Gun Truths

My Two Cents…The Sig 220 Elite Dark TB

2011-02-01T17:11:00.004-06:00

First and foremost, I am a tried and true 1911 lover. There is NOTHING better than a quality 1911 in my mind. If you see me out and about more often than not there is a 1911 on my hip. With that being said, I’m very smitten with the new Sig Sauer P200 Elite Dark TB that I picked up this past weekend after doing some trading. I expect Sig pistols to shoot very well. I own several different Sigs in various calibers and sizes and they all perform very well…but there’s something about this new 220 that just…fits.

One of the perks of being self employed is being able to schedule some “me” time during the week. Today was one of those days. I met a friend of mine at a local range to blow off some steam and send some rounds downrange. My normal routine for trying out a new pistol is to load every magazine I have on hand and run through them as quickly as I can get the front sight back on target. This will usually show me if there’s going to be a issue that needs to be addressed. I don’t particularly go for accuracy during this; combat accurate center mass shots are good enough for me during this stage. I loaded 5 magazines with a mix of Federal and Magtech 230 grain ball ammo, took a good stance and went to work. After those 5 magazines…there was one HUGE hole ever so slightly to the right of dead center mass. No failures of any kind during some rather rapid shooting, reloading, etc. (The one thing you have to remember is to remove the thread protector from the threaded barrel...or it will remove itself)

After this little non scientific test, I loaded out all 5 magazines once again and tested out its accuracy...no surprises. As with most modern pistols, it is capable of much better accuracy than I am. As long as I did my part, it was no problem poking holes basically right on top of each other.

I don’t know if it is the new Hogue ExtremeTM Duty aluminum grips, the SRT/Short trigger setup but this 220 is a definite shooter. From a low ready position with a flash sight picture in double action it was almost too easy to drill center mass every time. I can’t say it will replace my 1911 as a daily carry gun, but it will join them in carry rotation with a high level of confidence.

For more information:

http://www.sigsauer.com/Products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspxcategoryid=6&productid=264

Time to take the fight to them

2009-04-05T11:37:00.001-05:00

The time for sitting back and wondering is over. We have to take the fight to the antis. Use their tactics against them. Every single time one of the whack nuts shoots people ina "gun free zone" we need to start pounding it over and over again how the current laws are useless, and how a single permit holder might have saved lives. They don't give us any quarter when it comes to using these incidents against us, time to do the same.
For example, ABC is going to run a BS 20/20 hit piece called Americas toxic addiction to guns. Do you REALLY think it's going to provide ANYTHING other than misinformation making all gun owners look bad? It's a political hit piece designed to garner support for another far reaching and permanent AWB
Someone on AR15.com posted a letter to send to your local ABC stations that run 20/20 I've sent it out, and I suggest you do the same

"Dear Sir or Madam,

I am a responsible gun owner and a firm believer in the right of law abiding citizens to own guns to defend themselves and their families from criminal predators. While I believe that the vast majority of police officers are decent and honorable individuals who do whatever they can to protect the safety of private citizens, the undeniable fact remains that the police cannot possibly protect everyone, or even a small percentage of the population, because that is not their intended purpose, nor are they staffed or funded to do so. For this and many other reasons, we cherish our time honored rights under the Second Amendment.

It has come to our attention that your station intends to air a segment on an upcoming 20/20 program titled 'America's Toxic Addiction To Guns.' It would appear, based on the program title alone, that this segment will present a very negative and hostile view of the Second Amendment.

We are asking you to not air that segment of the program, please, because we view it as unacceptable for your network to disseminate false and misleading information that undermines our right to self defense to the viewing public.

If you do choose to air this segment despite our objections, we are going to organize a grassroots boycott, at the local level, of all the corporate sponsors whose advertisements appear during the program in question. We have thousands of members of the National Rifle Association here in this city, and our membership will no longer purchase goods or services from those corporate sponsors. Furthermore, we will be sending letters to each of them to explain why we have taken this action, so that they may understand the importance of not supporting anti-gun and anti-freedom lies and slander with their advertising dollars. While we feel it is unfortunate that we have to boycott local merchants, especially in this economic climate in which many companies are struggling for their economic survival, we nonetheless feel that a message needs to be sent directly to the advertising sponsors of this kind of false and misleading programming.

We hope that you will give favorable consideration to our request, and that in the future, you will consider an editorial policy that is more favorable to the rights of self protection for law abiding citizens.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

/you name here/

Taco Bell

2008-11-30T20:02:00.001-06:00

Sitting at home tonight, the lovely wife and I were trying to decide what to have for dinner.
You know the conversation..what do you want...I don't know...what do you want...repeat until something sounds good. After 2 days of Thanksgiving leftovers, we decided on Taco Bell.
I...being the great hunter/gatherer had to go out in the cold drizzling rain to procure said Taco Bell. While standing there waiting for their crack staff of employees to figure out what a taco was I noticed their employee signs. One in particular gave me pause. It shows a Taco Bell employee getting held up at gunpoint by the hoodie wearing thug.
The caption on top of the sign read
PREVENT HOLIDAY CRIME...COOPERATE.

Isn't that like having a sign saying...PREVENT DRUNK DRIVING...BUY THE DRIVER A BEER

Yes..I know the lawyers write the sign and if I had children I wouldn't want them to "risk their life for someone else's money" but...give the screaming two year old what he wants and he'll stop screaming...until he wants something else. It works pretty much the same way with crooks. Once they learn how easy it is to rob a Taco Bell...they'll have to start taking appointments.

Flying the Gadsden flag

2008-10-22T15:32:00.003-05:00

There's an idea floating about on AR15.com and a couple of other forums on flying the Gadsden flag on election day. Actually...some of them want to fly the American flag upside down, a signal of distress, on Election day. I'm good with either idea.
America is about two inches away from falling down a dark well of socialism with Obama and Biden.
Now..before you dismiss this as another right wing attack..I voted today. My ballot was basically a 50/50 split between Republican and Democrat candidates. I never have and never will vote the party line. I am not a Republican or a Democrat, I am an American...and I vote as such.
Now..for those who don't know what the Gadsden flag is...

Sounds about right. From gun rights to From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs...it sounds like OBamas plan for our great nation. From Obama himself talking about I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.” to Barney Frank...Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money."

Seems like everyone has their hands out wanting to take your money and give it to someone else. That is part and parcel socialiam..hell full blown communisum at it core. It saddens me to see so many Americans taken in by their own greed and short sightedness as to believe the crap thats spewing forth from the mainstream media. If CNN, Fox, MSMBC would vet ALL the canidates equally I firmly believe Obama would be NObama as in no way in hell would he even have gotten the nod from the DNC.
God help this country...looks like we're in for a bumpy ride. Threats of violence if Obama loses, threats from abroad per Biden if OBama wins, hell....we're pretty much screwed either way. I'm not sure at this point which would be worse.

The best answer to "Why I carry a gun"

2008-07-21T17:14:00.002-05:00

Here's the best answer I can give anyone who why I carry a gun. These SOBs have no reason to live any longer than it takes to load the rifles.
The story:
Three people were arrested Thursday night in connection with the murders of a Garland recording studio owner and his friend. One of the victim's cars, which was stolen from the murder scene, was also recovered.
Garland Police spokesman Joe Harn said the trio was arrested somewhere in East Texas along the I-30 corridor, but could not provide further details.
Police said Matthew Butler, 28, and Stephen Swan, 26, had been shot several times and there was spent ammunition scattered around the bodies.
A passerby on a bicycle discovered the bodies in downtown Garland around 1 a.m. Thursday.
The men were lying in a pool of blood outside the Zion Gate recording studio on State Street.
Butler owned Zion Gate, and Swan was his chief engineer and best friend.
Butler's wife Jamie said the studio and music were her husband's passions.
She had spoken to him around 12:30 a.m. and he told her they were wrapping up for the night. Not long after, she received a phone call from police informing her that her husband was dead.
Jamie had a message for the person who took away her husband and the father of their children.
"I hope that whoever did this that they would come to know Christ," she said.

"I hope and pray that my husband gets a chance to meet them in heaven and gets a chance to shake their hand and gets a chance to forgive them himself."

