Free 9mm Ammo for Shooting Mentors

I received a heads up about this from the guys at AmmoToGo.com. Seems like a great idea, especially with all the gun regulation talk that's circling around right now. Not sure if they timed it that way or not but it's just about perfect.

Magtech and AmmunitionToGo.com are giving away 9mm ammo to shooters who take a new shooter to the range and show them how to safely fire a gun. If you download a target off the AmmoToGo.com's 9mm page, take a photo of the new shooter with the target, then upload it back they'll send you a couple boxes of 9mm 115 grain ammunition.

Seems like a good idea. I know it's not always easy finding someone who isn't familiar with guns that wants to shoot but I like what they're trying to do here. I'm curious how many people will be able to round somebody up. They claim to have 100,000 rounds of 9mm
ammo available as part of the program. That's enough for 1,000 new shooters if my math is correct. Pretty good - but just a drop in the bucket of what we'll need if the gun-grabbing public continues on with the momentum that they seem to be building.

I'm not sure who I'm going to take to the range but I wanted to post since they reached out and I think it's a worthy topic. Have you heard about it? Planning to take advantage of the offer?

Stupid Chipotle... Irresponsible Open Carriers?

I wasn't going to write anything about this.

After all, when Starbucks had to go forward with a pseudo-statement that asked gun-owners not to be idiots and open-carry into their coffee shops, I thought we were all on the same page.

Now, open-carry idiots in Texas are forcing Chipotle to do pretty much the same thing.

Unknown Source on the Photo. Sorry.

"The display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers" - Chipotle

ABC News also quotes Moms Demand Action in their story:

Erika Soto Lamb, a spokeswoman for the group, said she thought the move by Chipotle was a "bold statement," especially considering its previous stance of complying with local laws.

Was this really a "bold" statement? I mean, Chipotle is a business. They sell food. With, what, say 40% of the population completely freaked out by guns, let alone "scary looking" Armalite rifles do you blame them for asking gun owners not to bring the firearms into the restaurant with them?

Once again, the dollar speaks more loudly to corporations than The Constitution. Why can't we learn this lesson as a community?

Sebastian at PA Gun Blog is one of the gun owners who has spoken out about this repeatedly and even tried to mount a counter campaign to the Moms Demand action over the weekend.

This #NRA family is having lunch at @ChipotleTweets because they didn't cave to @MomsDemand & @Everytown #BloombergSucks
— Sebastian (@SebastianSNBQ) May 18, 2014

Unfortunately, the responsible actions of many couldn't make up for the showboating of a few tactical fanboys. Now, my lunch options are further limited if I listen to the pleas of many of my 2nd Amendment supporting brothers and sisters. Although, I'm not sure that the free market side of my mind can blame Chipotle for their actions following the display we saw in Texas over the weekend.

Don't be stupid.

Please.

While this will surely help my diet that damn Chipotle cilantro rice will surely be missed.

Survey says. . . . . .

YES!! Women should carry handguns for personal defense!

Oh, what do I win?!?!

An aptly named county for such a Sheriff

Wright said,"Liberals call me and tell me the chain-gang form of justice isn't working. Well, let me inform you, your form of justice isn't working either."

He said Lance should not have had the right or opportunity to "violate a good, upstanding woman."

***

Wright said, "It's too bad someone with a concealed weapons permit didn't walk by. That would fix it." He said people are tired of doing the right thing and criminals
getting away with their actions.

He said several times, "I want you to get a concealed weapons permit."

It's a start. There's plenty more where that came from, from a Sheriff that seems to have his heart and mind in the right place. He seems to genuinely understand that his town will be a better, safer place if the good folks at large are able to stop scumbags with something that works much faster than a cell phone.

I understand his anger, too; there have been two more attempted abductions in my AO since my last post on the matter, and police don't believe any of them are related. That would mean there are lots of twisted creepys running around, not one. This place is saturated with wonderful kids that need to be protected, and hopefully the community is up to the task.

Pro gun win in Ohio

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Ohio lawmakers on Wednesday passed a bill allowing gun owners in the state to carry concealed weapons into bars and other establishments where alcohol is served.

The General Assembly passed the bill, which also eases restrictions on how guns can be transported in vehicles, in a 55-38 vote.

