If you are anti-guns, or afraid of guns, or just don't like them and don't want them in your house, then this blog is for you.
(It might just change your mind)

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Taxing the Second Amendment

By Emily Miller @ Washington Times

Liberals are trying every tool at their disposal this year to go after guns. They have failed on Capitol Hill to restrict the Second Amendment, so they are moving through the states to enact their agenda. The latest maneuver is to hike the tax on guns and ammunition to dissuade the law-abiding from buying firearms. It's the perfect storm of liberalism - more revenue for a bigger government and fewer people keeping and bearing arms.

President Obama's hometown of Chicago started the movement late last year by enacting a $25 tax on new firearm purchases, which went into effect on April 1. Cook County stopped just short of adding a levy on ammunition. In February, Rep. Linda T. Sanchez, California Democrat, and 26 of the most uber-liberals in the House introduced a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to create an excise tax of 10 percent on any concealable gun in order to empower Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to establish a firearms buy-back grant program. Since the Newtown, Conn., school-shootings tragedy, anti- gun states across the nation have introduced similar measures.

A new bill in the House would prevent this infringement on the Second Amendment. Rep. Sam Graves introduced legislation on June 13 that would make it illegal for states and municipalities to raise taxes or fees on firearms and ammunition. The Missouri Republican's proposal would also prevent raising taxes in order to pay for background checks. "The Constitution says 'shall not infringe,' " Mr. Graves told me in an interview Thursday. "When you place this outrageous tax on the sale of ammunition and firearms, it's intended to curtail those rights." Congress has authority to do this under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce, which these taxes suppress. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents the manufacturers, and the National Rifle Association both endorsed the Graves bill, which will go through the House Judiciary Committee.

Massachusetts is considering a 25 percent excise tax on all firearms, ammunition and parts as part of its overall gun-control agenda. The Nevada Assembly is moving on a bill to impose a $25 tax on each gun and 2 cents for each round of ammunition sold by a dealer. Connecticut legislators proposed this year a 50-cent sales tax on ammunition. Washington state is considering a proposal to tax every firearm sold at retail at $25 (lowered to $15 if the buyer springs for a gun safe or gun lock) and 1 cent on each round of ammunition.

The states with the most radical proposals are Maryland and Connecticut, both of which are proposing raising taxes on ammunition by 50 percent. Alcohol, which is not guaranteed by the Constitution but leads to more deaths than firearms, is the only other item in the Free State that is taxed higher than the 6 percent sales tax, but it is only 9 percent. Several other states are also going after bullets because they are purchased more often than guns. A bill introduced in New Jersey proposes a 7 percent levy on ammunition sales. The California Assembly is considering a bill to impose a 5- cent-per-round levy on retailers for "the privilege of selling ammunition."

These costly measures disproportionately affect lower-income people, who often live in higher-crime areas. Along with other costly mandates, such as maintaining liability insurance, these restrictions would likely be overturned as unconstitutional by the courts. "This is no different than a poll tax - but on the Second Amendment," said Lawrence Keane, general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. "These anti-gun politicians are clearly trying to unduly burden the exercise of the Second Amendment by pricing firearms and ammunition out of reach of many law-abiding Americans. Mr. Graves' bill will put a stop to these sinister schemes."

Meanwhile, Mr. Graves correctly points out that the gun grabbers' efforts have backfired so far. "The Obama administration has tried to capitalize on some unfortunate instances to try to slow down the sale of firearms and ammo. The irony is that the pressure to outlaw or control the sale of firearms, it just accelerates sales. It's like pouring gas on a fire." The number of FBI background checks were up 27 percent in March, leading to the Senate vote the next month on Mr. Obama's gun-control agenda. The national instant criminal-background checks were up 20 percent in April.

Liberals love to raise taxes to push their social agenda, whether to push us out of our cars, stop us from smoking, force us to eat low-fat foods or curtail our drinking of alcohol. In their worldview, individuals are not capable of being responsible for their own health and well-being, so they need the nanny state to enforce proper behavior via their pocketbooks. However, unlike cigarettes and martinis, guns are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The House should pass the Graves bill quickly to show the states that their gun-grabbing scam will misfire.


Why firearms training?

In a self defense scenario, it's live or die.  You or the bad guy. 

Who usually wins a competition?  The one who's most skilled?  Ie:  The one who has practiced the most?  So if you're going to save your own life, and the lives of your family or friends in such a situation, shouldnt you have trained?  

Bad news:  The criminals are training more than you.


From a FBI study:

“The first thing that the researchers learned is that our assumptions about criminals not training are wrong".  Nearly 40% of the criminal attackers in this study had received FORMAL firearms training.  More than 80% of the criminal attackers regularly practiced with their firearms, with an average number of 23 Practice Sessions Per Year!
"They conducted these practice sessions in trash dumps, wooded areas, back yards and “street corners in known drug trafficking areas”.  What that means is that the practice sessions were taking place in realistic environments, under conditions similar to those the attackers were likely to face in combat."

Does that change your opinion about the abilities of your likely attacker?  It should.

How many of you shoot your weapons 23 times a year in a realistic environment?  I don’t know many people other than hobbyist shooters who do that.