These people are out there. Not everyone is a fine upstanding citizen. There ARE people all over the "good" areas where YOU go that WILL KILL YOU FOR ANYTHING.

Get used to the idea.
Accept it
Plan for it
Equip and train yourself to deal with it if it comes up.

Make sure YOU go home to YOUR family.

Why "citizens" need battle rifles.

2008-07-03T13:32:00.003-05:00

I flatly refuse to call AK-47s and AR-15s "assault rifles" A object that is incapable of moving cannot assault anyone. Stories like this will become more common as our government officials do nothing but pay lip service to securing our southern border. When the Canadians start attacking us with hockey sticks...we'll talk about northern border security.

This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com

By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart

Late on the night of June 22, a residence in Phoenix was approached by a heavily armed tactical team preparing to serve a warrant. The members of the team were wearing the typical gear for members of their profession: black boots, black BDU pants, Kevlar helmets and Phoenix Police Department (PPD) raid shirts pulled over their body armor. The team members carried AR-15 rifles equipped with Aimpoint sights to help them during the low-light operation and, like most cops on a tactical team, in addition to their long guns, the members of this team carried secondary weapons — pistols strapped to their thighs.

But the raid took a strange turn when one element of the team began directing suppressive fire on the residence windows while the second element entered — a tactic not normally employed by the PPD. This breach of departmental protocol did not stem from a mistake on the part of the team’s commander. It occurred because the eight men on the assault team were not from the PPD at all. These men were not cops serving a legal search or arrest warrant signed by a judge; they were cartel hit men serving a death warrant signed by a Mexican drug lord.

The tactical team struck hard and fast. They quickly killed a man in the house and then fled the scene in two vehicles, a red Chevy Tahoe and a gray Honda sedan. Their aggressive tactics did have consequences, however. The fury the attackers unleashed on the home — firing over 100 rounds during the operation — drew the attention of a nearby Special Assignments Unit (SAU) team, the PPD’s real tactical team, which responded to the scene with other officers. An SAU officer noticed the Tahoe fleeing the scene and followed it until it entered an alley. Sensing a potential ambush, the SAU officer chose to establish a perimeter and wait for reinforcements rather than charge down the alley after the suspects. This was fortunate, because after three of the suspects from the Tahoe were arrested, they confessed that they had indeed planned to ambush the police officers chasing them.

The assailants who fled in the Honda have not yet been found, but police did recover the vehicle in a church parking lot. They reportedly found four sets of body armor in the vehicle and also recovered an assault rifle abandoned in a field adjacent to the church.

This Phoenix home invasion and murder is a vivid reminder of the threat to U.S. law enforcement officers that stems from the cartel wars in Mexico.

Violence Crosses the Border

The fact that the Mexican men involved in the Phoenix case were heavily armed and dressed as police comes as no surprise to anyone who has followed security events in Mexico. Teams of cartel enforcers frequently impersonate police or military personnel, often wearing matching tactical gear and carrying standardized weapons. In fact, it is rare to see a shootout or cartel-related arms seizure in Mexico where tactical gear and clothing bearing police or military insignia is not found.

One reason for the prevalent use of this type of equipment is that many cartel enforcers come from military or police backgrounds. By training and habit, they prefer to operate as a team composed of members equipped with standardized gear so that items such as ammunition and magazines can be interchanged during a firefight. This also gives a team member the ability to pick up the familiar weapon of a fallen comrade and immediately bring it into action. This is of course the same reason military units and police forces use standardized equipment in most places.

Police clothing, such as hats, patches and raid jackets, is surprisingly easy to come by. Authentic articles can be stolen or purchased through uniform vendors or cop shops. Knockoff uniform items can easily be manufactured in silk screen or embroidery shops by duplicating authentic designs. Even badges are easy to obtain if one knows where to look.

While it now appears that the three men arrested in Phoenix were not former or active members of the Mexican military or police, it is not surprising that they employed military- and police-style tactics. Enforcers of various cartel groups such as Los Zetas, La Gente Nueva or the Kaibiles who have received advanced tactical training often pass on that training to younger enforcers (many of whom are former street thugs) at makeshift training camps located on ranches in northern Mexico. There are also reports of Israeli mercenaries visiting these camps to provide tactical training. In this way, the cartel enforcers are transforming ordinary street thugs into highly-trained cartel tactical teams.

Though cartel enforcers have almost always had ready access to guns, including military weapons such as assault rifles and grenade launchers, groups such as Los Zetas, the Kaibiles and their young disciples bring an added level of threat to the equation. They are highly trained men with soldiers’ mindsets who operate as a unit capable of using their weapons with deadly effectiveness. Assault rifles in the hands of untrained thugs are dangerous, but when those same weapons are placed in the hands of men who can shoot accurately and operate tactically as a fire team, they can be overwhelmingly powerful — not only when used against enemies and other intended targets, but also when used against law enforcement officers who attempt to interfere with the team’s operations.

Targets

Although the victim in the Phoenix killing, Andrew Williams, was reportedly a Jamaican drug dealer who crossed a Mexican cartel, there are many other targets in the United States that the cartels would like to eliminate. These targets include Mexican cartel members who have fled to the United States due to several different factors. The first factor is the violent cartel war that has raged in Mexico for the past few years over control of important smuggling routes and strategic locations along those routes. The second factor is the Calderon administration’s crackdown, first on the Gulf cartel and now on the Sinaloa cartel. Pressure from rival cartels and the government has forced many cartel leaders into hiding, and some of them have left Mexico for Central America or the United States.

Traditionally, when violence has spiked in Mexico, cartel figures have used U.S. cities such as Laredo, El Paso and San Diego as rest and recreation spots, reasoning that the general umbrella of safety provided by U.S. law enforcement to those residing in the United States would protect them from assassination by their enemies. As bolder Mexican cartel hit men have begun to carry out assassinations on the U.S. side of the border in places such as Laredo, Rio Bravo, and even Dallas, the cartel figures have begun to seek sanctuary deeper in the United States, thereby bringing the threat with them.

While many cartel leaders are wanted in the United States, many have family members not being sought by U.S. law enforcement. (Many of them even have relatives who are U.S. citizens.) Some family members have also settled comfortably inside the United States, using the country as a haven from violence in Mexico. These families might become targets, however, as the cartels look for creative ways to hurt their rivals.

Other cartel targets in the United States include Drug Enforcement Administration and other law enforcement officers responsible for operations against the cartels, and informants who have cooperated with U.S. or Mexican authorities and been relocated stateside for safety. There are also many police officers who have quit their jobs in Mexico and fled to the United States to escape threats from the cartels, as well as Mexican businessmen who are targeted by cartels and have moved to the United States for safety.

To date, the cartels for the most part have refrained from targeting innocent civilians. In the type of environment they operate under inside Mexico, cartels cannot afford to have the local population, a group they use as camouflage, turn against them. It is not uncommon for cartel leaders to undertake public relations events (they have even held carnivals for children) in order to build goodwill with the general population. As seen with al Qaeda in Iraq, losing the support of the local population is deadly for a militant group attempting to hide within that population.

Cartels have also attempted to minimize civilian casualties in their operations inside the United States, though for a different operational consideration. The cartels believe that if a U.S. drug dealer or a member of a rival Mexican cartel is killed in a place like Dallas or Phoenix, nobody really cares. Many people see such a killing as a public service, and there will not be much public outcry about it, nor much real effort on the part of law enforcement agencies to identify and catch the killers. The death of a civilian, on the other hand, brings far more public condemnation and law enforcement attention.

However, the aggressiveness of cartel enforcers and their brutal lack of regard for human life means that while they do not intentionally target civilians, they are bound to create collateral casualties along the way. This is especially true as they continue to conduct operations like the Phoenix killing, where they fired over 100 rounds of 5.56 mm ball ammunition at a home in a residential neighborhood.