Good for Ohio. The last sentence in the article mentions that opponents think mixing guns and alcohol would be bad for the public, but they must not have read the law thoroughly as it explicitly states that guns and alcohol cannot be lawfully mixed. The same thing was argued here in Virginia when a similar law was passed, but the opponents didn't read the fine print apparently.

Global control

The U.N. is trying to pry into US gun laws again with the usual list of stuff like bans on semi-auto firearms and an international gun registry. If they fail, there's always next year. . . .

Gun Free Zonage

DC residents who wish to buy a gun have a huge problem on their hands: the one business in the district that can legally transfer firearms has lost its lease, and will take awhile to move to a new location and get set up. Naturally, some people are pissed:

Michelle Lane lives on Capitol Hill, and wanted a gun for protection and target practice. She bought two guns in Virginia: a Ruger LCR revolver and a Kahr K9 Elite 9mm. After buying them, she found out she couldn't have them shipped into the city.

"It's not fair," she tells WTOP. "I followed the law. Criminals bring guns into the city. It's frustrating."

I bet. Trying to do the right thing and not be contentious is basically going against the grain in DC.

While DC officials are doing their best to throw responsibility for this jammage on the back of Mr. Sykes - the man who has been doing transfers in the city, and who has now lost the lease - you can plainly see that the district has tried to paint this business into a corner in what could only be considered an effort to keep other businesses of the like out. DC politicians will usually saddle up their high-horse for other civil rights, but not for gun owners. That's the responsibility of someone else.

The zoning laws are particularly interesting:

Approval of a new location for Sykes isn't the only road block delaying District residents from getting handguns. Zoning requirements on where gun dealers can locate are strict, making it difficult for Sykes or any potential gun dealer to find a suitable location.

Kevin Shepard owns Second Amendment Safety and Security, and has had a Federal Firearms License since 2008, but has not been able to find a location to open his business. He says the zoning requirements are too restrictive.

"It's impacted my economic liberty," Sheppard says. "I'm trying to start a business and they're making it too difficult."

Again, painting the business of firearm transfers into a corner. And the idea that barring a business from selling or transferring a gun within 300 feet of a school is just asinine. What difference does that make? It's only a political diversion to parry the fact that DC does not want lawful gun owners in the city.

From The Sentinal.

All the cool kids are doing it

Nancy at Excels at Nothing is enjoying the comforts of open carrying (OC) a firearm while out in public. To her surprise, the local SWAT team didn't show up, and the gun didn't crawl into her ear and lay eggs in her head causing her to go berserk and make the streets awash in blood.

Here in the Old Dominion, South of Fairfax of course, the carrying of your gun openly will pretty much get you no attention whatsoever. Everyone is used to seeing it to the point where it's no big deal. I used to OC all the time, but not so much anymore with the growing popularity of pocket carry. I mean, even if I strapped the Kel-Tec on my belt for the world to see, who's going to notice that little thing?

Aside from the usual politics and arguments of whether OC or concealed carry gives you an advantage comes the understanding that OC gets the nod for being more comfortable. You don't have to modify your wardrobe to conceal your piece, and that is significant as far as I'm concerned. Belt holsters that are not made to squish your all steel firearm tightly against your skin will feel much better at the end of the day. Trust me. And to those I know who carry in a shoulder rig, they report to me that that's the most comfortable way for all day carry, and also note that it's way more convenient to take on or off than a belt holster. Utility is a wonderful thing.

Protection is personal

This morning I wanted to give a shout out to Ken, (Can I call you Ken? I feel like we need to be friends or drinking buddies now) aka Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, over his recent legal opinion on what constitutes "a good and sufficient reason" to carry a weapon to church, to wit:

Cuccinelli wrote that the self-defense is at the heart of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

The statute Cole questioned is in the penal, or criminal code, section of state law, and because of it must be “strictly construed against the Commonwealth and in favor of a citizen’s liberty,” Cuccinelli wrote.

Because of that, he said, “I conclude that lawfully carrying a firearm for self-defense and personal protection constitutes ‘a good and sufficient reason’” under the law.

Telling it like it is! Way to go! Hell, I like you. You can come over to my house and. . . . .oh, wait. . . .well, I can't give you my sister; she's already taken by a Good ol' Boy with an affinity for having his own weapon pointed at him - but I promise you that if you stop by we will smash into the Stella Artois or Woodford Reserve, your choice.

