane people left ,,,

 ("I fear all are mad except me and thee, and I worry betimes about thee!")

... now suffer the consequences of a society which is so "free" that the madmen are ruling the institution.

Well ... the politicians, of course. 

But I was speaking about normal people.

Christmas and Adolescent Angst

There is nothing like trying to hang long (snarled) strings of wire and bulbs from the eves of the house ... and then trying to find the one bulb that is burned out ... to suck the Christmas Spirit from the heart of a teenage boy.

About the time I moved on to College I realized it was a lot warmer in the house, so I unsnarled the wires and tested all the bulbs in the living room.  (I recall my father's paternal pride when he remarked:  I was wondering how old you would be when you figured that out.)

The next year, we built a new set of light strings ... wired in parallel.   My father was disappointed when I did that; I think he enjoyed my annual outrage.   If nothing else, he kept track of what new curse words I had learned since the previous year; because I kept coming home for Christmas, and the box 'o bulbs was always waiting in the attic.  (Pop claimed his rheumatism made it too hard for him to climb the ladder ... it always seemed to kick in toward the END of Elk Season.)

Now I live in an apartment, and if anyone is going to climb a ladder to decorate the place it won't be me.  My landlord went out of town to visit his kids for the rest of the month, so even HE won't be bugging me to "lend him a hand".

My afternoon has been spent watching my neighbors hang out their lights.  It went so fast, I almost missed it.  They didn't seem to have any problems.

Probably just "new technology".

A Credit to American Ingenuity?

[Video] Head-shot on a Whitetail Doe with .50 BMG [He missed but the deer still dies] - The Gun Feed: [Video] Head-shot on a Whitetail Doe with .50 BMG

  [He missed but the deer still dies]

"Who knows?  The next time I may actually hit the animal!"

Well, that's something to look forward to.

Lies, but without even the courtesy of statistics or a "thank You Ma'am"!

NRA hijacks bipartisan gun bill. Now it's too dangerous to pass.:

Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul. As a package, “Fix NICS” would keep guns from domestic abusers — while “Concealed Carry Reciprocity” would force states to allow people to carry concealed guns in public even if they are domestic abusers, have other dangerous histories, or lack even the most basic safety training to carry concealed guns in public.

USA Today is among the many public forums which have deliberately lied about current  (and proposed)  firearms legislation, and their agenda is to completely disallow the free exercise of the Second Amendment.

There are no state or federal laws, currently active or proposed, which would:
"force states to allow people to carry concealed guns in public even if they are domestic abusers, have other dangerous histories, or lack even the most basic safety training to carry concealed guns in public. "

There are NO states which have enacted gun-control laws which "force states" to allow convicted felons or domestic abusers to be allowed to carry concealed firearms.    That's just stupid!

How many times must this point be emphasized, to deny the false hoods engendered by public forums?

Intelligent people would probably read the statement, and dismiss it without needing to cite other resources.

Stupid people will read the USA TODAY article, and take it at face value; after all, it's USA TODAY And they wouldn't lie to us!

The Big Lie

There was a propaganda technique (often utilized by the Russians in the 20th century) which proposed that if you tell a lie which is so obviously WRONG ... many people will believe it because "who would tell such a horrible lie, if it was not true???"

Well, many people use The Big Lie to argue against facts which are obviously true, and unfortunately it is all-to-often accepted as "TRUE" because who would lie about that so disingenuously?

Answer: people who think you are stupid enough to believe obvious lies.

There are no states which allow convicted domestic abusers to possess firearms, let along "force" them to do so. 

Second Amendment Supporters recognize that there are a sub-genre of people who are not responsible to carry firearms, and domestic abusers have proven their poor judgement.

USA TODAY is just one of the public forums which abuse their privilege to report the news, in order to publish their bias on social issues ... about which they are insufficiently informed.

"Throw 'em In Prison!"

Welcome to the Garden State ... bring a gun, we'll have you cultivating a prison garden in no time!

