Category: Gun Rights

Because They’re Better Than You and Me

Getting a permit to carry in California is almost impossible unless you’re rich or politically well connected. I also learned that it’s illegal to carry in their state capitol unless you’re a law enforcement officer or a legislator:

When state lawmakers return to Sacramento this week, a few will carry guns. Four members of the Assembly have been given permission to carry concealed weapons in the Capitol.

Anyone entering the Capitol building in Sacramento passes through a metal detector at a security checkpoint. State law prohibits concealed or deadly weapons in public buildings, including the Capitol.

But law enforcement officers are exempt – and so are legislators under limited circumstances; the Assembly or Senate sergeants-at-arms can give permission for a lawmaker to carry a concealed weapon.

See, they need to be protected from us serfs. If they allowed lowly serfs to carry guns who knows what kind of terrible things could happen. Hell just look at all the shootings that have occurred in the capitol buildings in Texas and Minnesota… you know all zero of them.

You have to love how California legislators can’t carry in the state capitol under “limited circumstances” which basically amounts to asking permission from your fellow legislators. Then again these are the same punks that can also give themselves raises. I believe we should hold legislators to the exact same standards as actual productive people. Thus if you or I can’t carry at the California state capitol neither should those critters who call themselves “representatives.”

Washington Legalizes Suppressors

Man, even people living in Washington state can be courteous of their neighbors and use suppressors. House Bill 1016 was officially signed into law which legalized the use of suppressors within the state and put Washington one step ahead of Minnesota in that regard. The following paragraph sums up why suppressors should not only be legal in every state but should also be removed for the list of firearms and firearm accessories that are regulated by the National Firearms Act:

Anyone who has ever fired a gun knows that gunfire is loud. It can cause immediate and permanent hearing loss. While suppressors do not eliminate the sound of a firearm, they do reduce the muzzle report of the gun much in the same way that a muffler reduces exhaust noise from a car or truck. There are many benefits to suppressors: they can increase accuracy, they make shooting more enjoyable by lessening felt recoil and reducing muzzle blast, they protect shooters’ hearing, and they help to reduce noise complaints from neighbors.

If you live near a gun range and find the noise annoying you should be advocating for the legalization of suppressors. I would love to see this happen here but alas I think it may be a while.

Minnesota Anti-Gunners Moving to Potentially Ban Carrying at the State Capitol

I have no actual details on this but the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) is putting out the word that some of Minnesota’s anti-gun politicians might be trying to sneak some carry prohibitions into the light rail finance bill:

On Tuesday, the Minnesota House State Government Finance Committee will be looking at an appropriations bill for improvements to capitol security. The bill funds construction of a tunnel under University Avenue.

The bill, HF1287, is fine as it stands, but some anti-gun house members intend to add new restrictions — or even an outright ban — on permit holders carrying at the capitol.

GOCRA is asking that you contact your “representatives” and tell them to either kill the bill or pass it as-is. Personally I’m all for killing this bill as spending tons of money on a light rail system at a time where our state is massively in debt doesn’t make financial sense to me. What makes even less sense though is attaching a restriction to our right to carry to a fucking finance bill.

Contact your “representatives” and let them know either anti-gun legislation stays out of this bill or they will be staying out of the capitol come next election cycle.

The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act Of 2011

Although those of us residing in the United States are promised a right to keep and bear arms by the very document that created the powerful federal government we now have this right is often ignored. This shouldn’t be too surprising as the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights are always assumed to have a rider attached that says, “With permission of the states.” Our right to keep arms is restricted by specific types of firearms and our right to bear arms is restricted in so many ways I can’t begin to list them.

After McDonald vs. Chicago the second amendment was finally incorporated and thus now applies to the states. Due to this very fact I believe it is now time to pass national carry reciprocity. Truth be told I previously believed we needed to pass such a law but now we have justification for loosening the restrictions on one of our rights. Thankfully there is a bill on the table titled The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act Of 2011:

Dozens of states have passed carry laws over the past 25 years because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves home. However, interstate recognition of those permits is not uniform and creates great confusion and potential problems for the traveler. While many states have broad reciprocity, others have very restrictive reciprocity laws. Still others deny recognition completely.

H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized, while protecting the ability of the various states to determine the areas where carrying is prohibited. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced similar legislation since 1995.

The bill number is H.R. 822 and the text can be read here. As of right now the bill need co-sponsors so the National Rifle Association (NRA) is urging people to contact their “representatives” and urge them to support this bill.

Why “Gun-Free Zones” are Dangerous

One of the biggest problems with having a carry permit is ensuring you don’t enter so-called “gun-free zones” while carrying your means of self-defense. If I were to accidentally walk onto property owned by a high-school I could be in some deep shit should my Glock 30SF be in its holster. Proponents of “gun-free zones” seem to be under the belief that bad people will choose to leave weapons behind when they enter these zones as well. Those proponents also exist in a world of make believe that they’ve traveled to on a trolly and to seek the wisdom of puppets.