Tactical Implications

Judging from the operations of the cartel enforcers in Mexico, they have absolutely no hesitation about firing at police officers who interfere with their operations or who dare to chase them. Indeed, the Phoenix case nearly ended in an ambush of the police. It must be noted, however, that this ambush was not really intentional, but rather the natural reaction of these Mexican cartel enforcers to police pursuit. They were accustomed to shooting at police and military south of the border and have very little regard for them. In many instances, this aggression convinces the poorly armed and trained police to leave the cartel gunmen alone.

The problem such teams pose for the average U.S. cop on patrol is that the average cop is neither trained nor armed to confront a heavily armed fire team. In fact, a PPD source advised Stratfor that, had the SAU officer not been the first to arrive on the scene, it could have been a disaster for the department. This is not a criticism of the Phoenix cops. The vast majority of police officers and federal agents in the United States simply are not prepared or equipped to deal with a highly trained fire team using insurgent tactics. That is a task suited more for the U.S. military forces currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These cartel gunmen also have the advantage of being camouflaged as cops. This might not only cause considerable confusion during a firefight (who do backup officers shoot at if both parties in the fight are dressed like cops?) but also means that responding officers might hesitate to fire on the criminals dressed as cops. Such hesitation could provide the criminals with an important tactical advantage — an advantage that could prove fatal for the officers.

Mexican cartel enforcers have also demonstrated a history of using sophisticated scanners to listen to police radio traffic, and in some cases they have even employed police radios to confuse and misdirect the police responding to an armed confrontation with cartel enforcers.

We anticipate that as the Mexican cartels begin to go after more targets inside the United States, the spread of cartel violence and these dangerous tactics beyond the border region will catch some law enforcement officers by surprise. A patrol officer conducting a traffic stop on a group of cartel members who are preparing to conduct an assassination in, say, Los Angeles, Chicago or northern Virginia could quickly find himself heavily outgunned and under fire. With that said, cops in the United States are far more capable than their Mexican counterparts of dealing with this threat.

In addition to being far better trained, U.S. law enforcement officers also have access to far better command, control and communication networks than their Mexican counterparts. Like we saw in the Phoenix example, this communication network provides cops with the ability to quickly summon reinforcements, air support and tactical teams to deal with heavily armed criminals — but this communication system only helps if it can be used. That means cops need to recognize the danger before they are attacked and prevented from calling for help. As with many other threats, the key to protecting oneself against this threat is situational awareness, and cops far from the border need to become aware of this trend.

Heller Decision

2008-06-28T16:02:00.002-05:00

First let me say I'm glad that SCOTUS came down on the side of legal gun owners. I'm having a hard time understanding why it took so flippin long for them to take a 2nd amendment case in the 1st place. I can't see what all the fuss is. It's not like it was written in some ancient language. I believe that it was kept short and simple for clarity's sake. Leave it to lawyers and politicians to screw up the meaning of a comma. I think a 5 year old can understand the 2nd amendment. I shudder to think what the people that want us to be unable to protect ourselves would be doing to the laws today if for some reason they came down the other way. A bunch of gun owners would be buying up PVC pipe and looking for land I believe. Now..Chicago and San Francisco are “in the crosshairs” so to speak. It will be interesting to see what the outcome will be.

Now..Gun owners all over America are happy…and with good reason. My personal belief is SCOTUS didn’t go far enough. They left to door cracked open for the Bloomberg’s and the Brady’s in this country to try to convince people that the mere fact that there is a gun in their home that somehow this will make them turn into serial killers. The sad part is…some people WILL believe them. What amazes me to this day is there are people who…without doing ANY research on their own will fall lock step behind whatever some taking head on television tells them. God forbid you attempt to disagree with them. They have no time for the truth, only what someone tells them. What they fail to realize is the people who preach gun control are surrounded by guns, controlled by their security details. Try to take THOSE guns away and let’s see what happens. They will pull any string they can in order to make sure THEY’RE protected, while you sit cowering in fear while 3 or 4 bad guys, who by way way don’t care if there a ban on guns…are banging down your front door, all armed, ready and willing to rob, rape and kill at will because you, as a law abiding citizen have no means to protect yourself. Screw that. I am not willing to hand over the protection of my family to anyone other than myself. Anyone who sits back and waits on the government or the police to “do something about it” will be either sorely disappointed…or dead.

People who take the position that ALL guns are bad, no one should have guns, I hate guns….I used to want to change their minds. Anymore, I don’t care. If you don’t like guns, if you’re scared of guns, whatever, that’s your problem. When the bad guys show up, you’ll be easier for them to work with. I’ll stay “clinging to my guns” and making sure my ass is covered. My family’s life is worth much more to me than some holier than thou attitude that guns are bad.

TN: Naifeh screws us twice in one day

2008-04-03T07:56:00.002-06:00

The TN house Republican party needs their collective heads examined (or pulled out of their asses) for allowing this piece of crap to keep the job as Speaker. Again he used his position to keep the full House from voting on bills he personally doesn't like.

Owners' permit records will stay open to public

Naifeh's actions help reverse earlier passage

By THEO EMERY
Staff Writer

A proposal to make secret the names and addresses of Tennesseans who have handgun carry permits died in a whirlwind of political intrigue Wednesday, aided by state House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh.

First, freshman House member Henry Fincher engineered a vote on the bill while two of its opponents — two of his more senior colleagues — were out of the room.

In turn, Naifeh reversed the vote with the help of the House's newest member, Karen Camper, who had been sworn in only about an hour earlier.

The end result: The names and addresses of permit holders will remain public for now.

"When the majority party finds it doesn't have the votes it needs to accomplish what it wants to accomplish — in this case, trampling on the Second Amendment rights of Tennesseans — it massages the rules and finds a way to get it accomplished," House Republican Leader Jason Mumpower said.

The House Criminal Practice Subcommittee had a calendar of nearly 90 bills to consider Wednesday.

The group first approved the bill in question — voting to close the gun permit records — when two members of the committee who opposed the idea, Reps. Rob Briley and Janis Sontany, were out of the room.

When the two Nashville Democrats were gone, Fincher, a Cookeville Democrat, called the bill up for a vote, and it was quickly approved without debate.

A short time later, Naifeh arrived at the subcommittee meeting from the swearing-in ceremony for Camper, a Democrat recently appointed to fill a vacant House seat from Shelby County.

Naifeh added Camper to the subcommittee. The two then joined with the bill's opponents to reverse the earlier vote and banished the legislation until 2012.

The speaker afterward said he had not talked with Camper about the vote beforehand, and that they went to the committee hearing only because she had said she was interested in being on the House Judiciary Committee.

"That's just how it happened," he said.

Mumpower said the voting was not "the proper way that things should have been run."

Naifeh said that he would prefer not to have to cast committee votes as speaker, "but when it's a matter of importance, I do."

Publication spurred bill

The legislation was proposed after The Tennessean posted on its Web site a database listing the names and counties of residence of every handgun permit holder in the state. The Senate version of the bill is scheduled for a floor vote today.

This was not the first time that Naifeh had cast votes to kill gun legislation.

Two weeks ago, he dropped in on the same subcommittee to vote against several other gun-related bills. House rules allow him to make such votes as speaker.

And a year ago, Naifeh also brought a newly sworn-in House member to the House Agricultural Committee, where she cast a key vote that helped pass a cigarette tax increase.

Fincher defended his decision to call up the bill when Sontany and Briley were out of the room, saying, "We voted with the members that were in the room, as we have on every bill that we had a quorum with today.

"I'm a strong supporter of gun owner rights, and their confidentiality, and I believe that that is an important value to be upheld by the legislature," he said.

Fincher said he didn't take the reversal of the vote as a reprimand.

"I didn't take it that way. I think they had strong feelings on the bill, as did I. They had the votes."

Frank Gibson, director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, said that the gun permit records should be open to scrutiny and that the bill was initially approved in the subcommittee without any discussion or debate.

"There has to be some way for the public and the press to know whether the program is being properly administered and to ensure that permits are not given to people who by law are not supposed to be able to carry them," he said.

The chairman of the full judiciary committee, Rep. Kent Coleman, a Murfreesboro Democrat, said he was taken by surprise when Fincher called the bill up for a vote.

He said he didn't like the idea of closing the gun permit records, but he initially voted in favor of the bill in a parliamentary tactic, so that he could later make a motion to have that vote reconsidered.