This is the essential message that NJ Dem Sen. Bob Menendez prefers to send to travelers who enter New Jersey with a firearm ... and who are ignorant of the state's draconian firearm laws.

Sen: Jail CCW Holders If They Enter Jersey | The Daily Caller: WASHINGTON —

“Throw’em into prison for five years” is what New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez wants for any out-of-state concealed carry permit holder who enter his state with a firearm.
 “People violate our law — we are a state that has decided that we are against concealed carry weapons. We have stronger gun laws. We believe we have made the states safer as that,” Menendez told The Daily Caller Thursday. “They violate our laws, then whatever is the law, and they are found guilty of it, they should pay the consequence.”

 When pressed about travelers with concealed carry permits who may be detoured into his state by accident, he replied: “They know what our state’s law is. They should know what our state law is if they want to carry a concealed weapon. I don’t think that they just simply get detoured and they should think in advance when they are traveling.”

 He continued, “I find it amazing that Republicans who believe in state rights all of a sudden have a problem observing the state rights of those states that think that stronger gun laws is the way to protect citizens and that’s what I have to say about it.”


 New Jersey has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country. Its state troopers are known to pull over drivers and question them on whether they are carrying concealed firearms.  Unfortunately, some out-of-state travelers are not aware that the Concealed Handgun Licences issued in their home state are not recognized in New Jersey .. so when the drivers answer truthfully, they are arrested.  Their firearms confiscated.  And they may find themselves in jail.

In the New England States, the borders seem to be amorphous; drivers from one state assume that they are still "home", even though they may have unwittingly crossed a state line.  It is possible there to drive for one hour and find yourself having entered three states.

And they assume that the freedoms they enjoy "locally" are recognized in adjacent states.

Unfortunately, when they cross into The Twilight Zone which is (for firearms owners) New Jersey,  they are often not only surprised to learn that their Concealed Handgun License is not recognized, but their civil rights are similarly not recognized.

New Jersey is not alone in their determination to deny firearms owners their Second Amendment Rights:  Florida also has made it illegal to carry a firearm.

We need a federal law which recognizes the 2nd Amendment.  We need for all states to recognize this right.  We thought we had it, but we were wrong.

Universal backgrounds checks are just one side on the controversy. 

Universal carry rights are the other side of the issue, and as long as America is willing to impose upon the Second Amendment, we should (all states) pay as much attention to our universal rights.  as we do to our local limitations.

More Wapo Lies

The Washington Post is up in arms (so to speak) about new legislation which acknowledges the Second Amendment Rights of Americans.

The GOP's idea of gun control | Washington Post | heraldstandard.com:

Incredibly, what the Republican-led House appears ready to do is make it easier for people — including those with dangerous histories — to carry hidden, loaded guns across the country. 

No, what the Republican-lead house appears ready to do is to acknowledge the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a weapon ... which is enumerated in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

 The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 was the National Rifle Association’s “highest legislative priority,” so Republicans fell in line, brushing aside the reasonable objections of law enforcement officials about the dangerous consequences to public safety.

No, Republicans fell in line to acknowledge the right (already confirmed in most states) for law-abiding citizens to carry a weapon in all states if they have already been vetted in their home state to do so.

" ...— including those with dangerous histories — ..."

No state in the union will issue a Concealed Carry Permit to anyone with "dangerous history".

All states perform a thorough background on every candidate for a concealed carry permit'; nobody who has a criminal history will ever be issued a Concealed Carry Permit, in any state, if the candidate fails the background check.

There is no reason for the Washington Post to lie about this; they have a professional staff of researchers who can readily identify the process for allocating Concealed Carry Licences at both the state and (now) the national level.

The Washington Post lies about this because they choose to.

They are (apparently) politically against issuance of a firearms carry license to anyone, and they have obviously chosen to lie in order to ramp up public resistance to the new process.