The first thing that you could do is to increase the frequency of your practice sessions.  Shorter, more frequent practice sessions are more effective than long sessions that are spaced months apart.  Even if you don’t have regular access to a firing range, you can still practice drawing your gun and dry firing.  There have been several research studies that have shown dry firing to be just as valuable as real shooting for maintaining marksmanship abilities.


What’s at stake in a home invasion

by Tim

Often discussions related to self defense are conducted in the theoretical. Every now and then, though, something horrible gets captured on video and theory is trumped by cold, hard reality.

Fair warning: In this video you’re going to see a home invader beat an unarmed woman into a pulp in front of her small child. Thankfully she survives the ordeal, but even that knowledge won’t stop your blood from boiling as you watch the vicious attack. This is more disturbing than any gunfight footage I’ve ever posted to Gun Nuts…but I encourage you to watch it at least once because there are lessons here.

In discussions about a possible home invasion we often hear how thieves are just after the TV or the DVD player or the valuables, and how it’s better to let them have the stuff that’s easily replaced than to risk the consequences of using force. That approach assumes that the people who will kick down your front door to come and rob you are rational actors who behave according to motivations that make sense to your typical law-abiding citizen.

If the video above doesn’t make the point clearly enough, let me state flat out: That isn’t the way it works. Criminals do not operate according to a system of values that you or I would recognize. There was no rational reason to beat this poor woman so savagely. She offered no resistance and did nothing to impede the robbery this individual wanted to carry out. Her only thought was to protect her daughter (who witnessed the spectacle of her mother being beaten savagely…that’ll make for some pleasant dreams for the poor little tike) and all she did was try to keep herself between the bad man and her little girl. Doesn’t matter.

He still beat her half to death and threw her down some stairs. Why? Because it was fun.

I say again: There are bad men walking around out there who will beat someone half to death in front of their own children just because they think it’s good sport. If necessary I can start citing case after case in which bad men killed perfectly cooperative, non-resisting victims or just killed people out of the blue, all because it seemed like good fun at the time. My friend John Johnston of Ballistic Radio is going to interview William Aprill in a few weeks, (and if you don’t listen to that show you’re cheating yourself) an expert in criminal psychology and behavior. I attended a lecture Dr. Aprill gave some time ago about criminal actors and among the insights he shared was that a significant number of criminals reported that they felt a sense of accomplishment when they committed a criminal act.

Let me put that in terms you’ll understand: Think about how you felt when you graduated from college, or when you bought your first house, or when you snagged that promotion you worked so hard for, or when you lost that extra weight, or when you completed that big project. Think about what it did for your self worth. Think about what it did for your mood. Do you have it in your mind? Good.

That’s how this guy felt after beating that defenseless woman bloody in front of her small child.

Now I ask you:

Are you willing to let that into your home unchallenged? When that breaks into your home are you going to assume it just wants your jewelry and DVD player? Or perhaps the medications your recently deceased husband was taking to ease his pain from terminal cancer? Are you going to let them have free reign and hope they don’t hurt the people you love?

When a criminal kicks in your door you do not have the luxury of assuming they’ll go away and leave you unhurt if you just give them what they want. You don’t have the luxury of waiting for 911 or the alarm company to send help. There are too many examples that prove those strategies as ineffective to have any faith in them. If you don’t have a home defense plan, get one together. If your existing home defense plan doesn’t include the ability to rapidly employ significant force, fix it.

Home defense isn’t about DVD players. It isn’t about jewelry. It’s about protecting the people you love from men like this.

I’m sure prior to this incident the poor family that was targeted here didn’t really see the need for a home defense plan. They probably live in a “good” neighborhood and everything. Trouble is that a “good” neighborhood turns to a really bad one when the wrong sort of person shows up. Someone like this guy. There is no magic talisman that keeps them away from your home and your loved ones.

Don’t learn this lesson the hard way, folks. Experience is a cruel teacher and she doesn’t grade on a curve. People like this scumbag are out there. They’re walking around on the streets of your town, just looking for an opportunity. Don’t make yourself an easy target. Research ways to harden your home against this kind of intrusion. Make a plan that everybody in the family knows, with ready access to a firearm as a key piece of that plan.

…and resolve in yourself that if someone wants to beat your wife or children half to death that they’re going to have to get through you first.

The average person isn’t terribly intimidating to the typical violent criminal…but somebody who has decided they won’t be a victim and has ready access to a firearm is a different story.


Monday, June 24, 2013

New Colorado gun law bans all-online firearm training

A new law requires people to show a firearm instructor in person that they can safely handle a gun before they get a permit, seeking to close what lawmakers say is an Internet-era loophole they didn't envision 10 years ago.

"There was no thought of anyone going and sitting in front of a computer and doing the whole course online," said Democratic Sen. Lois Tochtrop, a sponsor of the new law, and one of the legislators who voted in favor of Colorado's concealed-carry law in 2003.

Most states require proof of training to carry a concealed weapon. Instructors teach basics like how to load and unload a gun, how to hold it and fire it and ways to store it properly. Only a few states allow people to complete a concealed-carry training course entirely online.

Colorado county sheriffs, who are the final authority on whether to approve or deny concealed-carry training permits, supported the bill, even though they opposed the other new firearm restrictions.