Bill to allow handguns in bars dies

By THEO EMERY
Staff Writer

A bill that would have allowed gun owners to bring handguns into bars and other establishments serving alcohol died on Wednesday at the urging of House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh, the bill's sponsor said.

The so-called "guns in bars" bill had been introduced and defeated numerous times in previous years. It was recently the butt of a segment on the Colbert Report television show, with video footage of Senate sponsor Doug Jackson, a Dickson Democrat, at a gun range shooting at an apple pie, a hot dog and a baseball.

House sponsor Joe McCord, a Maryville Republican, said a pre-hearing discussion Wednesday with Naifeh and fellow committee member Rep. Rob Briley made him "painfully aware" that the legislation could not be approved in its current form.

He told the committee that "responsible" legislation would require legal definitions of bars and nightclubs that don't exist under state law. Further study was needed to hammer out those definitions, he said.

"Over the summer, we are going to have to try to come up with a definition of nightclub or a definition of bar that currently does not exist in codes," he said. "That is the only way I think that we can accomplish the goal."

Naifeh, a Covington Democrat, appeared briefly in the House Criminal Practices Subcommittee on Wednesday, conferred with lawmakers and lawyers for several minutes, and then left.

He didn't vote on the "guns in bars" bill, although he could have. He is allowed to vote under House rules.

He later returned to the same subcommittee meeting Wednesday to reverse another vote on a bill that would have made private information about people who have state-issued handgun carry permits.

__________________
"If I was an extremist, our founding fathers would all be extremists," he said. "Without them, we wouldn't have our independence. We'd be a disarmed British system of feudal subjectivity."

The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment

2008-01-04T08:29:00.000-06:00

The Six Things Americans Should Know
About the Second Amendment

by Richard W. Stevens

The text of the Second Amendment:

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

FIRST: The Second Amendment protects an individual right that existed before the creation of any government. The Declaration of Independence made clear that all human beings are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are created to protect those rights.

A. The unalienable right to freedom from violent harm, and the right to self-defense, both exist before and outside of secular government.

1. Torah: Exodus 22:2.
2. Talmud: Jewish law set forth in the Talmud states, “If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.” (Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994,2, 72a; The Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth. 1990, 58a, 62b).
3. Roman Catholic Doctrine: Christian doctrine has long asserted the right and duty of self defense. “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.” See Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, sections 2263-65 (citing and quoting Thomas Aquinas).
4. Protestant Doctrine: Individual has personal and unalienable right to self-defense, even against government. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex [1644]1982, pp. 159-166, 183-185 (Sprinkle Publications edition.) Jesus advised his disciples to arm themselves in view of likely persecution. Luke 22:36.

B. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1690) aimed at reforming Britain’s monarchy and parliamentary system and limiting the power of government, and profoundly influenced the Founders and all Western Civilization. John Locke explained that civil government properly exists to more effectively protect the rights that all individuals have in the “state of nature.” The individuals have the rights to life, liberty, and property. They give civil government the power over themselves only to the extent that it better protects those rights. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically declared that the ideas of John Locke’s Second Treatise were “generally approved by the citizens of the United States.”Jefferson mandated that Locke’s Second Treatise be taught in theUniversity of Virginia.
C. Christian religious thinkers, such as Samuel Rutherford (in Lex, Rex, 1644) argued that man’s rights come from G-d. Using Biblical principles and examples, they argued against the notion that kings ruled by divine right. To be legitimate authorities, all governments must uphold man’s rights and do justice. Otherwise, the people owe a lawless and tyrannical ruler no allegiance at all.
D. Cicero, Rome’s leading orator, had early argued that the right to self-defense was natural and inborn, and not a creation of the government.The right to use weapons was a necessary part of the right to self-defense — any view to the contrary was silly nonsense. [Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of A Constitutional Right (1984), p. 17, fn 76-77.]
E. The right to keep and bear arms simply implements the unalienable right to individual self-defense against aggression of any kind. The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people” (not the state) as a pre-existing right that government must respect.
F. The United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, indicated that the word “people” in the Second Amendment referred to individuals, not to states. [494 U.S. 259 (1990)] (This was not a holding or ruling of law, but an observation by the Court).

SECOND: The language of the Second Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from “infringing” on this right of the people. There is nothing ambiguous about “shall not be infringed.” (See Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2d ed.1983, p. 941.) The language of the Second Amendment is about as clear as the First Amendment’s prohibiting Congress from infringing the right to freedom of speech, press, and religious expression. There is no logical reason to read the Second Amendment as a weak statement, while treating the First Amendment as a strong protector of rights.

A. The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right and should be read broadly because it implements the right of self-defense. Self-defense is the ultimate right of all individuals to preserve life. The rights to a free press, free speech, assembly, and religion are extremely important — but none of them matters very much if you can’t defend your own life against aggression. None of them matters very much when an evil government is fully armed and its citizens are disarmed.
B. Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the U.S. Constitution refer to Congress’s powers concerning the state militias. Clause 15 empowersCongress to “call forth” the state militias into national service for specific purposes. Clause 16 empowers Congress to organize, arm and discipline the state militias, and to govern the militias while they are in national service. The Second Amendment confines Congress’s power by guaranteeing that the Congress cannot “govern” the militias right out of existence and thereby disarm “the people.”

THIRD: The Second Amendment refers to “a well-regulated militia.”The right of the people to form citizen militias was unquestioned by the Founders.

A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]
B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]
C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]
D. There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase “well-regulated” means well-trained and disciplined — not “regulated” as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]
E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.
F. The Third Amendment: Expressly restrains the federal governmentfrom building a standing army and infiltrating it among the people ...and at the people’s expense ... in times of peace. The Third Amendment runs against the idea of a permanent standing army or federalized National Guard in principle, if not by its words.

FOURTH: The Second Amendment begins with the phrase “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” Some people argue that this phrase limits the right to keep and bear arms to militias only ... which they say means the National Guard. Very recent research shows, however, that it was the style of writing legal documents in the late 1700’s to include a preamble. The Constitution has a preamble, the Bill of Rights has a preamble — yet people don’t argue that the Constitution is limited by the preamble. Professor Eugene Volokh at the UCLA Law School has examined numerous other state constitutions of the same general time period, and observed this kind of preamble language in many of them. (The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N.Y. Univ. Law Rev. 793-821 (1998)). The preamble states a purpose, not a limitation on the language in these government charters.

A. Examples:

New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 contained a preamble for the freedom of the press: “The Liberty of the Press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.”

Rhode Island’s 1842 state constitution recited a preamble before its declaration of the right of free speech and press: “The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty...”

New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 also contained a detailed preamble and explanation of purpose for its right to a criminal trial in the vicinity where the crime occurred.

The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution and the 1786 Vermont Constitution, all contained preambles or explanations of the right of freedom of speech and debate in the state legislatures.

The New Hampshire Constitution also gave an explanation, right in the text, for why there should be no ex post facto laws.

B. The Second Amendment falls right within the style of legal drafting of the late 1700’s. The “militia” clause emphasizes the individual right to keep and bear arms by explaining one of its most important purposes. The militia clause does not limit the right.

FIFTH: Before the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment, many states enacted laws that made it illegal for slaves and for free black people to possess firearms (unless they had their master’s permission or a government approval). [See list, with sources in law reviews, in Gran’pa Jack No. 4 ]

A. The Second Amendment did not protect black people then, because(1) it was understood to limit the federal government’s power only and (2) black people were not considered citizens whose rights deserved to be protected. [Dred Scott decision, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Judge Taney observed that if blacks had the privileges and immunities of citizenship, then they would be able to freely possess and carry arms ... unthinkable to Southern slave owners.) [Halbrook, pp. 98, 114-15]
B. The Second Amendment was designed by people who did not want to become slaves to their government, but they were unfortunately and tragically willing to permit private slavery in some states. Now that slavery is abolished,however, all citizens of all races should enjoy the Second Amendment’s legal protection against despotic government.

