More proof that Concealed Carry saves lives

We hear plenty from gun-control advocates that firearms don’t prevent or stop attacks, and how they’re more likely to end up being used against victims instead. Tell that to Charlie Blackmore, who recently acquired a concealed-carry permit in Wisconsin after the legislature recently made them legal. Blackmore, a Marine Corps veteran, wasn’t being attacked himself, but was driving down the street early in the morning when he saw a large man kicking something in the sidewalk. When Blackmore realized the “something” was in fact a woman, he stopped the attack without firing a shot — and probably saved the woman’s life:

Charlie Blackmore was driving home from work at 4:00 a.m. along Lincoln Avenue when he saw something on the sidewalk. Blackmore didn’t realize it was a woman on the ground being kicked in the head and stomach until he got closer. 

That’s when he jumped out of his car and sprung into action. 

“I said ‘stop’ and he starts coming towards me and that`s when I drew on him. He started getting closer and I said ‘get down on the ground,’” Blackmore said. 

Blackmore held his gun on the suspect and called West Allis police. He says several times while waiting for police to arrive, the attacker moved toward him. 

“I mean I’ve already made it up in mind that if he came at me I was going to have to take him down and I told him that. I warned him multiple times not to come towards me because he was a big guy and I wasn’t playing around and he didn’t seem like he was playing around,” Blackmore said.

If you think that the woman couldn’t have been killed with the man’s feet, think again. In 2011, more than twice as many murder victims died from “personal weapons” — hands, feet — as did from rifles of all kinds, not just “assault weapons.” In this case, the man was the woman’s jilted ex-boyfriend who had been stalking her. She might be considering a concealed-carry permit next, if the boyfriend isn’t put away for a very long time.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/14/video-passerby-with-concealed-carry-in-wisconsin-saves-womans-life/

Kids in Danger: First there was the map of gun owners homes. Now a map of unarmed schools.

Iowa newspaper accused of endangering kids with school security map


Iowa's biggest newspaper is under fire after publishing a map that showed which public school districts have police or security -- and which ones don't.

"What they did yesterday was provide a shopping list for every nut job in Iowa," WHO radio host Simon Conway, who said his phone lines "blew up" as soon as he began discussing the map with his audience, told Fox News Channel.

The online map that originally accompanied the story allowed readers to identify more than 100 public schools, including high schools and community college campuses with varying degrees of security.



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/28/newspaper-under-fire-for-publishing-interactive-map-iowa-school-lacking/

Gun ban advocates are litereally attempting to commit Genocide

Gun ban advocates must decide if they're willing--and able--to kill 50,000,000+

What this poll shows, though, is that aspiring gun banners need to do some math homework. 64 to 80 percent of an estimated 80 million gun owners (a common, if tough to verify, estimate) works out to 51 to 64 million freedom loving, angry--and armed--Americans who intend to stay armed. Taking the math a bit further, that's about 102 to 128 million hands that are not cold and dead, and will be holding guns until they are.

Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"  Genocide ... is intended  to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-ban-advocates-must-decide-if-they-re-willing-and-able-to-kill-50-000-000

IL admits aims is for confiscation

Just like NIJ, IL state rep. says magazine bans useless without confiscation

"There can be no grandfather clause on this," he said to those requesting an amendment, "because there are no identity numbers on these clips." 

http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2013/03/just-like-nij-il-state-rep-says.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/just-like-nij-il-state-rep-says-magazine-bans-useless-without-confiscation

Hooray! Assault-weapons ban nixed from bill

Congress: Assault-weapons ban nixed from bill

“Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on Monday that a controversial assault weapons ban will not be part of a Democratic gun bill that was expected to reach the Senate floor next month,” Politico notes.

“After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment. But its exclusion from the package makes what was already an uphill battle an almost certain defeat.”


http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/19/17371231-congress-assault-weapons-ban-nixed-from-bill

NYC Pays $$ for Anti-Gun Snitches

Now that NYC passed even more stringent gun laws, making virtually every semiautomatic handgun illegal, a previous law comes back with new perspective:

New York offers $500 reward for reporting illegal gun ownersBy Fox News 

Nearly a year before signing the nation's most stringent gun control measure into law, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo launched a hotline that allows state residents to report illegal gun owners in exchange for a $500 reward. 

