Chronicling the depravities of the State.
Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell let us know that the Colorado Court has made a ruling in regards to students carrying on campus:
Judges with the Colorado Court of Appeals say students and employees at the University of Colorado should be able to pack heat on campus.
Congratulations Colorado.
I just saw this come over the NRA-ILA site this morning. A bill has been presented in Wisconsin that would enact castle doctrine.
Currently the bill, AB 193, is sitting in the Assembly Rules Committee. I know little about Wisconsin politics but those of you living there may want to find out who’s on that committee and urge them to vote yes on this bill so it can get out to a vote by the state representatives.
In case you’re new to the self defense terminology castle doctrine means you are able to defend your home from invaders without fear of legal repercussions. In states without castle doctrine (such as Wisconsin and Minnesota) if a criminal breaks into your home and you injure him (in other words you defended your home) the invader can take legal action against you (although it’s not a guarantee that the invader will win it’s still legal headaches for the home owner regardless).
The previously mentioned night sights I ordered for my Glock 30SF came last night. I’m glad to say installation was a breeze.
When I ordered the sights I also ordered the <a href="http://www.mgwltd.com/firearms.shtml"MGW rear sight tool for Glock pistols. I decided to spend the money and get that instead of going through the fun and entertainment of using a punch and hammer to remove the factory rear sight and install the new Ameriglo. The punch and hammer method is generally not a good idea on tritium filled night sights as you risk cracking the glass vials that hold the tritium. Also the punch and hammer method is the easiest way to really mar up the sight if nothing else. Needless to say I figured since I have three Glock pistols already I could easily justify the price for the tool (and I’m a man who likes to have a lot of tools).
The tool has a plate on the bottom that you put the slide in. The plate is the same width as the rails on the pistol so you slide the slide (redundant no?) onto the plate and tighten the plate down. After that you should apply some oil to both sides of the actual sight pusher and from there you simply remove the old sight. Simple.
After removal I took some Gunzilla to the dovertail and areas in front of and behind the dovetail. I also applied some gun Gunzilla to the bottom of the rear sight. This was to ensure the surface was clean and also provide some lubrication to make sight installation easier. Just make sure you start the rear sight by pushing it into the dovetail as far as you can without the tool. This will avoid headaches I believe.
Installation of the front sight was dead simple for the most part. The Ameriglo sights came with a small brass hex screw driver that allowed for removal of the stock front sight (which was screwed on, not staked on as Glock used to always do) and installation of the new sight. The front slight didn’t fit perfectly right into the hole on the slide and had a hair of left/right play. The first time I tightened it on it was slightly crooked facing towards the right (left/right is based on looking at the pistol as if you were holding it). It was a simple correction though as I just had to unscrew the front sight screw, turn the sight slightly, and hold it in place as I tightened it.
Did I say easy? Oops I meant to say difficult. Not because of the sight but because I learned a lesson I should have already known. Only apply Loctite after you’ve done an installation run without it. Yeah I put Loctite Threadlocker (the blue stuff) on the front sight screw to it wouldn’t become loose during shooting. Well when I saw the front sight was crooked I had a fun time removing the screw again (I eventually got it with a combination of the front sight tool and a vice grip). So word to the wise, install the front sight, ensure it’s on correctly, and then take it off, apply Loctite, and install it again. Just save yourself some headaches.
So installation was dead simple (like everything else on a Glock thankfully).
I haven’t gotten the gun to the range so these initial impressions of the sights are from looking at them only. First the sights I got were a combination of a front green sight and yellow rear sight. I really like this color scheme now that I’ve seen it in the dark. The front sight is slightly brighter than the rear sight dots making it stick out well. This is accomplished by the fact the vial in the front sight is slightly larger but also the front sight is picked up a bit better since it’s green (the human eye is most sensitive to green, which is why night vision goggles display in shades of green).
The sights are quite bright but not harshly bright. The dots are very crisp and clear. One added advantage that I wasn’t expecting was in the dark I can actually sort of make out the three sights without my glasses on (my right eye, the dominant one, has the worst case of nearsightedness that I think you can have without being declared legally blind). The dots are horribly blurry but I can line them up properly.
The white circles surrounding the tritium vials really stand out in a lighted area. I feel I can acquire a target much faster with these than the stock Glock sights (which I’ve never really been a fan of).