Criminals ... those previously convicted of a crime ... are not likely to be missed in the vetting process.   EVERYONE who wishes to purchase a firearm from a legitimate dealer must be vetted by the current process to determine that purchases of firearms are not felons or otherwise forbidden to own firearms.

Of course, criminals who get their firearms from folks who steal guns and sell them on the black market will not go through this process; they never have.   When they do, they are committing another crime.    There's nothing new about this.

And when WaPo lies about the new effort to support America's First Freedom (the Second Amendment), they perform a disservice to the American people.

Most states have laws which permit individuals with no criminal background to carry a concealed weapon; this is what WaPo calls permission to  carry hidden, loaded guns across the country.

Their choice of verbiage is loaded to describe a legal process, but to express it in the most negative terminology possible.   Criminals already do this; under this new national law, honest people can protect themselves without the risk of running afoul of the widely varying laws of individual states;  all states will have the same standard, so if you are legally permitted to carry a concealed firearm in Florida, you may also do so in Washington.

This law merely standardizes laws so that honest people will not be harassed during interstate travel.
There is nothing dishonest, nefarious nor shameful in this law.

What is dishonest, nefarious and shameful is the way that the Washington Post has chosen to blacken its name before it is officially enacted.

It's Not Guns ... It's Men!

It's not guns, it's men. 

(Do not say "WHEW!" yet)


The Greenfield (MA) Recorder has an opinion article by Rob Okun which announces that the problem with violence in America might not be guns; he posits that the problem is Men.

My Turn: Men, we can, and should, do better:

... there’s a common denominator among all of the shooters that we in the pro-feminist men’s movement are blue in the face from shouting from the rooftops for decades: They’re all men.

Well, he may have a point there.  I don't know anything about the "Pro-feminist men's movement", and I haven't seen a whole lot of blue-faced guys at pistol matches for the past .. oh, I don't know ... THIRTY YEARS! 

But he may still have a point.
After all, how many mass shootings are committed by women?

Zero?  (Ignoring that the person who provided guns for the Colorado school shootings was a woman.   Women as enablers?  Who knew?)

(Almost everyone!)

I suppose it's legitimate to posit that women are more likely to be "enablers" than killers in the Pro-feminist Men's Murder Class (Dylan, et al).  Which may not be the author's point, but it's what I get from his writing.  Still,  I'm a bit concerned about this one tiny point he makes:

 It’s time for Congress to fund the Centers for Disease Control to conduct a study of how boys are socialized, starting with preschoolers. I’ve proposed this to an aide to Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal. Please, senator, introduce the legislation. 

Ouch!

Given that the CDC has been partially defunded because of their biased political stance against firearms,  this is like throwing baby chicks to the alligators;  gobble gobble gobble.   Let us ignore that the CDC lost a TON of funding from the federal coffers a decade or two ago because of their obvious anti-2nd Amendment bias.  The Namby Boys still haven't forgiven the NRA for that.

 What else? The NRA considers most men tacit supporters, and unless they hear otherwise, they have us right where they want us — silent,

Tacit?   Us?

I'm not sure what men are "tacit supporters" of.   I had to look it up.  Most men I know aren't "tacit" supporters of anything;   They are either indifferent, against, or balls-to-the-wall for it.   Life's too short to be "tacit".   And as for the NRA, they either hate it or they pay their annual dues.

There's no crying in baseball, and there's no "tacit" in guns.

Tacit this, Robie.

You people are beginning to piss me off!

You know, there are a few opinionated articles which just cry out for someone to set them straight.

Unfortunately, these articles seem to be (increasingly) grounded in websites which require that the respondents adhere to strict rules of identification.

It's not enough that we have to identify ourselves, we also have to identify the blog website with which we  re associated.   These folks want not only to know who you are, but what Blog Site you support!  Why the HELL do they need this information .. to the point where you are forbidden to post  a comment without giving up your blog site?