The measure is part of a four-pronged approach established by the governor's office to reduce gun violence in urban communities, according to CBS6Albany.com. 

New Yorkers can call the "Gun Tip Line" if they believe someone they know has an illegal gun. Hotline calls are answered by state police and tips are referred to local law enforcement, the station reported. 

“This initiative seeks to turn neighbor against neighbor and use their own tax dollars to pay for the $500 reward,” Republican Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin told the station.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/21/new-york-state-offers-500-reward-for-reporting-illegal-gun-owners

Now, all those formerly law abiding citizens who suddenly find themselves as inadvertent criminals, also have neighbors snitching on them for cash baby!

Save your daughters

The source website for this article comes off as a bit gimmicky, and the information could probably be obtained and accumulated from a number of disparate sources for free if you had the time, but the recommendations and tools they advertise are real and are of real benefit, so I'll post it here as an FYI.

Situational awareness and some reasonable preparation could save your life, or the lives of your loved ones.

-------

The Save your daughters family protection program was created by some very highly and very specialized trained men and women of the United States Government who were joined by one of the most successful groups operating on the World Wide Web today.

This is incredible information and covers everything from how to create a safe room in your home, how to be safer in hotels, school dormitories, at work, in your car and even if you are simply out for a walk!

Complete with a easy to follow, interesting and fun book stuffed with vulnerability assessments that show you quickly and easily how to make your home safer as well as places you visit for both yourself personally and all your family members too..

And wait till you see what the Navy SEAL trained presenter shows you about protecting yourself and your family, this information is truly a lifesaver and we are sure you will agree with the hundreds of families that have already rushed to grab their personal copies...

Started in a cell group from Gateway church in Southlake, Texas, the people attending a special presentation from a former Special Agent of the FBI began telling their friends of what they had learned...

Soon word got out and within weeks people in 12 countries were asking for the information and resources of what was to be known as the Save Your Daughters family and self protection program.

Former Special Agents of the FBI, SWAT, SEAL, ATF and more came together to create a unique and powerful program that anyone who wishes can use to make themselves and their families safer than they have ever been.

These extraordinary men and women do their teaching and instruction of this life saving information and share their lifesaving resources in an entertaining format all shot on theatrical quality HD video productions that enable all of us to put the DVD's that come with the package into our computers or television DVD players and watch as the finest protection instruction unveils right before our eyes.

This is not a fighting instruction course but a living course, there is no physical training nor is there any fighting or combat of any kind.. this information is how to protect yourself so that you do not end up having to try to fight your way out of a bad situation!
If you are a father or mother and want your children to be safer in school, away, or even right at home, then this program is guaranteed to be exactly what will fill your desire and need to keep your family and yourself safe in what has become very dangerous times...

"For 9 years I worked as a Family Law expert in the field of child abductions. Usually the child or children were abducted across State lines or internationally by the non-custodial parent. 

Often there were grave concerns for the physical, psychological and moral safety of abducted child.  

Just imagine how frightening this can be when it occurs at the hands of a stranger! I only wish the "Save Your Daughters" project was around all those years ago.
Still, it is finally here and "SYD" should be a Godsend for parents of both girls AND boys, as much of the information applies to both genders. 

More important than that, it will go a long way towards protecting your children from physical and moral harm in today's uncertain world." 

-Barry Roche

http://www.saveyourdaughters.com/1000/

Gun Registration Has Led to Gun Confiscation in Two Short Years

by Jim Hoft

South Africa.  Over the last decade, it is estimated that at least 3000 white South African farmers, or Boers, have been have been murdered.

In 2010 the ruling ANC regime passed legislation demanding all firearms be re-registered with the state.  Then they turned down half of those registrations and forced farmers to turn in their guns.  Many believe this is a prelude to genocide.