Colorado's new law, which took effect after the governor signed it last month, still allows most of the training to be done online. It requires, though, that a gun owner complete show an instructor in person they know how to handle a gun.

It's like driver's training, May said: People can learn the basics of driving and the rules of the road online, but have to take the actual driving test in person.

"People need to know how to shoot a weapon and store correctly so it doesn't go off," May said. "Those are all things that you can't necessarily learn from the Internet."


Group Plans ‘Toy Gun March’ on Washington

by Robert W. Hunnicutt 

One of the best ways to fight a remorseless, humorless enemy is with humor, and that’s what Washington, D.C., area libertarians are doing July 3 with the Toy Gun March.

Toy gun-toting celebrants will march through the National Mall to make the point that indoctrination-minded educational bureaucrats have been working to demonize gun ownership by the draconian punishments levied on students for, say, bringing a squirt gun to school.
The march begins at 9:30 a.m. and includes family-friendly games, face painting and speeches at the Lincoln Memorial at 10:30 a.m. There will be plenty of reloads on hand from a 160-gallon water tank that will accompany the column. Proceeds will go to Toys for Tots.
Congratulations to Libertarian Republic for thinking of this one. Ridicule is a powerful weapon, and if this march directs it towards anti-gun educrats, it will hit the mark.


Friday, June 21, 2013

Pistol Packing Grandma Starts Neighborhood "Glock Block"

By Alyssa Newcomb

A grandmother in Milwaukie, Ore., is organizing a "Glock Block," a pistol-packing group of neighbors that she said she hopes will help deter crime in her community.

Coy Tolonen, 65, said the idea came to her last Thursday after she tried and failed to chase down a thief who ran away with her beloved bronze yard statue.

Later that evening, the grandmother of three said she realized a door to her home had been jimmied open, possibly by the same man she said stole her statue.

"It just made my blood run cold because our grandkids are playing here a lot, and one of them could have been snatched just as easily as the statue," she told ABCNews.com.

"These guys need to know if you're going to pick on a little old lady, then lots of the ladies I know are packing [guns]. They're sweet ladies but if it's their life, I'm sorry you're going to lose yours," Tolonen said.

The breast cancer survivor said she wasn't going to let anything jeopardize the safety of her or her family in their home, and so the "Glock Block" idea was born.

Tolonen began printing flyers for her neighbors to hang in their windows, with a picture of a gun and the warning: "This is a Glock Block. We don't call 911." She said so far more than a dozen neighbors have shown interest.

"We don't want people to feel bad if they don't want to post one. We respect their rights too," Tolonen said. "I just want criminals to think twice. I want my grandkids to be able to play in the yard. It's time that we step up."

Tolonen, who said many of her friends have guns, is in the process of getting her concealed carry permit and said she's a staunch advocate for firearms safety among her group.

While Tolonen said her unincorporated town of 20,000 has a community group that has addressed crime in the past, she's hoping to hold regular meetings with the people in her neighborhood, possibly even at the firing range.

"It's time for us to get together," she said.

A spokesman for the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office, which serves Milwaukie, said that while it's within the rights of Tolonen and her neighbors to start the "Glock Block," guns can become dangerous when they are in the hands of someone without enough training and experience.

"What we're really talking about here is property crime ," Sgt. Robert Wurpes told ABCNews.com. "We don't think firearms are the answer to this problem. However, we do understand gun ownership is a right."

Wurpes said he and his fellow officers have been on plenty of calls in property crime cases and many times have realized victims hadn't been communicating with their neighbors or hadn't even met them.

"Get to know your neighbors," Wurpes said.

"We understand that it's frustrating when people get things stolen or are victims of crimes," he said. "Our concerns come into play when guns are involved because they're dangerous. "


Thursday, June 20, 2013

Magpul Offers New 40 rnd AR Magazines for $19.99

Magpul recently announced that they had started shipping the Gen M3 40 Round PMAGs to their distributors. I think they are going to be a huge hit, especially with the 3 Gun crowd.

The new PMAG Gen M3 40 round mag will retail for just $19.95. Visit Magpul.com for more information. Keep an eye out at your favorite retailers for availability very soon.


The next-generation PMAG 40 GEN M3 is a 40-round 5.56×45 NATO (.223 Remington) polymer magazine for AR15/M4 compatible weapons. Along with expanded feature set and compatibility, the GEN M3 incorporates new material technology and manufacturing processes for enhanced strength, durability, and reliability to exceed rigorous military performance specifications.


Wednesday, June 19, 2013

CHLs and "Illegal Knives" in Texas Redux

First, please see the comments in the original post on this topic from back in 2011:

This is a long read, but worth it.  It concerns a recent case about a CHL that got arrested for carrying an "illegal knife" despite the (vague) language in Section 46.02 that seems to be exempting CHLs.  

This guy just took a trip through the bowels of the legal system and got off, but (I am assuming) at the expense of *BIG* legal bills.  And because of the nature of the DA's dismissal**, he *may* have just set a favorable legal precedent for other CHLs  (At least in Travis County).