Gun bloggers have been making the states that criminals are law breakers by definition for a while now. It’s really a simple concept, somebody willing to commit a violent crime isn’t going to be deterred by a law that says they can’t bring a weapon into a zone. “Gun-free zones” only serve to disarm the law-abiding and put them at the mercy of violent criminals. Sadly this is something that Amanda Collins had to experience first hand:

Amanda Collins, 25, is a wife and new mom, and a concealed weapon permit holder for years. At her father’s law office in Reno, she showed us the 9-mm Glock she carries for her safety.

“It’s got a pretty standard magazine,” she said, “and night sights so you can see in the dark when you’re aiming.”

However, Collins couldn’t aim her gun at the serial rapist who attacked her at the University of Nevada at Reno, where she was a student. That’s because, like most public colleges outside of Utah and Colorado, UNR is a “gun free” zone. The rule required her to leave her gun at home, leaving her defenseless the one time she needed its protection most.

Because she followed the law and left her firearm behind when entering a “gun-free zone” she was unable to defend herself against a scumbag piece of shit who preyed upon victims he could be reasonably assured were unarmed. This type of bullshit needs to end. Thankfully in Minnesota no legal restriction exists against a permit holder carrying a firearm onto a college campus. A campus can make rules against students and faculty doing this but should such a rule be violated the college can’t bring any legal actions against the violator (they can expel or fire them though, which is why a law should be passed preventing public colleges from enacting such rules). Sadly many other states have such legal restrictions.

Mrs. Collins’s story is an example of the dangers of established “gun-free zones.” If your state bars the lawful carrying of firearms onto college campuses you should be working diligently to get these restrictions lifted. After all there have been no cases of a person lawfully carrying a firearm shooting up a college campus but there have been many cases where violent criminals have been on college campuses and couldn’t be stopped quickly as mere peasants like you and me were unable to carry our means of self-defense.

Brazilian School Shooting

12 children are dead after a crazed fuckwit went through a Brazilian school. Of course like most of these lunatics this pussy offed himself as soon as opposition showed up. This demonstrates two other reasons I’m such a proponent of carry laws and against so-called gun-free zones; these shootings always happen in gun free zones and the shooter almost always offs himself the second he meets any form of resistance. If school faculty were allowed to carry while at work they could present this resistance sooner than the police could arrive which would likely cause the shooter to off himself earlier on thus potentially saving lives.

I’m sure this event will be used by the anti-gunners in Brazil to further restrict what can and can’t be owned by the mere serfs but after looking up Brazil’s gun laws I have to say they’re not as bad as expected but certainly are restrictive.

All firearms must be registered, a person must be 25 years-old before purchasing a firearm, and in order to keep a firearm you must pay a registration tax every three years. I’ll also mentioned the scumbag shooter broke Brazilian law as it is apparently almost impossible to get a carry permit there. I also found it interesting that there was a referendum in 2005 to ban all civilian firearm and ammunition sales in Brazil. It failed but the following got my attention:

The ban also had the backing of the federal government (which wanted a government monopoly on gun possession), the Roman Catholic Church, and Rede Globo. The anti-gun lobby received vast support and free coverage from the press.

It would seem that the Brazilian government is in favor of disarming the serfs and was willing to give anti-gunners free coverage in order to accomplish it’s goal of disarming the public. I’m not at all shocked by this though.

Another thing that is interesting about this story are the weapons chosen by the scumbag shooter:

At least 12 others were wounded when the man entered the school with two revolvers and began shooting.

It would seem a ban on standard capacity magazines wouldn’t have done jack shit here. I’m not at all surprised.

Government Shutdown and NICS

With the looming government shutdown one interesting question that has been going around the gun community is whether or not the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) will be operational. This is an interesting question to which no answer appears to be in sight. Personally I doubt the NICS systems will be offline as even in a government shutdown law enforcement agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) will continue running (and our soldiers will be expected to continue working even though they won’t be receiving paychecks, how’s that for a stab in the back).

With that said part of me would almost welcome a shutdown of NICS. Why? Because it would open the door for questioning whether or not NICS is at all constitutional. There are two possibilities that could occur if NICS were to shut down; gun stores would be unable to sell firearms or all firearms sales would go through after three days (if NICS doesn’t get back to a dealer in three days the owner can treat it as an automatic approval). In the first case having a non-operational NICS system would effectively bar people their right to keep and bear arms by effectively creating a blanket gun ban for the time of government shutdown. In the second case ineligible people may acquire firearms placing the question as to whether or not the NICS system is worth anything on the table.

I could see grounds for a lawsuit if the NICS system was shutdown preventing somebody who needed a firearm to self-defense from obtaining it.