"Like so many societies where demonstrating who’s in control becomes a necessity, disarming the population becomes a priority. In 2010, the ANC-led regime changed the Firearms Registration Act, demanding that all legal guns be re-registered by July 31, 2011. In the process of re-registration, more than half the applicants were turned down, and 90 percent were turned down again on appeal. Thus, white farm families were forced to relinquish their last line of defense against the tens of thousands of criminal gangs roaming the countryside–armed with AK47s.

And as Genocide Watch noted on its website last July one more step was taken as well. “The government has disbanded the commando units of white farmers that once protected their farms, and has passed laws to confiscate the farmers’ weapons,” it reported. “Disarmament of a targeted group is one of the surest early warning signs of future genocidal killings.”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/in-south-africa-gun-registration-has-led-to-gun-confiscation-with-3000-dead-white-farmers-so-far/

Feinstein's war on Veterans

Feinstein: Veterans May Have PTSD And Should Not Be Exempt From Assault Weapons Ban

At a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on Thursday, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) opposed an amendment to her Assault Weapons Ban legislation that would allow military veterans to continue to buy the firearms that would be banned. Feinstein says a veteran may be mentally ill and should be prevented from purchasing firearms.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/08/feinstein_veterans_may_have_ptsd_and_should_not_be_exempt_from_assault_weapons_ban.html

New law lets South Dakota schools arm teachers

By CNN Staff

School boards in South Dakota will be able to let school employees, hired security personnel or volunteers carry guns in schools under a law signed Friday by Gov. Dennis Daugaard.

Under these programs, the school boards can arm people "to secure or enhance the deterrence of physical threat and defense of the school, its students, its staff, and members of the public on the school premises against violent attack," [but] would first be required to complete a training program.

Some other states, including Utah, allow teachers to have loaded weapons inside classrooms.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/us/south-dakota-guns-schools/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

I am not a Sheepdog

By Vuurwapen Blog

I have carried a handgun every day since Virginia Tech (the first one). The point was driven home even further by the fact that I had been within a few hundred yards of a school shooting several years before. To me, the danger was not abstract.

Of course, I carried rifles, light machine guns, and pistols in Iraq before that, but this was different. It wasn't legal for me to carry at the time – I was under 21, and I was also in school. The university prohibited weapons on campus, but I didn't care. My 1911 – the only handgun I owned – became a constant companion. I had just returned from Iraq, and I was not about to die at home.

I wasn't carrying a gun to stop a school shooter and become some sort of hero. I was carrying a gun to preserve my own life. Just as I always carried a loaded Beretta 9 mm tucked inside my uniform when with Iraqi policemen inside their "station," I didn't trust that anyone else would be looking out for me first. It's not that I didn't think that the University of Arizona Police Department wouldn't do their very best to stop any potential shooting as soon as possible. I simply knew all too well how quickly such situations could play out, and how help nearby could be no help at all.

My carry philosophy has not changed much since that first day. My parents taught me to be responsible for myself. Scouting taught me to be prepared. Combat taught me to be aware.

Avoiding the Situation

Beyond not walking out of my house every day looking for an excuse to shoot the next Jared Loughner, there are a number of reasons why I might avoid intervening in such a situation. I have listed them in a roughly "most important to least important" order.

#1 - I don't know what's going on. Unless the actual shooting unfolds before me, I would simply be running toward the sound of gunfire. As romantic as that may sound, it is rarely a good tactical decision. I will be facing a threat I cannot quantify, in a location that I may not be intimately familiar with, filled with people that will be reacting – panicking – in a number of ways. This is a recipe for disaster.

#2 - I am most likely going to be alone. If the shooter is simply looking to kill as many people as he possibly can, and I intervene, I have effectively become the protector of dozens or hundreds of people. When I was on a PSD detail in Iraq, it was rare for our dismounts to be outnumbered by the people we were escorting (although it did happen – too often). In addition, there were almost 2 dozen Marines in gun trucks nearby. Although the threat level was higher in Iraq, the math is the same: it is impossible for one person to protect dozens. Yes, it is possible that one person might be able to limit innocent deaths. That is one possible outcome.