The law:

Texas Penal Code Sec. 46.01. DEFINITIONS 
(6) "Illegal knife" means a:
(A) knife with a blade over five and one-half inches;
(B) hand instrument designed to cut or stab another by being thrown;
(C) dagger, including but not limited to a dirk, stiletto, and poniard;
(D) bowie knife;
(E) sword; or
(F) spear.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

Problem:  There has been some debate about whether 46.15 applied to CHLs for all "illegal weapons" or just handguns.  The essentially law says ""unless you are a CHL carrying a handgun"  But does not SPECIFICALLY say that ONLY the handgun is exempted.  Sec 46.35 b doesn't say what PART of 46.02 does not apply, just "section 46.02" inferring that none of it applies;  Whereas the intent was probably only to allow handguns (and some judges may rule that way), the actual language seems to say otherwise.

** Per the defending attorney:  An "in the interests of justice" dismissal signifies that the prosecutor recognizes that he is dismissing the case, not merely because he can't prove the case, but because you are in fact innocent of the offense.

Short version:

What was done?

Walk though The Texas State Capitol with a 6.25 inch bladed knife in the spirit of demonstrating two things.

·         Open carry was being argued in a public forum in front of a Texas State House committee. I was demonstrating the lawful carry of a large knife in the open in support of open carry of handguns.
·         Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who: is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

What happened?

·         An arrest and charges for UCW were filed, I spent the night in jail and faced prosecution.

At this point we had an opportunity to change the law. Who knew where it'd go but it was THE chance to codify that 46.02 does not apply in this situation.

I could have gone to the media. Sorry folks my employer would have been in a bind at that point and I didn't want to be tried by the media. Now there was the RISK that the story could have broke and gotten in front of everyone but it didn't.

The Result.

·         ADA of Travis County dropped the charges after my lawyer showed them the law. According to my attorney the ADA looked over the law (46.02) and saw that the law was on my side.
·         Ok, we called them on it by the merit of the law and the ADA decided not to pursue this further.
·         The CHL license is still suspended.  Asking for it back now...

The long version (In the defendants words):

I Didn't Beat the Ride - Illegal Knife + CHL + Concealed Handgun = Jail + Charges (dismissed)
Ok, folks here's the point where I put a chapter and verse out on the Internet with enough information for the curious to do a virtual anal probe of my life. Please use lube.

So Travis County, DPS were the arresting officers.

Proof this really happened is easy to obtain.

Thursday March 14th I road to the Texas State Capitol building on my motorcycle. In Austin I planed to testify in support of a handful of bills that would allow the carry of handguns on college campuses and open carry of handguns by a Concealed Handgun Licensee (CHL).

I was carrying my handgun, concealed, and pocket knife and a knife with a blade of 6.25 inches long in a sheath on my belt, open to the world.

In the Texas State Capitol building there are two lines to enter. The metal detector line and the Concealed Handgun Licensee line that lets anyone with a license bypass the metal detectors. I used the CHL line, no issues.

Texas law refers to a knife with a blade over 5.5 inches long as an "illegal knife" that you generally can't have on your person except for a few exceptions such as travelling, hunting, fishing, at my home or place of business.

The law also states it doesn't apply to a person who is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid concealed handgun license (CHL). The crux of that is that the majority LEOs don't know or, as I found out, don't choose to acknowledge the plainness of this exception. I thought I stood a good chance of successfully disputing an arrest by pointing out the law in the event I was stopped.

Once at the building I passed though security, with my CHL, and went around looking for the meeting room. I asked no fewer than 4 DPS officers around the capitol building where the room was located. My sense of direction sucks, it's easy to get turned around in that building as well.

I went into the meeting, passing a group of 3 DPS officers, found out I had to register outside the room, went out passing them again, registered, and went back in and listened to the folks testifying for and against the campus carry bills.

About an hr later, mother nature called. I found a polite time to leave, when others were also leaving and I left the room.

Outside there were several DPS officers waiting... For me.

As far as not talking to the police.

I kept my comments, as much as I could, to the point of pointing out the law. When they asked how long the knife is I said it was a good idea to measure it at that point they did.

I spent the next couple of hours showing them where the law stated I was OK, them scratching their heads and even had a lively debate among them with 2 out of 12 folks agreeing with me and the others wanting to book me and let the DA figure it out. They checked my CHL status, my DL took my knifes, gun and holsters and sheath.

They did allow me to pee. I was sweating it though for a bit.

The knife was measured and measured wrong at 7.25 inches on a paper cutter that started at one inch on the ruler.

They then printed out 46.15 (b) 1-8 that had been hand hightlited at the top

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

And then down to the bottom of the page was also highlited.

(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

I was then asked if this is what I was referring to. I said yes, that's it. May I leave now?

I was then told I was ignorant of the law, the section in question only is valid for handguns.

I got arrested, booked in jail, charged with Unlawfully Carrying a Weapon (For my knife not my gun) and spent the night there till I was approved for personal bail. I got some sleep at the jail (Don't ask me how), got out at about 3:30am and then found my motorcycle and drove home.

This was a Class A Misdemeanour charge. I have been notified under section 411.187 that I may no longer carry and have turned in my CHL.

I've hired a lawyer.

In selecting a lawyer I narrowed it down to five, then sent a brief description of the charges in an email. All either emailed or called back. Only one I think really understood.

