Police don’t come due to a lack of money…

Want to know why there is no funding for you police? And why our courts and prisons keep releasing violent criminals?  Look no further than to failing Detroit and California to see the flawed government policies.

Detroit shutting down hundreds of small businesses for permit violations.
http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/09/17/operation-compliance-detroits-war-on-sma

California chasing after unregistered contractors.
http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/09/16/why-is-california-jailing-landscapers-do

 

Advertisements
Published in: on September 18, 2013 at 12:54 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

The Open Carry Debate

I see many critical of the Californian open-carry movement and quite a bit of heated discussion on the subject.   (See some great discussion over at the PAGunblog.com). I, personally,  am of the opinion that California has pushed to the point where we need vocal and disruptive action, and perhaps even civil disobedience. 

People forget that there was a time not so long ago where in many places you could not carry a firearm.  Ironically, I grew up in San Diego in the 80’s where you could actually carry (if done openly). 

What are Californians to do?  It’s not like the activity is eroding their rights. Their rights have been continually eroded. (Carry bans, ammo purchasing limits, etc, etc, etc.)

I believe that Americans in California have four options:

1. Give up their rights (Bad, bad, bad)

2. Peacefully protest and object through traditional channels (fairly ineffective but there is some hope, Federal court system, etc).

3. Civil Disobedience (Breaking of laws you feel are immoral.  Carries many consequences, but sometimes we have to bear the consequences for change. If not for civil disobedience we might still have segregation.)

 Recently, I even considered the possibility that certain rifles and handguns might be able to be carried despite the bans on carry – using BATFE’s own regulations.  Take the Sig P250, which receives the serial numbering is an internal trigger component.  That is the part that is OFFICIALLY the gun.  An AR15 has the serial # on the lower, this allows you to buy uppers without the need for an FFL transfer. So what happens if an individual carries a pistol or a rifle but leaves the serial # portion at home. It would seem to me that they would not legally be carrying a firearm.  And perhaps this is the next protest we should expect to see in California. 

4. Armed Opposition (This is the last route we want to take. And I believe that while things like Open Carry, etc stir up the pot.  That such activism is indeed necessary. But the truth is, there is a point, and may we never reach it again, in which the rights are so infringed that the only choice is armed opposition.)

There was a time when we practically lost carry in much of America.  We could have easily found ourselves a disarmed nation akin to Great Britain.

Realize, we could very easily be having this same debate regarding “The need to carry, versus not having the need to carry” OR the “need to own a firearm versus not having the need to own a firearm”.

There are many people who feel as opposed to firearm ownership in general, as feel opposed to open-carry. 

And let’s be brutally honest here. Open carry is the AR debate ALL over again.  Let’s rewind to the 80’s and 90’s. “Why no one needs more than 10 rounds and no one needs an military style weapon.”

How much was the gun community split on that? How many top dogs in the industry split on that or even came out on that end? Be it Bill Ruger or Jim Zumbo?

Imagine if the gun community came out and said “No one buy AR15’s or even Mini14s. We know they’re just semi-auto rifles. But well, their presence and ownership might get all semi-autos or even all firearms banned.”  Where would we be today? Would the AR15 be the #1 selling rifle platform?  I don’t think so…

***

My position, is if you’re going to open-carry. Be respectful. Be polite. Respect private property.  Be a Norman Rockwell Boy Scout. 

For safety considerations I tend to advocate “open carry” only when two or more gun owners are out and about.  Less you present yourself as a target.

As for activism, I believe open-carry is better in a group activism and when that activism has cleared all hurdles ahead of time. By this, I mean – do not go to a restaurant chain and argue it’s a public place blah blah blah.  Rather, approach the management ahead of time in a polite fashion. Receive the okay of the private establishment’s manager. Than proceed…

Guess what, not only will this reduce likelihood of an issue. But it will make for a much better witness as well.
For those who feel open-carry causes no good. I am reminded of an incident at a Costco in recent memory where an individual engaged in concealed carry had his firearm accidentally seen by a passer-by. The Costco was evacuated, the cops called in, and the man in question unwittingly walked out not even realizing he was the concern – he walked out to his death as the cops gunned him down and questioned later. Sure, different actions on the gun owner’s part might have avoided this situation.  But had there not been such an immediate fear on the mere sight of a man carrying a firearm, this and other similar incidents could be avoided.

 

Cavalry Arms owner pleads guilty!

For those unaware of Cavalry Arms. They manufactured a polymer lower for the AR platform. Providing a very lightweight lower.  They’ve been essentially under-siege by the BATFE for approximately two years.

The owner, Vincent, stated that 90% of the goverment’s original case was dismissed. The final contention is a charge that the owner knowingly sold firearms to an out-of-state resident – in California.

Most of the articles I read online provided little info and declared how such illegal sales are almost always used in crimes, etc.

The following article is one of the only ones I have read that gives any counter-point or details on the matter.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2010/02/22/20100222guns-gilbert.html

Apparently, the firearms sold to the resident of California were actually stored in Arizona with the firearms dealer.

For those unaware of the situation in California. It has become a little bit ridiculous. Massive restrictions on firearm ownership, approved firearm lists that can limit a purchase based on color, and police officers who believe they should be shooting law abiding citizens for trying to preserve their 2nd Amendment rights.

It’s quite probably that many of the firearms purchased were not on the approved California list. To give you an idea on just how restrictive this list is.  I just googled and found a link to the roster. There are only 1300 approved pistols on the list, a drop in the bucket when compared to the thousands and thousands of different models. To a collector, it’s like saying you can collect the Yankees but not Red Sox baseball cards.

Frankly, I am of the opinion that if a firearm is not allowed to be in your state. You should still have the right to own and store that property where it is legal.  But I am of a lot of opinions that California residents are getting close to justifying a lot of things.

Published in: on February 25, 2010 at 3:41 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

California proposes solution to ammo shortage crisis

Per the NRA-ILA

CALIFORNIA: Update on Pending Anti-Gun Legislation in the Golden State Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed Assembly Bill 962 out of committee.  The bill will now move to the ammoSenate floor for a vote very soon.   AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database.  Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers.  The bill would also require purchasers to submit to fingerprints, which would be kept in dealers’ records and subject to inspection by the Department of Justice.  Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=5114

***

The above proposed legislation is very disturbing for a number of reasons. First, it would severely limit the 2nd Amendment rights of Californians.  Second, it’s purpose is clearly not to combat crime but to disarm the citizenry. Criminals do not need more than 50 rounds to conduct their heinous actions.  Only law-abiding citizens who engage in self-defense training and sporting activities require such quantities of ammo.

In fact, a limit of 600 rounds a year will essentially eliminate Californian’s right to participate in shooting sports.  One can easily expend a few hundred rounds in a single competitive event.

It is my belief and hope that this bill will fail to find support. But all Californians need to contact their elected officials and express their opposition.

This bill has also forced me to do some personal contemplation.  When is civil disobedience called for?  Many Americans engaged in civil disobedience during the 1800’s and assisted escaped slaves travel to the northern states – the so-called “Underground Railroad”.  I believe the passage of such a law would be a great infringement of the civil rights of Californians. I also believe it would be immoral and unconstitutional.  If such legislation was passed, would I sit by and do nothing?  Or would I be a part of the “underground ammo train” and engage in civil disobedience to aid my fellow Californians?  I think the latter…


Published in: on September 7, 2009 at 5:19 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: ,