#3 - If I am not alone, I am probably not with people that are carrying. I will be looking out for their safety as well as my own, and this will keep me very busy. Unless the threat is very obviously nearby, I will be abandoning my companions if I rush toward the sound of gunfire. See the above point.

#4 - My concealed carry permit is not a badge, and I have not been charged with looking out for the safety of others. When you become an adult, you become responsible for yourself. At the risk of sounding overly dramatic, the world is a dangerous place, and you pays your money and you takes your chances. Some people choose to never wear a helmet when riding. The vast majority of them never die in a motorcycle accident. Hindsight is 20/20.

What I Don't Think About

There are a few things that do not affect my decision making process when it comes to intervening in such a situation.

#1 - Training. I shoot a lot. I am not the best shot in the world, the country, the state, the county, or perhaps even my neighborhood. But I'm proficient with firearms, as I think everyone who carries one should be, public or private. I once met a police officer who was exceedingly proud of the fact that he only fired his weapon once a year, because his department required only an annual proficiency test. Non-gun people, not knowing this, would rely on him to perform miracles that he could simply not perform. I have also met police officers who shoot more than I do. There is no guaranteeing which type of officer will be nearby when I desperately need help, so I train and live as if police officers will never be there for me, or if they are, that they will be completely ineffective.

#2 - Being mistaken as the shooter and subsequently killed by police. Although the situation itself is highly unlikely, either a police officer will be close enough to intervene immediately, or they will only arrive after many are dead. If I have decided to intervene, it is because I think I can end it now, and there are no other options (such as nearby police who are already in the process of intervening). In making that decision, I am already at great personal risk. Should astronomical odds be stacked against me, and a police officer arrives just in time to shoot me - well, that is a risk I take, but it is not a likely outcome. Similarly, the likelihood of a second concealed carrier being close enough to arrive and shoot me after I have presented my own handgun, but not close enough to identify me as a "good guy" before doing so, is  also extremely low.

#3 - Legal ramifications. I sometimes carry in places where I am not allowed to. While I have little desire to be arrested for violating state or federal laws, I have even less desire for myself, my family, or my friends to be dead.

#4 - Arming the shooter. Mass shooters almost always carry multiple firearms and extreme amounts of ammunition. One more handgun – possibly with little or no ammunition inside – is unlikely to affect the outcome. If I have done nothing but die in front of the shooter, I will at least have given other people a chance to get away in the meantime.

So I'm Definitely Not a Sheepdog, But Am I a Heartless Jerk?

Some things would cause me to make decisions that I otherwise would not. I don't want people to think that I would simply stand by and watch as little children were being massacred.  However, in most cases, I would be left with no good choice but to not run to the sound of gunfire - and I believe that any concealed carrier who takes the time to truly think about the way these things work will come to the same conclusion.

http://vuurwapenblog.com/2011/12/13/i-am-not-a-sheepdog/

Florida bill would require anger management courses for bullet buyers Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/11/florida-lawmaker-wants-anger-management-courses-for-ammunition-buyers/#ixzz2NOKDahJ8

EDITORS NOTE:  Truth is stranger than fiction.  This is the kind of article that I would expect posted on THE ONION, and not a real bill passed by a Senator.  Aren't there minimum IQ levels required to be a Senator?  Apparently not.  But there should be.


By Joshua Rhett Miller

A Florida legislator wants anyone trying to buy ammunition to complete an anger management program first, in what critics say is the latest example of local lawmakers reaching for constitutionally-dubious solutions to the problem of gun violence.

The bill filed Saturday by state Sen. Audrey Gibson, D-Jacksonville, would require a three-day waiting period for the sale of any firearm and the sale of ammunition to anyone who has not completed anger management courses. The proposal would require ammo buyers to take the anger management courses every 10 years.

Critics of the bill, however, derided the legislation as “absolutely ridiculous” and suggested that Gibson take a course on the U.S. Constitution.