First email from him:
"Mr. [Matefrio],

Are you saying you were: (1) carrying your concealed handgun license; and (2) carrying a concealed handgun; and (3) carrying a knife with a blade over five and one-half inches?

Thank you for contacting me."

My Response: "That is correct."

Second email:
Mr. [Matefrio],

In that case you have an interesting case of statutory interpretation, one that the authors of 46.15(b)(6) probably did not anticipate, but one that appears to have merit.

He also seems to be very familiar with guns personally.

In further conversations he's stated it's really not even statutory interpretation as to have a case of that the law would need to be vague, in this case he believes it's not vague at all.

The plan now is to file a motion to suppress the arrest with the judge. Most likely the DA will appeal the motion even if the judge grants my request. In that case I hire an appeals lawyer and we go though the process again.

I've communicated to my lawyer that the desired outcome of all this is that myself and others don't get caught up in this same situation.

There are no guarantees this will forge that path. But I think I've got an opportunity to make a trail head.

The knife:

The case was dismissed:


Emailed my lawyer, Here is his response.

An "in the interests of justice" dismissal signifies that the prosecutor recognizes that he is dismissing the case, not merely because he can't prove the case, but because you are in fact innocent of the offense. It's the difference between someone who is "not guilty" and someone who is actually innocent of the offense alleged. Put another way, the prosecutor's job is to do justice. The prosecutor found in this case that justice was best served by dismissing the case against you. 

Other reasons for dismissal, by contrast, include "Defendant entered a plea in a different case," or "Defendant completed counseling," or "the evidence is insufficient" (i.e., we think the defendant is guilty, but we can't prove it), or "the case has been refiled" (i.e., we think the defendant is guilty, but we need to allege it differently), etc.

They TYPE of dismissal is important. Note there are many reasons a case is being dismissed, and I got the one that clearly states I'd done nothing wrong.

This leaves the door wide open to pursue a case against the Department of Public Safety for wrongful arrest or for violating my 1st Amendment right to speak to the legislative committee.

And now he's going to sue / file civil suit against the officers:

The reason I'm going to try my best to sue would be to act as a punitive lesson to anyone arresting a guy like me that it doesn't come without consequences.

I'm hoping to get a lawyer that will take the risk and take this case the hopes of a positive result. Paying a lawyer to do this up front may not be in the cards and honestly I want the lawyer to have skin in the game.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

CA to Charge Extra Fee for Buying Ammo, Require Micro-Stamping of Ammunition

By Kira Davis

The California Senate just approved a sweeping gun control bill that makes it among the toughest in the land. SB 53 requires background checks and a $50 ammo purchase fee.

“SB 53 will do nothing to stop criminals from purchasing ammunition,” said Sen. Tom Berryhill. “These restrictions – like most of the gun legislation we are seeing here today – won’t do a thing to stop crime.  They will only hurt the law abiding citizens like hunters and sportsmen who, for the record, contribute millions to the state’s economy.”

California has been at the forefront of job/rights-killing bills. SB 53 is another rung in the anti-Constitutional ladder.

Not only will the bill continue to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to enjoy their constitutionally protected rights to own a firearm, it will drive out businesses that manufacture and sell firearms and ammunition.

Apparently the California congress forgot that businesses pay taxes, something less and less people do in the state.

Calguns Foundation has already launched a lawsuit against some of the firearms safety provisions, including the microstamping provision that will effectively end all handgun usage and sales in the state.

With a population that has been flooded with illegal aliens and criminals released early because of massive budget shortages, it looks like the state of Californiastan just got a lot more dangerous for it’s citizens.

Except the politicians in Sacramento, of course. They make sure to exempt themselves from laws they inflict on the unwashed masses.

Even for those who don’t live on the West coast this infringement should concern all Americans.



Source: Alice Tripp, Texas State Rifle Assn.

All the pro-gun bills that passed during the regular session have now been signed into law by Govenor Perry and will take effect September 1st.  

SB 1907 by Sen. Glenn Hegar/ Rep. Tim Kleinschmidt allows CHL-students to have firearms in their personal locked vehicle when parked on a private or public university or college parking lot.  A CHL-student could not be prosecuted but they were subject to the rule-making authority of the school and could be expelled.   

 SB 299 by Sen. Craig Estes/Rep. Kenneth Sheets provides language to clarify the unintentional display of a firearm by a concealed handgun licensee. The language changed from "failure to conceal" to "intentional display of a weapon in a public place" when force or deadly force is not authorized. 

SB 864 by Sen. Donna Campbell/Rep. Dan Flynn reduces the number of hours for the initial CHL class. The bill does not touch the required materials, the written test, or firearm proficiency exam. Range qualification is still in place but no counts toward the required hours.  

HB 48 by Rep. Dan Flynn/Sen. Donna Campbell creates in statute a process for renewing your CHL online without taking a renewal class. 

HB 698 by Rep.Springer/Sen. Craig Estes requires access to digital fingerprinting not more than 25 miles from the applicant's residence and is limited to counties with a population of 46,000 or less.  This is specific to rural Texans who are forced to drive hundreds of miles for digital fingerprinting. 

 HB 3142 by Rep. Cecil Bell, Jr./Sen. Craig Estes repeals the SA/NA designation for the CHL license.  No more gun categories. 