SIXTH: Several Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that theSecond Amendment does not confer an individual right, but only a collective right of states to form a militia. The federal court decisions cite United States v. Miller as precedent. The 1939 Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller, did not make that ruling. Even in Miller, where only the prosecution filed a brief and the defendant’s position was not even briefed or argued to the Court, the Supreme Court held that the federal government could only regulate firearms that had no military purpose. [307 U.S. 174 (1939)] [See JPFO special report about Miller case]

A. Nowadays, gun prohibitionists want to illegalize firearms unlessthey have a “sporting purpose.” The “sporting purpose” idea was part of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. JPFO has shown that the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 imported much of its organization, content, and phrasing, from the Nazi Weapons Law. [See ... Zelman, Gateway to Tyranny]
B. In contrast, even under the U.S. v. Miller case, the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear military firearms. Learn how the federal courts deceptively and misleadingly employed the Miller decision to deny the individual right to keep and bear arms in Barnett, Can the Simple Cite Be Trusted?: Lower Court Interpretations of United States v. Miller and the Second Amendment, 26 Cumberland Law Review 961-1004 (1996).
C. A federal judge recently struck down a federal “gun control” statute as unconstitutional in United States v. Emerson, 46 F. Supp. 2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999). In his scholarly written opinion, District Judge Cummings exten-sively reviewed the law and historical foundations of the Second Amendment to conclude that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right. The Emerson decision remains pending an appeal in the Fifth Circuit as of this date.

Before a government can become a full-blown tyranny, the government must first disarm its citizens. The Founders of this nation, from their own experience, knew that when government goes bad, liberty evaporates and people die ... unless the people are armed.

CHALLENGE TO AMERICANS

As you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

(1) Look at the enumerated powers of the federal government;
(2) Look at the express limitations on federal power as set forth in theSecond, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments;
(3) Ask yourself, where does the federal government get any power at all to regulate firearms?
(4) Ask yourself, why don’t the high school and college textbooks devote any time to the history, philosophical basis and practical meaning of the Second Amendment?

And then consider that law students and future lawyers likewise have received precious little education about the Second Amendment.

Realize, too, that the judges know just about as little. Then imagine how little the average American knows — based on the average public school coverage of the Constitution.

The protection of our sacred right of self-defense against both petty criminals and oppressive government — the right of civilians to keep and beararms — is in your hands.

The Bill of Rights Sentinel, Fall 2001, pp. 31-33

Join JPFO America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership

- The Liberty Crew

Jerry McEwen...Hero

2007-12-19T15:07:00.001-06:00

Mr Jerry McEwen was killed on Tuesday, 18 December attempting to stop a purse snatcher. Mr McEwen was just a normal man, who saw someone robbing a elderly lady and didn't stand idly by and do nothing, he didn't break out his mobile phone and tape a video for YouTube. He did what true men do...he stepped up to the plate and tried to help. Unfortunately...he paid with his life. I didn't know the man...but he is what American men once were...and hopefully can be once again. It's not known if Mr McEwen ever saw the knife. We'll never know if that would have changed his mind. I doubt he would knowingly rush a thug armed with a knife..but he just might have.

Attempting to take on a robber/carjacker/mugger one on one isn't a good idea...even if you're armed. The best thing to do it to try to get a good description of the suspect, car and license plate number. That DOESN'T mean that you won't be seen trying to be a good witness. If that happens..you're in the same boat as Mr McEwen...now what do you do....you protect yourself. Like I posted on TGO( http://www.tngunowners.com/) I'm not going to stand by while some little old lady is getting jacked, but I'm not going to draw down and drop him either. I'll try the good witness thing...if he wants to stop me from doing that...well...he made his choice and so will I.

From the Metro Police website:

Ex-convict Robert Williams, who has a history of violent offenses, is being sought for Tuesday afternoon’s murder of Jerry J. McEwen outside the Kroger store at 61 E. Thompson Lane. Also being sought is Williams’ presumed girlfriend, Stephanie Lynn Hudson, who drove Williams away from the crime scene. Arrest warrants have been issued charging both with criminal homicide.

McEwen, 54, of Coarsey Drive, was fatally stabbed in the chest as he attempted to stop Williams, who had just robbed a 60-year-old woman of her purse in the Kroger parking lot. The robbery victim fell to the ground during a struggle with Williams. She was not seriously hurt. Williams and Hudson fled the scene in Hudson’s 1991 maroon and silver Ford Explorer.

Williams, 52, was paroled from the state prison system on May 15, 2007 and registered with the Metro police department as an ex-con on May 21, 2007. Williams was convicted in 1983 of assault with intent to murder, armed robbery, and two weapons offenses in Madison County. He was convicted in 1984 of assault with intent to murder in Hickman County. He was sentenced to 38 years and is on supervised parole until the year 2013. Williams had been paroled twice previously, in 1998 and 2000. Those releases were revoked in 1999 and 2001. He was convicted of weapon possession by a convicted felon in Shelby County in 2001.

Hudson, 36, registered with the Metro police department as an ex-convict in November 2006. She received a ten-year sentence for multiple forgery convictions in Marshall County in 1999.

Anyone seeing Robert Williams or Stephanie Hudson, or knowing their whereabouts, is urged to contact the Emergency Communications Center at 862-8600 or their local law enforcement agency. Williams has been known to use the names Roger Williams, Shaheed Rasta, and Rasta Shaheed.

Robert Williams

Stephanie Huson

2nd Admendment gets its day in court?

2007-11-22T10:09:00.000-06:00

The supreme court is going to hear the case of the DC gun ban early next year...just in time for the elections. A ton of people are happy that SCOTUS is going to finally hear a 2nd Amendment care. I don't understand it. Too many people think they can "interpret" the smallest Amendment to the Constitution to mean something other than what was intended.Now...I'm not the brightest bulb in the lamp when it comes to law...but follow me on this:None of the other Bill or Rights are even considered to be a "collective right" just the shortest one. What if each of the Bill of Rights were "interpreted" to be a collective right. What if they put the same restrictions on freedom of speech as they did on guns.Just think about that for a minute. In places like Vermont and Alaska, you'd be able to speak your mind. In Tennessee, you'd be able to speak your mind, but not where is was posted a "No Speaking Zone" You couldn't speak out if there was alcohol being sold for on premise consumptionIn Illinois you'd have to license each and every word you wanted to speak.In NYC...no talking at all, unless you've got connections to the ruling political class. they'd send teams of speech police to other states in order to get people to write books they could take back to NYC and hold press conferences to talk about how evil the word are and how the surrounding states need to implement New York style speech control laws.
The 2nd Amendment is pretty simple to under stand:A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
See the commas.....I wish I had a time machine and could go way and whisper in the founding fathers earspsssst....a long time from now...people are going to get stupid..trust me. take out everything but the last part.
happy Thanksgiving everyone...be thankful for everything you have, and remember the men and women that are fighting to keep you safe.

There still is Customer Service

2007-09-30T12:23:00.000-05:00

About a month ago I sent my Nighthawk Customs GRP Bobtail back to the factory to have ambi safetys installed. Yes...I know the 1911 guys are launching themselves at the screen right now screaming about how easy it is to install ambis. Nighthawk wants to do ALL the work on their guns themselves. Hand fitting, the right finish,etc. I have installed ambis on other 1911s, it isn't that hard as long as you drop the mainspring out of the way (found that out the hard way)
According to the shop (Guns and Leather, Greenbriar Tennessee) is should only take a few days. After the 1st week, I asked the shop to call and check on the status; that's where the fun begins:
1. They misplaced it..but they have it in hand now (at least twice)
2. The abmis had to be permakoted
3. They misplaced it...again
4. It's ready to be shipped...the next day.
5. (a week later) It's ready to go out the door...again
6. (a few days later) it's shipping tomorrow
I FINALLY get the GRP back...along with a bill for 147.00. I e-mailed Nighthawk before sending it in, and was quoted 80.00. Ben (one of the sales staff at Guns and Leather) didn't feel right about that after all the trouble, so he was going to check with the owner, Dennis and get back to me. I came home and posted over at M1911.org to vent a little bit.
Dennis didn't have to call Nighthawk...they called him. Evidently someone at Nighthawk called him the next morning and told him "we've got a unhappy customer" Poor Dennis didn't have a clue. I wasn't upset at G&L, I was ticked at Nighthawk. After dropping over 2K on a gun, I felt like I was getting shanked a bit, not to mention the delays.
They told Dennis to get in touch with me and do "whatever it takes" to make me happy with Nighthawk again. They also told him to wipe out the bill for installing the ambis.
Wow...just wow. I couldn't believe that level of customer service still existed. I didn't bring it up with the intention of doing anythign other than griping a bit.
Nighthawk really stood up for their mistakes, and went above and beyond to make it right. Remember when great customer service was the norm? Evidently Nighthawk does, and still lives up to their reputation as a great company to deal with.