“When I first saw it, I thought it had to be a joke,” said Sean Caranna, executive director of Florida Carry, a nonprofit group championing the right to bear arms. “They’re trying to say that anyone who owns a gun or shoots a gun or has ammunition for it needs counseling and obviously has some anger problems.”

Jon Gutmacher, an Orlando attorney and author of “Florida Firearms: Law, Use & Ownership,” told FoxNews.com that the bill would almost certainly be found to be unconstitutional based on prior restraint.

“It has no reasonable relationship to anything,” he said. “There has to be a reasonable basis to believe that a person had a substantial anger problem that could cause public harm.”

Gutmacher said he found the bill to be an “insult” to any gun owner in the Sunshine State.

“It’s absurd on its face,” he continued. “And anyone who proposes that legislation is in my mind unfit for the legislature because it shows a basic problem with their thinking process, aside from their lack of understanding of what the Constitution is all about. That’s the kind of bill that doesn’t even get past committee.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/11/florida-lawmaker-wants-anger-management-courses-for-ammunition-buyers/

How Will They Confiscate Your Guns?

by John A. Sutter

For decades I have heard gun owners claim that the government would never be able to confiscate our firearms because the government would lose too many men.  The implication being, of course, that gun owners would actively resist confiscation, even to the point of shooting back.  But I believe this thinking is outdated and doesn’t align very well with reality.  But before you tell me how big your honor guard in Hell will be when that day comes, let’s think about how the government could really do it. 

Suppose, for the sake of argument, the government bans all civilian possession of firearms at the end of this month.  Congress passes a total ban and the President cuts his own re-election throat by signing it.  Gun owners get some grace period to turn them in, even beyond the deadline, without being charged with a crime.  If we use Australia and Britain as examples there will still be a significant number of firearms that are not turned in.  Some estimates put the Australian turn-in at less than 25% and the British faired only about 28%.  But Australians and the British have long been used to obeying almost every gun control law. Not so the Americans. 

When laws are passed that we don’t like, we bite. We scratch. We vote.  So here we sit after the guns have been collected and the amnesties have run out.  Now what?  Send out the personnel carriers, swat and shock troops to seize the guns from those militia “terrorists” who refused to turn them in?  Don’t be silly.

The government has lots of records about you. If you purchased a firearm since 1968, chances are that they have some record of it somewhere.  Most likely, it will take quite some time for them to compile all the serial numbers of “surrendered” guns (surrendered essentially at gunpoint) and cross off the ones you turned in.  It’ll take more time for them to attempt to “clean up” their data.  Say, about two years, maybe three. Add to that the hordes of people keypunching in hundreds of thousands of sales and registration records from hundreds of gun stores forced out of business.  At some point the government decides they have something approaching a “good” database of unaccounted-for guns.

The next thing you’ll get from the government is an official looking notice that they think you still have a firearm. Their information will probably include all the information from registration forms, right down to the serial number.  That notice will tell you that you’re in violation of the law, subject to prosecution and imprisonment.  It will give you some period of time to surrender the gun.  It will also give you a very limited number of days to return the form with an explanation of why you don’t have the gun, any proof you have, and your signature that the gun was lawfully disposed of.  For many people the idea that the government “knows” they didn’t turn in that pistol or rifle and they have the detailed information about it will be enough to get them to surrender the gun. Some people will ignore the letter, others will scrawl a note that “I sold this in 1982 in a private sale”. After some time, the government will figure out how many guns are still out there and what the “compliance rate” is with the gun ban.  More importantly, they’ll start sorting their database by the number of guns someone supposedly has “unaccounted”. 

If you think they’ll come at these multiple-gun owners with a swat team, guess again.  Their most likely tactic will be yet another letter (maybe two more) that generate what they’ll call “insufficient responses”.  That means they can’t track a gun after you owned it.  This they’ll use as fodder for a search warrant and/or perjury charges at a later date if they can.  My guess is that the time between April and August will be a bad time for a lot of “former” gun owners. 