HB 1421 by Rep. Perry/Sen. Craig Estes provides law enforcement agencies an option in statute to sell confiscated firearms to a federal firearm dealer (FFL) instead of destroying. After the cost of the sale and any other related charges, funds could stay with that law enforcement agency.  

HB 333 by Rep. Guillen/ Sen. Hinojosa requires hotels and motels to provide advance notice if they prohibit firearms.    

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

4 recent fatalities; Child Gun Safety Training saves lives

(see links below)

I could cry every time I see one of these stories, these horrible tragedies involving children and firearms. All of these incidents could have been avoided with proper gun safety practice and training.

No matter which side of the pro-gun / anti-gun argument you are on, GUN SAFETY should be of paramount concern.

If a child has an accident with a firearm, whether it causes an injury or fatality or not, it is often due to an adults negligence - either failure to  properly teach gun safety to a child, negligence in supervising the use of the firearm, or negligence in storage of the firearm.

Whether you have kids or not, you should always keep all your firearms in a FULLY CONTROLLED status: that means either *ON YOUR PERSON* or store *IN A SAFE*.  Stored in a bag or purse, hidden, set on a high shelf, or in another room does not count.
As a reminder, it is a crime for an adult to allow a child under the age of 18 access to any firearm unless fully and actively supervised in a safe environment (ie: at a firing range or out hunting).  This means allowing access both intentionally and unintentionally.
There is a reason that so many of these stories are from 4 and 5 year olds.  At this age, they are the most curious.  They are both curious and fearless.  They don't know or understand what a gun can really do until they are taught.  

It doesn't matter if you own a gun or not.  It doesn't matter if you are pro or anti gun.  It is the responsibility of EVERY parent, gun owner or not, to teach them.  Gun safety and avoidance training should be taught to every child starting at age three; and repeated annually to maintain awareness.


Introduce your child to a gun NOW.  Avoid un-supervised curiosity.  Teach them the basic rules:  (1) Recognize a real gun from a toy  (2)  Don't ever touch a gun  (3)  If another kid is playing with a gun, leave the area  (4)  Run and tell a Parent Immediately.

We taught all of our kids the basics of recognition and avoidance starting at age 3.  A child should not be surprised or panicked to see a firearm.  But they should know better than to touch one.

If you so choose (and I recommend that you do), there is always time for fully and properly supervised firearms use, care and marksmanship training later.  At this age, teach them firearms recognition and avoidance first.


4-year-old boy accidentally fatally shoots his father with resident's handgun during surprise visit.

In this case, the adult left the gun out where the child could access it.  Just because YOU don't have kids does not absolve you of the responsibility for properly locking up your firearms when they are not either in use or on your person.

5-year-old accidentally shoots and kill his 2-year-old sister with a .22-caliber rifle he got for his birthday.

4-year-old accidentally fatally shoots 6-year-old
In both of these cases, the child old was playing with a loaded rifle.  Kids are not allowed to own rifles until age 18.  Yes, there are many parents who buy their child a rifle before then, but it should be locked in a safe until the family goes hunting.  Uncontrolled access is illegal and absolutely unacceptable.

4-year-old boy accidentally fatally shoots Sherrif Deputy's wife.

In this case, the 4 year old found a handgun that had *just* been set down.  Never set a weapon down.  Once removed from a holster, it should go directly and immediately into a safe.

Remember:   It is YOUR responsibility to police your own actions and train your own children.  YOUR safety with a firearm and your children's safety with a firearm is paramount to the safety of others around you.

Monday, June 10, 2013

Confessions of a Liberal ... and a Gun Shop Owner

He's A Democrat..And A Gun Shop Owner
By Claire Gordon

Austin gun shop owner Michael Cargill, 43, might not fit the popular image of the gun rights movement. He's gay and a Democrat. He didn't grow up hunting, or with guns in his home. In fact, his family shunned guns like many other black families -- a reaction, in part, to the harrowing rates of black-on-black homicide.

Cargill applied for a concealed-gun license 22 years ago, after his grandmother, who decided to get a nursing degree at the age of 70, was mugged and raped on the way home from the library. Now he runs Central Texas Gun Works in Austin, which specializes in concealed weapons. And while a recent poll shows six out of 10 Americans support stricter gun control laws, Cargill believes strongly that all law-abiding Americans should have a right to carry a gun for self-defense.

Guns 'Do Actually Save Lives'

On Sunday, Cargill auctioned off a Bushmaster, the same firearm used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, in order to raise money for medical treatments for the baby daughter of one of his employees. Cargill told Austin TV station KTBC that he hopes "to prove that guns do actually save lives."

That's why Cargill, became a gun safety instructor. Anyone in Texas who wants a license to carry a concealed handgun must take 10-hour certification course, and Cargill's classes -- which he began out of his living room -- were an instant hit. "People knew my intentions were good," he says.

Cargill now teaches thousands of gun owners a year, focusing on de-escalation skills, conflict resolution, and how to stay within the parameters of the law. It took him years to find someone willing to rent him a storefront, he says, partly because he wanted to sell guns, and partly because he was black.