The Nighthawk Talon II

2007-09-04T17:19:00.000-05:00

I figured the best way to express myself today was with my first video blog. Don't expect too much :-)
The grips didn't really show their true nature in the video, so I'll have to get some stills posted. They are a very attractive gray/black mix of G10.

Addition to the armory

2007-08-05T14:37:00.000-05:00

I went shooting last week with one of the trainers from HGR Firearms. He was interested in testing out the 1911 style of pistols. He's a Glock shooter, and a damn good one at that. I took out my Kimber Ultra Raptor and my Kimber Pro CDP shown here with her new Kimber magwell for faster reloads

The Ultra series from Kimber is their ultra short 3 inch series, the Pro series are the 4 inch or Commander style of 1911. I tried the Ultra series for concealed carry, but I like using a 230 grain load. A nice big heavy show bullet. That round coming out of a 3 inch 1911 is...snappy is the only word I can use to describe it. By the end of the session, both of us agreed that a 3 inch 1911 isn't for us, so it went into the "trade in" file. We went back to the retail area and I started looking. I was interested in a railed 1911 for home defense. If you've got a pistol setup with a light, that's one less thing you've go to grab if something goes bump in the night. I looked at a HK USP Tactical model with ambidextrous controls, a Sig Sauer Elite P220 and a Springfield Operator. Al in .45 all railed pistols. Now, I've owned HK,s Sigs and Springfields before so they're all good pieces. I couldn't make up mind to save my life...so I left empty handed. I thought about it all night, but couldn't make a decision.

I went back out Friday and ran a few service calls...then back to the shop to make up my mind. Guns and Leather in Greenbriar TN is also a authorized dealer for Nighthawk Customs; a manufacturer of HIGH END custom 1911s. I walked in the door and what do I see but a used Nighthawk Customs Talon II 1911. Someone had ordered it with a bobtail, custom diamond black finish, and a ambidextrous safety. The previous owner took it home, put her in the safe and never touched her again until he traded it in for a Browning over and under shotgun. she had never been fired;so to me it was new as new can be. They have had it for a while, but I never thought about buying it..until Friday. the only thing it was missing was the rail...butr my HK is railed..so that requirement was already filled. i quickly filled out the forms, paid for her and waited for the TBI to do their magic..and waited...and waited. Tennessee has what they call the Instant Check system. It works very well...when the servers aren't overheating. We got all that figured out and down to the range again.

For those who don't shoot; it's a great stress release. No matter what kind of day I've had, a good session of punching holes in paper makes it better. Doing that with a custom 1911 makes it that much more relaxing. 100 rounds out of a new pistol is usually OK, nothing to brag about. I expected it to be a bit worse than usual actually seeing as the new piece was a bobtail. I've never shot a bobtailed pistol before. It feels completely different in hand. I expected this to be a hindrance; it wasn't. The bobtail makes a 1911 point even more naturally for me. Right out of the holster, right on target without trying. I am not a bullseye shooter. I don't try to put all my rounds in a single hole. If the groups are too tight, then you're shooting too slow. I go for COM (center of mass) shots. If they're all COM on the target I'm happy. with the Nighthawk COM double taps are almost too easy. The trigger reset is quick and easy to feel; the steel frame is a bit beefier than the CDP but not too bad. I've been carrying her all day today around the house with no real problems. I didn't pay sticker for her, but I could have bought two Kimbers for what I paid for her. But...she's as close to affordable 1911 perfection that I've found so far.

I need to vent a little bit

2007-06-03T13:24:00.000-05:00

What else is new :-)
I went by the post office Friday to check my PO box...as I do every day. There was a frail little lady who (much to my horror) driving herself around. I was in the middle of a email on my Treo, when I glanced up and saw her stuck in the door. She had lost her hold on the door and she was stuck between the door and the sill. I started to get out of my car and see if I could help, and saw a man walking towards the door rather quickly. I sat back for a moment, and watched him walk AROUND her to another door and go in the building. I ran over and helped her get out of the door before she fell and got really hurt. It took everything I had not to go into the counter area and beat the jerk around his thick skull. I can't believe this person would actually go out of his way to walk around this poor little lady just to go stand in line at the damn post office.

Idaho Teens Tote Loaded Guns Around Town Legally

2007-05-21T08:30:00.000-05:00

These two kids have the right idea. The very last line of the article makes it worth repeating...
Idaho Teens Tote Loaded Guns Around Town Legally
Sunday , May 20, 2007

POST FALLS, Idaho —
Two home-schooled teenagers in this northern Idaho town say they are carrying loaded guns to the library, grocery store and other public areas for self-defense, as a crime deterrent, and to educate others about their rights.
Zach Doty, 18, carries a loaded Glock handgun on his hip. His 15-year-old brother, Steven, carries a .22-caliber rifle in a sling on his back.
Police have been called on several occasions to question the teens but have not found the teens to be in violation of the law.
In Idaho, residents 18 and older can openly carry a firearm in public. And those ages 13 to 17 who have parental permission can carry a rifle in public.
"I certainly don't anticipate that I'll need to use it, but I'd rather have it and not need it than to not have it and need it," Zach told the Coeur d'Alene Press. "There's no reason for me to hide a weapon."
Zach was stopped April 17 on his way to Bible study. On Friday, police again responded when someone reported the brothers with guns in a park. But police left after confirming it was the Doty's.
Zach has also been approached by others.
"There have been good opportunities to speak to people," he said. "I make sure they know that open carrying is legal, why I carry and I encourage them to consider doing so themselves."
The brothers carry their weapons to parks, the library, grocery stores and other places. They can't have their guns with them on school property, courthouses or jails.
Not everyone is comfortable with armed teenagers in the neighborhood.
"I turned back so that my wife could verify what I saw," said James Rebal, who called police after seeing Zach with his gun. "He was very nicely dressed and I saw nothing to be concerned about other than the weapon. It's not something you see in Idaho. Virginia Tech was fresh in my mind, and I thought it was better to err on the side of concern."
A lone gunman killed 32 people and himself last month at Virginia Tech University.
John Dunlap, commander of the American Legion Post 143, said he asked Zach to leave the Legion at a recent lunch because Zach was carrying his gun.
"He left and came back the next day (without the gun) for soup," said Dunlap, who described the brothers as "well-mannered."
Ed Santos owns Center Target Sports in Post Falls and is a gun safety instructor. He said the Dotys came to his shop but he doesn't sell handgun ammunition to people under 21.
He said that just because the Dotys are carrying guns in public doesn't mean they're not responsible with them, but questioned the need to carry them in town even though it was legal.
"My advice for them is the same as it is with adults — yes it's your right and yes it's legal, but why draw unnecessary attention to yourself just because you can?" Santos said. "I believe the intent (of the law) was to allow it more for hunting and recreation."
Zach said he's not paranoid or a radical.
"If I was an extremist, our founding fathers would all be extremists," he said. "Without them, we wouldn't have our independence. We'd be a disarmed British system of feudal subjectivity."