Remember that the BATF is an arm of the Treasury department and they control the IRS. You’ll probably get a notice in the mail that the IRS has some questions about your taxes or wants to audit you.  When you make the appointment to visit the IRS they will pass that information to the BATF. While you are sweating over your deductions, the BATF and local police will execute a search warrant and search your home looking for guns.  With you safely off site and distracted, essentially forced into “the royal presence” of the IRS they will snag your guns.  Expect them to use slow-scan and ground penetrating radar to search walls, yards, under the patio or deck, the basement, etc.  You might even find your hot tub has been drained and moved.  Yes, they’ll search your car in the IRS parking lot too.

If you are one of the those people they suspect of having multiple guns and they don’t find any guns at your home, expect them to find and search storage facilities, safety deposit boxes and other places you might use. Warn your relatives who live nearby that they can expect a visit too, even (or perhaps especially) if they never owned a gun. If they are thorough, I’d expect the government agents to check your neighbors to see which of them previously owned a gun and perhaps search their homes, arguing that your neighbor could have held  your guns while agents searched your home. Remember that at this point the government authorities don’t have much to fear from the general population. And by the time your complaints are run through the mill, rejected and turned into lawsuits, they’ll have changed the rules.

But you only have one gun you say?  Fine. They won’t come looking for it. But they will make sure that possession of ammunition is also a serious crime. Don’t leave any loose cartridges around and where will you hide that case of ammo you rushed out to buy? Expect any “gun parts” to be made illegal at some point in time too. Spare magazines, maybe even old cleaning kits. Anything that says “gun” will be interpreted as “probable cause” to search your entire home. 

Also expect that you can never use that gun without becoming a serious felon in the eyes of the government.  Even if some thug has repeatedly stabbed you with a large knife and threatened to rape your six year old daughter, they won’t forgive you for having the gun.  They may even give you extra penalties for using it to save your family.  Especially if you are one of the first few hundred people caught this way, they will use you to “set an example”.  This will cause people to “bury” their guns away in hiding places, making them all but useless.  If the government does come to confiscate it, you won’t be able to get to it fast enough and they will probably find it.

You’ve moved several times since you bought a gun?  Remember showing your ID when you bought a gun? Remember writing down your place of birth? Why do you think the government has so many computers?  Linking you to your new driver’s license in another state shouldn’t be too hard. Besides, the Treasury folks know where you work. Think you’re safe because you had unregistered guns?  Think again. I would expect that the government’s database will contain a lot of old data.  Some of it might indicate that a gun was sold to a resident at your address.  If they can tie you to ammo sales or range use with your credit card in the previous 2 years you might get a surprise visit.  Or that seller might have remembered you bought that gun from him and filled out his gun notice to get “off the hook” for that gun.

The point of this article is that by thinking in limited terms of a “raid” to confiscate guns we lose sight of the alternative methods the government can use. Put yourself in the government’s position and think of your own methods to avoid a conflict.  Meanwhile, let’s ensure that every gun owner votes for gun rights this year and the next. You can think of a thousand excuses not to vote, not to help a campaign, not to help another gun owner register to vote. I can think of one important reason to do all of those. 

Liberty!

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=327

Gun show crowds rush on ammo

By J. Harry Jones


DEL MAR — The line of gun enthusiasts that began forming in the predawn darkness Saturday was the first indication that this weekend’s Crossroads of the West gun show was going to be big.

Fueled partly by an ammunition shortage and in part by concern over the direction the federal government is heading toward gun control, crowds in record numbers swamped the Del Mar Fairgrounds, joining the nation in its rush on firearms and bullets.

“I think when anybody tells you you can’t have something, you want it,” said Lenny Magill, one of the vendors inside the show manning the Glock Store booth.

“We do about 10 shows a year like this. Del Mar is usually not the largest, but this year I think it may be. It’s funny, I’ve had neighbors tell me they were going to the show, and they never go to gun shows.”

The first car arrived in the parking lot at 4:15 a.m., and by 8:30 a line of people, two or three across, stretched at least a quarter-mile from the entry gates. Traffic along Interstate 5 near the area was in gridlock for several hours.