Cargill's goal is to make sure guns end up in well-meaning, well-trained hands, and he takes this very seriously. "As a gun store owner it's my responsibility to be a part of that step to keep everyone safe," says Cargill, who at least twice a month will refuse to sell a weapon to someone who appears suspicious.

Cargill carefully monitors his customers for anything shifty. "If they're not giving you eye contact, shifting their eyes around, jittery, or I smell marijuana or alcohol," he explains. "All signs that you should not have a firearm."

Of course, many people [criminals] who should not have firearms do. It's this tragic fact that drives Cargill's passion for selling guns, and training gun owners. "The only thing that's going to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he explains, adding that the gun laws currently on the books in Texas are "top notch."

Making it harder for law-abiding citizens to buy a gun misses the point, Cargill says. "Timothy McVeigh took down federal building in Oklahoma, killed a little over 1,000 people. He used a rental truck, fertilizer and some other things," he says. "I didn't see us standing in front of Home Depot and Lowe's protesting fertilizer. You can't legislate crazy."

But we can improve the way we handle mental illness, he says. (The shooters responsible for the massacres at Virginia Tech and Fort Hood, and in Tucson, Aurora and Sandy Hook were all diagnosed with a mental illness, or reported to be mentally ill).

Stop trying to make people feel guilty about protecting themselves," he urges. "There's no way we're going to completely eliminate guns from the United States. That's not reality."


Thursday, June 6, 2013

House votes to delay bulk ammunition purchase by DHS

The House late Wednesday voted to stop the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from entering into new contracts to buy millions of rounds of ammunition until the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reports to Congress on the need for the ammo, and its cost.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) proposed an amendment to the DHS spending bill for 2014 that would require the report to Congress before it can pursue plans to buy 1.1 billion rounds of ammunition. Meadows said the speed bump is a necessary reaction to news of the huge purchase, which alarmed many Americans and prompted conservative groups to suspect that the government was stocking up on the rounds to fight citizens.

"Given this large purchase, the American people and members of Congress rightfully had concerns and questions," Meadows said. "This is a responsible amendment which ensures that Congress and the American people are aware of the necessity and the cost of ammunition prior to entering into new contracts for procurement."

Meadows pointed out that his amendment would not interrupt current Homeland Security contracts to buy ammunition


11-Yr-Old Suspended From School For Merely TALKING About Guns

By Martin Di Caro

The father of a middle schooler in Calvert County, Md. says his 11-year-old son was suspended for 10 days for merely talking about guns on the bus ride home.

Bruce Henkelman of Huntingtown says his son, a sixth grader at Northern Middle School in Owings, was talking with friends about the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre when the bus driver hauled him back to school to be questioned by the principal, Darrel Prioleau.

"The principal told me that with what happened at Sandy Hook if you say the word 'gun' in my school you are going to get suspended for 10 days," Henkelman said in an interview with WMAL.com.

So what did the boy say?  According to his father, he neither threatened nor bullied anyone.

"He said, I wish I had a gun to protect everyone. He wanted to defeat the bad guys. That's the context of what he said," Henkelman said. "He wanted to be the hero."

The boy was questioned by the principal and a sheriff's deputy, who also wanted to search the family home without a warrant, Henkelman said. "He started asking me questions about if I have firearms, and [the deputy said] he's going to have to search my house.  Search my house?  I just wanted to know what happened."

No search was performed, and the deputy left Henkelman's home after the father answered questions in a four-page questionnaire issued by the Sheriff's Office.

"It's appropriate for school officials to investigate when there is a concern about student safety. But based on what's been described to us, once the school official concluded that all the young man wanted to do was to be safe at school and that he posed no risk to anyone, the suspension was really inappropriate," said Sonya Kumar, an ACLU staff attorney.

"The school should have been assuring him that they were going to take steps to keep all students safe, not punishing him," she added.

"[My son] was very scared at the fact that he was interviewed by the principal and a sheriff's deputy alone. He didn't know where I was," Henkelman said.

The ACLU's Kumar said there are too many cases of school officials coming down hard on students for relatively harmless offenses.

"Across the board, we are concerned about practices where we have these sort of knee-jerk reactions without really stopping to think and use our common sense about whether what a kid is doing or saying actually presents any sort of concern for the safety and well-being of others," Kumar said.


Monday, June 3, 2013

Inadequate Training and When to Shoot

When You Have to Shoot, Shoot; Don't Talk

By William A. Levinson

New York State has made it clear that it believes that only police officers can be trusted with magazines that hold more than seven rounds.  A Nassau County police officer recently fired eight rounds at an armed individual who was menacing him and a hostage, with the result that the hostage died.  The responsibility for Andrea Rebollo's death lies squarely with New York's failure to train police officers adequately to deal with human shield situations.  Anti-gun mayor Michael Bloomberg does not bother to train his police to shoot well enough to avoid wounding nine innocent bystanders in a gunfight with one criminal.

First, why did the officer in question need to fire eight rounds to disable the gunman?  Front Sight's four-day defensive handgun course includes considerable emphasis on putting a single bullet into the cranio-ocular cavity of a criminal who is using a human shield.  My first impression was that the time might be better spent on other skills, because a private citizen is extremely unlikely to have to deal with a hostage situation.  In retrospect, however, one might ask why the world's best armies still teach soldiers to use bayonets.  Even if an ordinary soldier is very unlikely to need his bayonet, his life will depend on knowing how to use it if he does.  Mastery of this weapon also builds overall confidence, and it is therefore a morale-builder.  The soldier knows he can, if he must, handle close encounters of the wrong kind.