News Two lets it bias slip

2007-05-17T09:31:00.000-05:00

The local ABC station here in Nashville ran a story claiming that we wanted to be able to carry guns on bars now. That's NOT what the law is intended to do. Its to allow lawful carry into places that serve beer and alcohol (in TN they are different)
the way they presented the story made no mention of restaurants , just bars. They made it look like bubba wants to pony up to the bar with his hogleg and toss back a few. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are the proposed laws:

SB 0023*
Jackson
HB 0702
McCord CRIMINAL LAW: Possession of firearm where alcohol is served. Permits a person who has a permit to carry a handgun to carry gun in place where alcohol is served for consumption on premises if person not consuming alcohol or is not otherwise prohibited by posting provisions.
TCA Secs. 39-17-1300; 39-17-1305
SB 1651
Jackson
HB 1118*
Buck CRIMINAL LAW: Possession of handguns where alcohol is served. Allows a person holding a handgun permit to possess a handgun on premises where alcoholic beverages are served, so long as said person is not consuming alcohol and so long as the owner of the premises had not posted a notice prohibiting such possession.
TCA Secs. 39-17-1300; 39-17-1305
Senate Status: Set for Senate Judiciary Committee 05/15/2007.
House Status: Referred to House Judiciary Criminal Practice Subcommittee.
SB 1885
Jackson
HB 1143*
Buck CRIMINAL LAW: Firearms allowed in restaurants. Allows any person with handgun permit who is not consuming alcoholic beverages and is not under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances to carry a handgun in a restaurant where alcoholic beverages are served.
TCA Secs. 39-17-1300; 39-17-1305
Senate Status: Set for Senate Judiciary Committee 05/15/2007.
House Status: Referred to House Judiciary Criminal Practice Subcommittee.

Notice the parts I highlighted in red. Why would you want to carry into a bar when you CAN'T LEGALLY DRINK WHILE CARRYING. The way the law is currently written, there is some discussion on the point that is doesn't allow uniformed police officers to carry unless they are performing official duties. How many times have you been in a local bar and grill and there sits a cop in full uniform laving lunch. That isn't what you'd call "official duties" if anything, he's off the clock. The way the law is currently written, he's breaking the law by not leaving his weapon in his car. The law needs to be changed...sooner rather than later. The owners can still post their property to stop people from carrying their guns...at least then I'll have a choice of where to have dinner.

***UPDATE***
From the anchor, Allison Hatcher:

Danny,

I apologize if my deliver on the “guns in bars” story was offensive. I certainly did not mean for it to come across that way. In fact, it is my goal to remain neutral on most stories (with the exception of stories where showing opinion is appropriate).

What you might have sensed was my feeling about the lawmaker opposed to the idea. I’m sure you remember hearing about the lawmaker who felt “the only reason a person would need to carry a gun… is if that person were looking for a trouble.”
Personally, I find that idea little unfair! It’s quite obvious the reason gun owners want to be able to carry a weapon is to be able to ***protect** themselves from trouble. But it’s my job to make sure my opinion – whether “for” or “against” an idea – does not come through at the wrong time. I obviously missed the mark last night and for that I apologize.

Truly,

Allison Hatcher

I'm famous...but not in a way I want

2007-05-08T15:42:00.000-05:00

I jumped on the Tennesseans web site this morning only to find a link to a searchable database of ALL CCW holders in Tennessee. Great...a shopped list provided by the local liberal rag once again showing their true colors. I don't understand what the HELL they thought they were going to accomplish with this little stunt. I don't really hide the fact that I carry a gun. I don't go around telling everyone within earshot HI!!!! I HAVE A GUN. My family and friends know I carry. I'm discrete about it for the most part. Regardless it's a rather private issue to have thrown about willy nilly like that. Evidently the database didn't exist very long due to outrage and hundreds of phone calls their front desk deceived. Now...there are two schools of thought. It can be argued that it's a "don't go to that house to rob" list or a "lookie..that house has guns" list for the local scumbags. I want to know what that list is public record? I can't look up who just bought a car, a ton of jewelry, or someone who made a large cash withdrawal. The simple fact that any asshole can find a record of which houses have guns in them is rather stupid. Can I pull prescription records to find out who just refilled their pain killer prescription?

Again and again...the lack of forethought and planning by our elected officials surprises me.

Why do they keep electing these idiots?

2007-05-03T21:26:00.000-05:00

Evidently the smallest amendment to the US Constitution is too complicated for these morons to understand. ANYONE who lives in Chicago should be on the horn to their representatives, the mayors office, hell...standing on their rooftops screaming their lungs out over this crap. ANYONE who thinks this will do anything but INCREASE crime against law abiding citizens of the Peoples Republic of Chicago is either living in their own little fantasy world...or a complete drooling on themselves utter dumbass. Why someone doesn't take these buffoons to court is beyond me. Daley should be thrown from office, impeached, recalled, fired, sued, laughed at, mocked openly in public...whatever it takes to get the point across. I'd bet his bodyguards are still armed. He's one of the elitist scum who believe that THEIR personal protection is needed...you...a lowly VOTING peon can't be trusted to defend yourself so the nice police..who are taking away YOUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS are good enough to protect you. Only problem is...they CAN'T. What are you going to do once you're beaten and robbed blind Chicago? Go crying to Daley and his goons? It's too late then. NOW is the time to demand a stop to the abuse of power.

Confiscation of Registered Guns Begins in Illinois
Chicago Anti Gun Enforcement (CAGE) unit. This elite squad, operated jointly by the Illinois State Police, the Chicago Police Department, and the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, supposedly exists to identify illegal gunrunners. However, information gained by the ISRA makes it clear that the CAGE unit is targeting law-abiding citizens, not criminal gunrunners.

The Chicago Police Department and the Illinois State Police have teamed up to make good on Mayor Daley's pledge that, if it were up to him, nobody would have a gun. Daley and his elite "CAGE" unit are apparently taking advantage of gun privacy loopholes to pinpoint certain individuals for inclusion in the confiscation program.

The ISRA is following up on leads in one case that has disturbing implications. An elderly first-generation Chicago resident was recently paid a visit by an Illinois State Police trooper. After asking to come inside the man's home, the trooper asked if the man owned a gun - to which he replied yes. The trooper then directed the individual to surrender the firearm. The man complied with the officer's demand and the trooper left with the gun. And the story gets better...

The gun in question was purchased legally by the man in the 1970s shortly after he became a U.S. citizen. When Chicago's infamous gun registration scheme went into effect in the early 1980s, the man registered the firearm as per the requirement. However, over the years, the fellow apparently forgot to re-register the firearm, and forgot to renew his Illinois FOID Card.

So...what does this all mean?

In the last edition of The Illinois Shooter, we reported on the activities of a shady taskforce known as the Chicago Anti Gun Enforcement (CAGE) unit. This elite squad, operated jointly by the Illinois State Police, the Chicago Police Department, and the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, supposedly exists to identify illegal gunrunners. However, information gained by the ISRA makes it clear that the CAGE unit is targeting law-abiding citizens, not criminal gunrunners.

Thanks to a ruling by a liberal federal judge, the CAGE unit now has the name of every single person in the United States who, since 1992, lawfully purchased more than one handgun in the period of a week. The CAGE unit also has all the makes, models and serial numbers of those guns. In essence, the Chicago Police Department is now registering guns and gun owners nationwide.

The ISRA has also learned that the CAGE unit has compiled a list of families where more than one person in that family holds a FOID card. Acting on that information, the CAGE unit is now contacting gun shops where those families have shopped, and is illegally registering all guns purchased by those families.

Now, it appears that the CAGE unit is scrubbing Chicago's gun registration list against the list of FOID card holders. Indications are that folks who have let their registrations and FOIDs lapse will have their guns confiscated. We have to wonder how long it will be until state troopers show up at the doors to confiscate the guns of non-Chicago residents who have let their FOIDs expire.

More later as this story develops.

It bears repeating

2007-04-22T18:34:00.000-05:00

I found this on another site, but it deserves to be anywhere and everywhere.

Mistakes We Make in the Gun Culture, or
How to Be a More Effective Advocate for Freedom
By John Ross

http://john-ross.net/mistakes.htm

Copyright 2003-2005 by John Ross. Electronic reproduction of this article freely permitted provided it is reproduced in its entirety with attribution given

This is a piece I wrote a couple years ago, and I still get regular requests for it. Might as well put it on Ross In Range.

One of the biggest mistakes that freedom advocates make is we often fail to take the moral high ground on freedom issues, and we let our enemies define the terms. This is a huge mistake. Never forget: We are in the right on this issue. We are on the side of the Founding Fathers. They are on the side of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and every other leader of an oppressive, totalitarian regime.