I’ll have more after I actually get them out to the range (hopefully this weekend). But initial impressions are very good.
Good news citizens of the state south of Minnesota. It seems that the shall-issue concealed carry bill is moving through your legislation. According to the NRA-ILA all that is left is for your governor to sign it. So get on the horn and tell him to sign it when it comes across his desk. It’s about time another state gains shall-issue status instead of “politically-well-connected-issue” status.
On thing that those of us who carry need to be concerned about is what to do when an officer pulls us over while we’re armed. The rules about this vary state to state but what I’m writing can only be considered applicable in Minnesota.
The rules in Minnesota are simple. You do not need to inform an officer that you’re armed but if asked you must answer truthfully. When an officer runs your license plate number the returned information will include whether the registered owner of the vehicle has a carry permit or not [Pending official verification. See comments below.]. With this knowledge the officer can chose to ask if you’re armed or not.
There are two schools of thought on how to respond to this situation. The first school says you should inform the officer right away. The second school of thought is that you shouldn’t disclose any information to the officer unless he or she asks first. I’m in the second school of thought and this post is my justification.
First the police officer should know whether I have a permit when they pull me over as my vehicle is registered to me. With this knowledge if they want to know I’m armed then they can ask. Duty of information is their burden not mine. Second a police officer’s job requires them to use anything you say against you. Because of this, outside of casual conversation, my rule of thumb is the only answer questions asked by the police. I never give any information they don’t ask for directly and when they ask a question I answer it as to the point as possible. I’m always polite because they are doing their job after all and I’m glad there are police officers out there. But I’m not going to give them any rope to hang me with either.
My third reasoning is the most important to me though. That’s the fact that criminals have impersonated police officers. These criminals have pulled over innocent people and robbed, raped, or murdered those people. Now if you’re like me you obvious take some time and consideration on the subject of self defense. We’re taught to always be in condition yellow and aware of our surroundings. We’re also taught to be suspicious of anybody we don’t know. So why take somebody’s word that their a police officer without question?
A little known fact is that you can call 911 when you’re being pulled over and ask the operator if there is actually a cop pulling you over. They will tell you whether the person behind you is a cop or not. This is advice they now give in driver education course as a mechanism to verify the person pulling you over at 3 a.m. in the middle of nowhere is actually a cop or not. Additionally a person impersonating a cop is not going to have access to your license and registration information. Unless the impersonator knows you personally or has access to the police database they will not know you are armed. This brings us to the whole subject of not informing the person pulling you over that you’re armed. If the person pulling you over is a real cop they know you have a carry permit and therefore can ask if you’re armed. On the other hand if the person who is pulling you over isn’t a cop they have no way of knowing you have a carry permit and therefore will most likely not ask you if you’re armed. If they ask if you have a carry permit be suspicious because a real officer will have access to such information.
If the person is actually a criminal impersonating a cop do you want to volunteer the information that you’re armed? I sure wouldn’t. I have a gun as a mechanism to use in self-defense. I also carry concealed because I don’t want people knowing I’m armed, the element of surprise is a good thing in my book. Therefore I’m not going to divulge the face I’m armed to somebody who could be a potential criminal.
Stay alert. Don’t trust people you don’t know, especially when that person appears to be a person of authority. Criminals do use disguises of authority to gain peoples’ trust and obedience. You shouldn’t drop out of condition yellow just because the person in front of you looks like an authority figure.
The Firing Pin Journal has a post where you select one pistol, one rifle, and one shotgun for self defense. So I figured what the Hell I might as well play along.
Pistol
My Glock 30SF. I carry it on my person every day, it’s proven itself to be reliable, and it shoots a .45 which I’m just a fan of. Also parts for Glocks are easy to find and the gun is easy to work on. Heck you can detail strip it in the field without any issue.
Shotgun
My Remington 870 Marine Magnum. It’s a pump action shotgun that is one of the most popular in the world (The 870 line itself not the Marine Magnum line). It has an 18″ barrel making it maneuverable and a large magazine capacity meaning you don’t have to jam shells into the tube as often. To top it off it’s idiot proof. Oh and like the Glock parts are easy to come by which I just kind of like.