Are they looking for personal blogs which oppose their political viewpoints?  And when they identify these people .. what will they do with that information?

*BTW .. as far as I can tell, if you don't  have a blog .. you can't enter a comment!*

Well, hell, every body who know me knows that I'm a easy-going kind of guy.  I don't mind giving out more information about my personal identity than would ordinarily seem to be reasonable just to justify the fact that I have an opinion.

(Sorry,  urping all over my keyboard here ... they need my WEBSITE to justify my comment?)

Personally, I think it's bizarre that some folks are so hoity-toity that they need to be assured their commenters have an actual WEBSITE (read: blog?) before they will accept a comment.

Why would my opinion be more legitimate if I have a website, than if I did not?

Oh, just TRY to enter a comment on these websites if you don't have a BLOG!
The curious thing is ... I only bump into this certification process when my comment is going to be  something like:  "Hey, wait a minute now, this is all bullshit!"

In other words, I encounter this strict requirement to identify my websites where I strongly disagree with their printed opinions; which is to say, "Liberal" websites.   "Conservative" websites don't seem to impose this "tracking" requirement nearly as frequently.

Conservative websites don't seem to give a shit who you are or where you are coming from.  They just take whomever you are at face value.   Are they less fearful

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed this bizarre requirement from Liber websites?

Wishful Thinking? ("Too Much Ordnance in One County"?)

Slate questions whether the Government can bypass the Second Amendment by abrogating the right of law-abiding vendors to sell firearms.

The cited 9th Circuit Court decision that a local ordinance which prohibits "too many gun stores in one municipal locality" (not a direct quote) is a legitimate restriction on the single product which is protected by the Constitution.

The question is whether the 2nd Amendment allows a 2nd gun store to establish itself in the same community where another gun store already exists.

California has decided that ... no, you cannot.

The 9th circuit court has decided that local zoning rules allow a municipality to limit the number of gun stores in a given area does not violate the Second Amendment: hey, you already have one gun store in this county ... we've done our part!

OPINION:

If these were two shoe stores opening in the same county, the local government would not impose an ordnance restricting freedom of trade; But because their product is firearms (protected by the 2nd Amendment, which shoes are not) the locals feel free to impose an ordnance proscribing "too many gun stores" in one county.

Whatever happened to Free Trade in America?  Oh, it's all politics.

9th Circuit rules there’s no Second Amendment right to sell firearms.:

Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to sell firearms to the public? No, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday in Teixeira v. County of Alameda, a landmark decision affirming the government’s constitutional authority to strictly regulate gun shops. The 9–2 ruling is a victory for gun safety advocates who feared judicial aggrandizement of the right to bear arms could invalidate myriad laws governing firearm commerce. The decision may be imperiled, however, if the plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court, where conservative justices are increasingly eager to expand the scope of the Second Amendment.

So ... if the 2nd Amendment acknowledges our right to purchase firearms, can a local ordnance legitimately prevent us from choosing between twocompeting  purveyors of firearms?   Whatever happened to the American right to buy the best product at the best price?

Oh .. it's not constitutionally protected.  And besides, they don't like guns.

Okay, I get it.

Someone put a few dollars in their pocket.  It's all about graft, and not about freedom.

But ... oh hell, isn't their a law against bribery?   And aren't elected officials above all that?

Wishful Thinking!

NOTE: Just a casual set of meandering thoughts; it was NEVER my intention to suggest that local officials have been influenced in their decision!

Appeals Court Ruling:

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a swipe at 2nd Amendment absolutists by ruling that, however one interprets the Constitution’s guarantee of a right to “keep and bear arms,” it doesn’t mean that gun shops have an absolute right to locate themselves anywhere they wish.

(You have a right too keep and bear arms, but that doesn't mean you have a right to BUY arms!)

PS: I hope that the local folks who have decided that the 2nd Amendment is not an imposition on firearms dealers don't think that I'm at all denigrating their high moral position.