Let me give some common examples I’ve often heard when Second Amendment advocates debate gun control supporters:

THEY SAY: “We’d be better off if no one had guns.”

WE SAY: “You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns.” (FLAW: the implication here is that if you could succeed at eliminating all guns, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that’s unacceptable. Better we should require every citizen to carry a gun.”

THEY SAY: “Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don’t need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer--they’re only for killing people.”

WE SAY: “I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I’ve never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me blah blah blah.” (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “Your claim that ‘they’re only for killing people’ is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high-capacity, military-type rifle or handgun is designed for conflict. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they’re good practice.”

THEY SAY: “If we pass this License-To-Carry law, it will be like the Wild West, with shootouts all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it.”

WE SAY: “Studies have shown blah blah blah” (FLAW: You have implied that if studies showed License-To-Carry laws equaled more heat-of-passion shootings, Right-To-Carry should be illegal.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that’s not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than the Constitution, why don’t we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We’d catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?”

THEY SAY: “I don’t see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period.”

WE SAY: “It doesn’t do any good, criminals don’t wait five days, it’s a waste of resources blah blah blah.” (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods did reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “Shall we apply your logic to the First Amendment along with the Second? How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn’t that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who already own a handgun tells me that it’s not about crime prevention, it’s about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a ‘safe’ one with the government as chief nanny.”

THEY SAY: “In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have Atomic bombs.”

WE SAY: “Uh, well, uh...”

WE SHOULD SAY: “Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue--it’s in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 each had muskets, but not the large field pieces that fired exploding shells. In 2005, soldiers are each individually issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing free speech and freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV, satellite transmission, FAXes, and the Internet.”

THEY SAY: “We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these dangerous weapons.”

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY: “You know, driving is a luxury, whereas firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let’s put that aside for a moment. It’s interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can at any age go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size you want, and you don’t need to do anything if you don’t use them on public property. No license at all. If you do want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. No waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property. Sounds great to me.”

FINAL COMMENT, useful with most all arguments:

YOU SAY: “You know, I’m amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything.”

THEY SAY: “Hunh?”

YOU SAY: “Well, passing this proposal won’t have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither George W. Bush nor Hillary Clinton is going to open up internment camps for Americans like Roosevelt did sixty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn’t it possible that a person like that might be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him or her? If that does happen, do you really want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it by you?

Let me know if any of these points make you more effective the next time a "gun control" advocate starts in on his favorite subject.

ANOTHER ONE

2007-04-21T19:34:00.000-05:00

Add another failure to the gun control crowd. The shooting at NASA prove again the complete and utter failure of the gun control agenda and their "gun free zones" ANYONE who is stuck in one of these dangerous places should start trying to effect change in their environment...or find another job! The anti's again and again prove that their political position is more important to them than YOUR safety. There's no valid reason any longer to believe their outright LIES.
Check out the outright lies spewed by Adri Mehra "writing" in the Minnesota Daily:

"The slightly larger Glock 22 - so named for the number of bullets that its magazine can contain - is the single most popular police sidearm used in the United States, according to years of national survey data."
This load of CRAP is quoted directly from the article...now for the facts in the REAL world:

The Glock 22 is more likely than likely the pistol your local law enforcement officer carries in his duties. It's a .40 caliber pistol with a 15 round magazine capacity from the factory. A quick internet search would have told this hack the actual facts...but those don't make for good lies to cover his position of you and I are not to be trusted with our own safety.
In the sake of telling the TRUTH...you can purchase a extension kit to gain 5 more rounds...what's that...20? 21 if you top off the mag after chambering a round....still a round short from the 22 that Mehra claims. My guess is he saw a movie once with a glock looking pistol with the magic hollywood belt feed ammo supply. Someone with a total disregard of the facts should be fired...plain and simple, along with is editor. ANYONE who allowed this piece of trash to waste ink is just a culpable in this travesty of journalistic integrity.

If Mehra were to happen by this little post...you sir are a liar...plain and simple. You distort easily found facts to fit your twisted views on the world and pass them off as gospel. You deserved to be fired and exposed to the Minnesota readers as the fraud you really are.

1st TFA meeting for Nashville

2007-04-20T08:15:00.000-05:00

I believe we finally got a TFA chapter going for the Nashville area last night. We met over at APPS (Academy of Personal Protection and Security) to start the chapter. For those that don't know, The TFA is the Tennessee Firearms Association. Founded by Buford Tune and John Harris. There are mostly responsible for the changes for the better in Tennessee's concealed weapons permits. John is up on Capitol Hill when the state house/senate is in session fighting for YOUR right to carry a concealed weapon. The Nashville chapter NEEDS members and support. The only cost (it looks like so far) will be the cost of your food if we meet at a restaurant somewhere and your membership in the Tennessee Firearms Association. Buford told us last night that we can meet in his classroom as long as he doesn't have a class scheduled.

Right now the two most important gun related issues on the hill right now is the removal of the stupid ban on carrying your weapon in a restaurant that serves alcohol for on site consumption...even if you aren't consuming and the bill removing the restrictions for carrying in a state park, office building, etc.
As for the restaurant carry bill, there is some debate on how the current law is written, there is no explusion for police. It could be argued rather successfully that they might in fact be breaking the law by NOT disarming when stopping for lunch/dinner.
The law states:
a) It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm within the confines of a building open to the public where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in § 57-3-101(a)(1)(A), or beer, as defined in § 57-6-102(1), are served for on premises consumption.

(b) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to a person who is:

(1) In the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer, or is employed in the army, air force, navy, coast guard or marine service of the United States or any member of the Tennessee national guard in the line of duty and pursuant to military regulations, or is in the actual discharge of duties as a correctional officer employed by a penal institution; or

(2) On the person's own premises or premises under the person's control or who is the employee or agent of the owner of the premises with responsibility for protecting persons or property.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 1029, § 4; 2001, ch. 345, § 1.]

Poorly written law. No one in their right mind would expect a cop to leave his weapon in his car...but lunch, off duty, the law is written so poorly that one could make a case that the cops were breaking the law just by having lunch someplace that doesn't ask " do ya want fries with dat?"

32 Failures of gun control

2007-04-18T21:32:00.000-05:00

I've been following the VT tragedy pretty much since the start. The more I heard about what had happened the more pissed I became. Not just at the shooter, he's a piece of trash coward who merits no more mercy than a rabid skunk. No, my anger is directed at those close minded people who like high on their ivory towers surrounded by gates and armed guards who decide that THEY know better than the common man and push for more gun control. The senseless killing of 31 VT students shows yet again the complete failure of gun control laws. The brady bunch and their ilk sit back attempting to use each and every incident like this to push for more bullshit gun control. IT DOESN’T WORK! When will people wake up to this simple friggin fact of life. If you make it known that there are no guns legally in a place…that place will be much easier to do bad things in. The bad guys don’t really CARE that VT was a “gun free zone” It became a slaughterhouse. Anyone who thinks guns are the problem is pretty much deluded. The problem isn’t the fact that we as American citizens have access to guns. The problem is the anti gun crowd has a faster moving PC machine. All the hand wringing and calls for swift action to play on raw emotion is their stand operating procedure. They push and push for more gun control.

The VT campus was the world the anti gunners was ALL of us to live in. Free of guns..well..except for the one welded by evil. The law abiding students and faculty were left defenseless, waiting on the campus police to come and save them cowering in rooms, waiting to be slaughtered.

In 2006, Virginia had the chance to change the law..it was killed in committee. And I quote

Jan 21, 2006
HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.
By Greg Esposito 381-1675

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.
House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.
The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, would not comment Monday because he was not part of the subcommittee that discussed the bill.
Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon entering campus. The legislation was designed to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."
The legislation allowed for exceptions for participants in athletic events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training programs.
Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus.
In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.

They had a chance to give those students a fighting chance…and they failed. They let their innate fear of guns over ride common sense, and now they must live with those decisions.

The blood of those 31 students rests squarely on the hands of those who took away their right to self protection