“This is at least four times larger than any turnout we’ve ever had,” said Adam Day, president of the fairgrounds board. Day estimated at least 5,000 had already entered the gates by 10 a.m. The show runs through Sunday.

It was bullets, not guns, that brought most to the fairgrounds.

After many customers waited hours to buy a $14 ticket to attend the show, they turned right around and got in another long, slow, line to purchase ammunition. The three dealers were restricting the number of rounds any one person could purchase because demand was so high.

At the large Miwall Corp. ammunition both, where vendors were far too busy to be interviewed, a sign explained that there is a “dramatic demand without sufficient supply,” especially for .223-caliber/5.56mm ammunition. At recent gun shows, the sign said, Miwall has sold out of 80 percent of its stock on the first day of each show.

The ammunition shortage isn’t due to any less being made, officials said, but because there is an insatiable demand recently from the public. Many in the crowd said what ammunition was available was overpriced, and they were hoping to get better deals at the gun show, where vendors had promised not to artificially inflate costs.

“We’re here to buy ammo,” said Wagner Montiel, 42, of Huntington Beach. “5.56, 9 mm, small pistol primer, anything I can get. Anything that’s available. You go to any local gun shop and you can’t find any of that stuff.”

Montiel’s friend, Dave Dezan, 40, agreed. “Nobody’s got it,” the Poway resident said. “You’re just waiting for them to get their next shipment in.”

The scene in Del Mar has been repeated numerous times in the past few months at other shows run by Crossroads of the West in Utah, Arizona, Nevada and other parts of California, said the company’s longtime owner, Bob Templeton.

“The crowds have been heavier at each show by 50 to 100 percent,” Templeton said. “Law-abiding gun owners are concerned about being attacked by the government for the random acts of a mad man. That’s what’s driving the concern that people are showing.”

Templeton estimated more than 20,000 customers could attend the show this weekend in Del Mar, up from a previous high of 12,000 last December at a show held a week before the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Conn. Crossroads of the West stages five shows a year at the fairgrounds.

Gun sales in California have risen each year since President Barack Obama’s election in 2008, according to the California Department of Justice. And in the past few months, since a lone gunman murdered 20 small children and six adults at Sandy Hook, guns and ammunition have been flying off shelves nationwide.

The tragedy led to a national conversation on gun violence, and Obama has since called for a renewed ban on assault rifles, strengthened background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines — all of which already exist in California.

“California shows would become the model for shows across the country if all the proposed legislation passes,” Templeton said. “I think it’s unlikely they are going to, but yes, the template has been set by California.”

Jennifer Gibson, 33, of Sabre Springs was in line with her 3-year-old daughter, Avery, while her husband, Leonard, parked the car.

She said Leonard had just purchased an AR-15 rifle “just to have it,” and now they were looking for ammunition.


http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/mar/09/del-mar-gun-show-crossroads-ammunition/

COLORADO BAN ON CAMPUS CONCEALED WEAPONS DEFEATED!

By: John Hayward

The sponsor of a bill banning concealed weapons on college campuses plans to kill his measure Friday, Democrats have confirmed.

Four Democratic sources close to the matter said the bill’s sponsor, Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, plans to kill the bill and it won’t be brought up for debate on the Senate floor.

House Bill 1226 already cleared the House anda Senate committee earlier this week amid controversial comments made by a House Democrat, and one in the Senate, about rape on college campuses.

Republicans have hammered Democrats over the rape remarks, jeopardizing a bill that already was in trouble. Two Democratic senators had openly said they were against it, Republicans needed only one more Democratic to kill the measure.


http://www.humanevents.com/2013/03/08/colorado-ban-on-campus-concealed-weapons-defeated/

A woman’s right to choose self-protection

By Gayle Trotter ESQ


What should America do about gun violence? That was the Senate Judiciary Committee’s topic for its first hearing of 2013.