The same goes for Front Sight's hostage rescue training.  The knowledge that you can shoot more accurately than almost every action movie hero (who always drops his gun when so ordered by the hostage-taker) is a definite confidence-builder.  The typical Front Sight student can, upon completion of the course, shoot better than 24's Jack Bauer except when the script calls for Bauer to drop the bad guy with one shot.  Even more importantly, you learn how to clear a weapon malfunction quickly, as opposed to trying to figure out what to do while the criminal shoots you.  Colonel Jeff Cooper's To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth stresses the fact that "the right mindset" is every bit as important as the weapon.  Confidence is part of the right mindset, and Front Sight's training program builds that confidence.

What was New York, the gun control capital of the nation, doing while Front Sight, and Gunsite in Paulden AZ, were training ordinary people how to handle life-or-death confrontations?  The death of Andrea Rebollo, and nine bystander casualties at the hands of Michael Bloomberg's, police, are the answer.

This is emphatically not a criticism of the police officers involved.  General Lewis Walt's The Eleventh Hour contends that, when you issue a soldier less than the best available weapon, you are committing first-degree murder.  Field Marshal Aleksandr Suvorov would have said that a general who doesn't train his soldiers adequately is guilty of their murder, which is why Suvorov's troops always made mincemeat of whomever they fought.  New York State and New York City are similarly accomplices to every cop-killing in which the officer's inadequate training played a role.

If inadequate police training is one of New York's problems, confusion and delusion about tactical doctrine is another:

"The big question is, how do you know, when someone's pointing a gun at you, whether you should keep talking to them, or shoot?" said Michele Galietta, a professor of psychology at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice who helps train police officers. "That's what makes the job of an officer amazingly difficult."

Pay close attention: Professor Galietta says there is a "big question" as to whether you should shoot somebody who points a gun at you.  This question was answered very conclusively in 1966, and also in a shower scene that is far less famous than the one in Psycho.  The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and Big Jake are two rare examples of movies that actually teach a valid real-life lesson: when somebody has actually aimed a deadly weapon at you, he can kill you before you can say a single word.  When you have to shoot -- and you do if somebody menaces you with something that can end your life in a fraction of a second -- shoot; don't talk.

Police instructor Masaad Ayoob goes even farther in his book, In The Gravest Extreme, with regard to an armed home invader whose back is turned to an armed defender.
If you have ascertained that the man you have the drop on is a deliberate intruder into your occupied home (and therefore, by definition, a deranged or vicious enemy); if you are certain that he has a weapon in or at hand; if you and he are in positions where he can shoot or stab you-
Shoot him. In the back, if you have to. And keep shooting him until he is unable to shoot back.

This advice goes against everything we have seen in movies that involve criminals and police officers.  The officer always orders the bad guy to drop his weapon, and the bad guy almost always complies.  Here is what is likely to happen in real life, as stated by Ayoob.  The criminal, who is hopped up on adrenaline, drugs, or both, is likely to turn instinctively toward your voice to fire his weapon.  "The point is that you can't afford to find out [whether he would have surrendered] because there's a good chance that his reaction is the last thing that will register in your mind before he kills you."


Grandfather checking on his neighbor is shot and killed by Fort Worth police

A grandfather checking on his neighbor is shot and killed by Fort Worth police. The shots rang out early Tuesday morning near Woodhaven Country Club, in east Fort Worth.

Those close to the family say the victim lived nearby and heard his neighbor’s burglar alarm. Neighbor Jerry Wayne Waller then apparently went outside to see what was going on.

The 72-year-old man didn’t even make it to the house across the street before he was shot. He died on his own property.

The neighbors in the Woodhaven Country Club area and generally know each other pretty well. Becky Haskin, a former Fort Worth City Councilmember, lives in the area and said she believes Waller, “…was doing what neighbors do probably checking on the neighbor that the alarm went off.”

The elderly man, who was armed at the time, was shot and killed in his own driveway by police responding to a burglary call. “We heard five shots,” Haskin recalled. They were just rapid fire one after the other.”

Speaking on the incident Fort Worth police Cpl. Tracey Knight said, “Officers felt threatened by the man with the handgun and he was shot.”

After the shooting Haskin said, “The police officers were sobbing uncontrollably and very distraught.”

For the normally quiet and quant neighborhood, Waller’s death is devastating. Neighbors say he and his family have always been very involved in the community. “They are just a nice retired couple, that loved working in their yard, having family over, and grandkids,” Haskin said.

CBS 11 News has been trying to get more answers from Fort Worth police. The official response has primarily been that the shooting is “an ongoing investigation.”

CBS 11 has learned that the two officers involved were not hurt and have been placed on administrative leave.

Fort Worth Police Chief Jeff Halstead released the following statement regarding the shooting:

“The events that took place the early morning hours on May 28th will require a significant amount of investigative effort; however, we remain committed to working with our residents and making this process efficient and transparent.

I ask for your patience, your understanding, and most importantly, your prayers for all involved.”