Rifle
This is a harder one. It’s a toss up between my beloved M1A SOCOM 16 and the AK-47. In the end I’ll chose the AK-47 because this is for self defense and honestly 7.62x39mm is plenty enough to drop a person. To top that off the AK-47 is world renowned for reliability, parts and ammo are easy to find, and frankly it’s idiot proof.
Apparently Newsweek published a 12 step program to survive a hostage situation. Every Day, No Days Off published a two step program. I find it far more effective than Newsweeks.
I’m sure most of you know about the fiasco occurring at Colorado State University. The campus is trying to ban lawful carrying of concealed firearms by their student body. Well I found a rather interesting article about this. Why is it interesting? Because the article was written in such a way to appear neutral but most certainly is not. Let’s start here:
It is a debate that gets snarled in the conflicting logic of gun ownership rights and the simple notion that bullets and blackboards don’t mix.
Personally I don’t find disarming a populace simple logic. And of course:
Whenever a change in the rules is discussed, national groups rush in with their agendas. On Friday, the Colorado board of governors received a petition from Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), a group that says young scholars stand a better chance of surviving the kind of rampage that occurred in Virginia if – as it were – they pack a pistol in their pencil case.
I’m unaware of anybody who carries that doesn’t use a holster. I certainly don’t know anybody who carries a gun in a pencil case. But we’re not done:
On the other side of the argument is Gun Free Kids, an organisation that began a “Keep Guns off Campus” campaign two years ago in response to the Virginia slaughter. It deploys research from law enforcement groups that suggests that there is no correlation between gun-toting citizens and lowered rates of violence.
I’m going to try and find their research. But since most colleges ban students and faculty from carrying on campus and all the major shootings have occurred on disarmed campuses it goes without saying that there is no correlation between armed citizens and lower rates of violence. It’s almost like the cowards who perform mass shootings seek out disarmed populations to enact their rage against. If only there was at least one state that allowed students to carry and didn’t have any occurrences of mass shootings. Oh wait:
“It really came down to two general issues, number one: best practices, just looking at what other universities are doing, and very, very few outside of the state of Utah allow concealed weapons on campus,” he said recently. “The second is risk management, and it really comes down to this university is responsible for managing risk on this campus of the students.”
That’s right Utah. In Utah you can carry on a state campus. Likewise Utah has had no mass shootings on a college campus since the enacting of their carry laws. No this is not proof, nor evidence, nor even a correlation. But it’s on par with what Gun Free Kids (How many kids are in college anyways? Most people there are 18 or older.) is presenting. Finally this is out of order in the article but alas I want to make a statement about it:
The group also says that there are few places where guns should be less welcome than on campuses. “With binge-drinking, drug use and the pressures that college students are under, we just think introducing guns into that environment, it’s the wrong thing to do,” said campaign director Andy Pelosi.
What person who has a concealed carry license is going to binge drink while carrying? Whom of those people are going to abuse drugs and risk losing their license? What college student “under pressure” is going to use a legally carried gun to do something nasty?
The bottom line is conceal carry license holders are some of the most law abiding citizens out there. Anyways consider this post a mini Truth About Guns episode without all the citations and work.
Today is February 22nd which means you can now legally carry in national parks so long as you obey the carry laws of the park’s host state.
According to the gun control advocates this is the day that violence in national parks will sky rocket, blood will rain from the sky to fill the streets, everybody who enters a national park will be shot, and bears will become extinct as gun toting maniacs poach to their hearts’ content.
For those of us in the real world this is the day where nothing changes except those of us who carry don’t become criminals the second we talk into a national park. My prediction is nothing will change except for the fact some people who would have been mauled to death by a random wild animal will not survive.
Says Uncle shows us the difference between peaceful pro-gun people and violent anti-gunners. The violent anti-gunner said the following:
In several of my comments, I made derogatory remarks directed at the trolls. I said some nasty stuff. Some colorful language was used. I stand by that language. I also stand by my offer to face them one on one and punch these idiots in their faces. That’s how I roll.
Meanwhile Uncle the peaceful pro-gun activist retorts with:
If he threatened me, I’d go to a local judge and get a restraining order taken out against him. That’s how I roll. Because I don’t have something to prove. To my wife.
Once again pro-gun people prove that we’re peaceful individuals who resort to violence only when absolutely necessary.