In my testimony during the hearing, I explained that the ability to arm oneself is even more important for women than it is for men, since guns level the playing field between women and the physically stronger men who might attack them. We preserve meaningful protection for women by safeguarding our Second Amendment rights to lawful self-protection. I urged the senators to eschew self-defeating proposals that would fail to make Americans safer and would harm women most.

Women often use firearms to defend against violent attacks. For women, guns reverse the balance of power in a violent confrontation because over 90 percent of violent crimes occur without a firearm, according to a federal study.

Concealed-carry laws help reverse that balance of power even before an attack. Criminals cannot tell which potential victims can defend themselves, and armed citizens can better defend against violence. These two effects indirectly benefit unarmed citizens and reduce crime rates, as documented by economist John Lott. The 10 states that adopted concealed-carry laws over a 15-year span experienced 0.89 shooting deaths and injuries per 100,000 people, less than half the 2.09 per 100,000 experienced in states that did not adopt such laws, Lott found.

My testimony included a detailed summary of 21 recent news accounts, each involving a woman using a firearm to protect herself and others against one or more violent men. These examples included a woman who defended herself against five burglars, a woman who thwarted an attempted shooting in a school, a woman who saved her child from a kidnapper and a woman who stopped a gunman in a movie theater.

Few of these news accounts ever gain national attention, despite their prevalence. Private citizens account for more than one-third of all instances where a violent criminal is killed during the commission of a felony, according to a recent federal study. Americans use firearms defensively 2.2 million to 2.5 million times a year, according to criminologist Gary Kleck, based on a sample in which women represented 46 percent of defensive gun use.

Abundant research has found that reduced gun ownership results in increased criminal home invasions and lethality of attacks on law-abiding citizens. “Homeowners who defend themselves make burglars generally wary of breaking into homes,” creating external benefits because “criminals cannot know in advance who is armed,” Lott found.

During the Senate hearing, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked why a semiautomatic rifle such as an AR-15 has value as a weapon of self-defense. I responded that AR-15 rifles are “accurate, they have good handling, they are light, they are easy for women to hold” and, yes, I highlighted their “scary-looking” appearance. Days later, the New York Times cited similar benefits, calling the rifle “fast, modern, ergonomically designed, relatively easy to handle” and highlighting its appearance as “something commandos might carry.”

The Supreme Court held in 2008 that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm for self-defense and indicated that the right covers weapons “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens” — a standard the AR-15 satisfies, considering that Americans own an estimated 2.4 million to 3.3 million of them. Citizens need not use only “adequate” weapons to protect their families, despite the contrary suggestion of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I).

Gun-rights opponents cite debatable or discredited studies claiming private gun ownership does more harm than good. For example, one study by Arthur Kellermann of Emory University asked homicide victims’ relatives if the deceased owned a gun in the home. The study gave the misleading impression that the homicide involved the same gun. In fact, of the 444 homicides studied in his 1993 paper, only eight deaths involved a gun kept in the home, and Kellerman himself reported that most of the deaths occurred without a firearm. Moreover, Kellermann counted a benefit from defensive gun use only where a criminal had been killed or injured, ignoring the fact that attackers are killed or injured in less than one percent of defensive gun use.

The medical literature on gun control betrays a similar ideological bias. Analyzing research by Kellermann and others, Edgar Suter, a physician, has documented faulty methodologies, false citations, fabricated data, “overt mendacity” and a “failure of peer review.” Based on a Harvard study finding that physicians’ negligence kills annually three to five times as many Americans as guns, Suter noted the “sad irony” of medical politicians’ claim of a “public health emergency” from “guns, rather than medical negligence.”

Gun-control measures ignore evidence of civilian gun use and fail to reduce violent crime against women, according to Inge Larish’s detailed and scholarly feminist critique of gun control. She found that gun-control measures disproportionately harm women “by restricting or removing the most effective method of self-defense available.”

Those who care about women’s well-being should work to safeguard our right to keep and bear those types of firearms “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens” to protect ourselves and our families because nearly all violent crimes occur without firearms, making guns the great equalizer for women defending against violent attacks.


http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/27/a-womans-right-to-choose-self-protection/