More Bad News for California Gun Owners

Bad news denizens of the People’s Republic of Kalifornistan, three bad news for guns bills are coming up for a hearing. These seem really stupid and absolutely asinine which means they have a real chance in that state forsaken by the major deities of every religion:

SB 124 would create a broadly expanded and technically flawed definition of handgun ammunition which would encompass virtually all rifle cartridges. It would also ban the possession of many types of rifle cartridges and make it a felony to possess them. SB 124 doesn’t stop there, it could also ban virtually all non-lead ammunition used in California by reclassifying them as “armor piercing.” If passed, this bill could result in a complete ban on hunting in the California condor zone in which the use of lead ammunition is prohibited for hunting.

In an effort to further stifle law-abiding gun owners from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, anti-gun Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-44) has introduced legislation that would change the state’s gun laws and prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying an unloaded handgun openly. It is currently legal to carry an unloaded handgun into most public places within the state, including restaurants and malls, but if approved, AB 144 would make it a misdemeanor to carry an unloaded handgun in public under most circumstances.

AB 809, introduced again by F-rated Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-42), would establish a state registration system, similar to the one currently in place for handguns, for all newly-acquired rifles and shotguns. Under AB809, the make, model and serial number of the firearm as well as the identifying information of the purchaser would be recorded and kept on file by the California Attorney General’s office.

Banning, registration, and removal of a right all in one hearing. Those statist fucks in California’s legislature sure are a busy bunch. Honestly, if you’re a gun owner who lives in California it would be smart to just move. I think the state is completely beyond help at this point and there is not chance of reforming it back to a place where free people may live. Get out of there before they make it illegal to leave the state without papers and direct permission from the state government.

Gun “Buy Back” Equates to Crime Coverup

I have a problem with the term gun “buy back” because buying something back implies it was originally owned by the future purchaser. The police can’t buy back a firearm unless they previously possessed it thus the name of these programs is a complete lie. I propose we rename these events to crime coverup programs. It would be far more accurate as Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry pointed out to his local police department:

Curry said his office didn’t like that the police could be collecting — and destroying — guns that might have been used in crimes.

“On the one hand, we’re completely supportive of any effort to reduce illegal guns on the street,” Curry said Monday. “But nevertheless, we have the responsibility of investigating existing crimes and coordinating with federal agencies to trace how these weapons are ending up on the streets in the first place.”

That’s what these programs accomplish, the destruction of potential crime scene evidence. There has been no evidence brought forth that these programs reduce violent crime yet there is no denying that the possibility of destroying a gun used in a crime is there. Hell that’s something the police even realize by stating no questions will be asked about the firearms.

So why are the police using taxpayer money to purchase firearms only to potentially cover up a crime?

Carry Permits Used as Justification for Deploying the SWAT Team

Here’s another chapter for my future book on police abuse (which will never be released because a no-knock raid will be performed shortly before publishing due to the fact I hold a carry permit). A Mr. Bellotte made the mistake of getting photographs contained *gasp* nudity developed at Wal-Mart. This is always a mistake because any nudity can be contrived as being child pornography which is what the Wal-Mart employee claimed when he called the police. The Frederick County police responded in kind by deploying their SWAT team to perform a no-knock raid on Mr. Bellotte’s residence because he held a carry permit:

In order to execute the warrant, Detective Edwards sought and received approval from the ranking Jefferson County law enforcement officer for the assistance of the Jefferson County Special Operations Team (“SORT Team”). The SORT Team leaders decided that their involvement was justified due to the possibility of a violent reaction from Mr. Bellotte and the concealed carry permits held by both Mr. and Mrs. Bellotte. After the three SORT squads were assembled and briefed, they arrived at the Bellotte residence around 10:15 p.m.

I’m certainly no expert on tactics in storming peoples’ homes but it seems to me knowing somebody has a carry permit would be grounds to perform a knock and announce entry. By busting down the door and storming into a residence a home defense situation has been created by the fact unknown assailants have entered the building. As the police never announced the fact that they were police and that you can’t know if the police actually are police without at least some kind of proof (a warrant) it would be a valid reaction for a home owner to take measures to defend himself in a no-knock raid.

Of course when the accusation of child pornography is being made absolutely any tactic the police wish to use is considered valid by most of the populace. When this accusation comes from a photo developer who can’t reasonably be assured a person in a picture is a child though, then there is no grounds for anything beyond a cursory investigation. Can you guess what the police found after storming the residence and performing an investigation?

Mr. Bellotte, it turns out, had spent that night in his hunting cabin in Hampshire County, West Virginia. The next morning, when his wife told him what happened, he went to see Detective Edwards at the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office. He gave a recorded statement and later produced a passport and birth certificate showing that the female in the photo was not a child, but in fact a 35-year-old woman who lived in the Philippines. Thus Mr. Bellotte did not in fact possess any child pornography, and no charges were ever filed against him.

Apparently our potential child was 35 years-old. The police created a potential home defense situation for people whom have had no history of violence because some punk at Wal-Mart said a carry permit holder may have produced child pornography. Just thinking about the fact that the police took action that could have caused a peaceful and innocent person to need the use of violence in apparent self-defense just makes my head spin.

If Mr. Bellotte had shot one of the police thinking they were generic cooks you can guarantee he’s be in prison for murder while the police officers would be off scot-free.