Now, it should be known that this legal opinion is not codified law, but it might as well be. Virginia has made it known that they like to do things their own way - for better or for worse - and the weight of the state's Attorney General is on the side of gun owners on this one. Regardless, there are some (like you know who) who are very butt-hurt over the idea of someone discreetly carrying a modern self defense tool to church without accruing a $250 fine:

“Places of worship don’t need loaded guns brought into them,” Malte said. “The way Attorney General Cuccinelli states it, it looks like he’s giving an opening to guns in churches, and we oppose that.”

Well, Mr. Malte, to the best of my knowledge, churches don't have the funds these days to spend on spree-shooter forcefields to keep the lunatics out; so if you look at things in that regard, nothing has changed. Instead of having one or two churchgoers in the congregation carrying their heaters because they value their gift of life, there will now be like five. Why don't you jump up and down while holding your breath?

This opinion is common sense squared. There is simply no good cause in fining non-violent people for an act that hurts no one. Also, Ken Cuccinelli is my hero.

Missouri women want equality

Experts cite two main reasons for the increase. First, they say most women want to take their protection into their own hands. And now with concealed carry laws, it makes it easier for them to do that.

Who knew? It surprises me that this short article doesn't harpoon the idea of women using common self defense tools like so many other news articles. American media is usually opposed to the idea of woman using guns, because somehow woman are way more sophisticated or something, and don't need to stoop to that level. Equal pay, but not equal might. I think we're finally coming past the dark side of the moon when news stories show favor to armed women.

Guns on campus

In Arizona, the House passes a law allowing guns to be carried on college campuses. It's now up to Governor Jan Brewer to sign. I'm counting down the days till we see all the blood on sidewalks state wide like in Utah.

DC gun ownership up

By this surprisingly non-hostile article at the Washington Post, since DC's handgun ban was ruled unconstitutional over 1,400 guns have been registered in the district. Take into account though that there is only one place for DC residents to claim ownership of their purchased firearm due to DC not having any gun stores. In order for a US citizen to lawfully purchase a firearm, they have to buy it in their state of residence; DC is no different even though it's not a state, and the one fellow who is licensed to make transfers of guns in the district charges $125.

The gist of the article is that only the more affluent residents are buying guns, and when you consider that a Glock handgun - not expensive as far as handguns go - is between $550 and $650, and on top of that you have to pay for the $125 transfer fee, you can see why it's something that only the more well off can afford.

Someone needs to tell the guy in the caption on the article to keep his finger off the trigger. Just sayin. And Alan Gura gets quoted a few times in the article, showing in one part that he's a realist:

Police said they could provide no data on registered guns being stolen, misused or used in self-defense, nor could they cite any specific incidents.

"Oh, I'm sure there's been some misuse," said lawyer Alan Gura, who successfully argued against the ban before the Supreme Court. "People steal and misuse stuff every day, whether it's guns or cars or kitchen knives. It's no surprise that people steal stuff and do bad things. That's the ordinary course of life."

Too bad the anti-gunners aren't such realists.

The Swiss stick with tradition

The left wing political groups tried their hand at sensible gun laws in Switzerland and failed. Reading some of the arguments in the article shows that the crazy lefties in Switzerland think just like the crazy lefties in America.

And 300 deaths a year? As armed as that country is - 1.7 million issued military weapons - and they have 300 deaths from firearms annually, which tells me that it's not the blasted guns. I bet they would be better served taking away bleach, or swimming pools.

Emotion makes for a baseless argument

Reading this Washington Post hit piece about how Colin Goddard is influencing lawmakers to enact gun control, one has to wonder why the author doesn't talk about the flip side of it all.

As you can read in the story, Goddard survived the gunman's attack at Virginia Tech, and the point is pushed that he carries more weight in the gun control argument because he knows first hand what it's like to be shot by an armed lunatic while at school, and the rest of us don't. There is no mention at all about why Goddard also carries weight to the argument that packing thousands of unarmed people in a small area with minimal security attracts armed lunatics of all types, and the outcome of an event like that will be the same despite whatever law gets passed to prevent it.

Again, for those who don't know:

The most fatal school massacre in US history was committed with a bomb.

The most fatal act of terrorism in the US was committed with commercial airliners hijacked using boxcutters.

The most fatal act of domestic terrorism in US history was committed with a bomb.

The second most fatal spree killing in modern world history was committed using a shotgun, a sword, and an axe, the first was committed with a rifle and grenades.

None of this is addressed in the article, nor is there any mention of potential unintended consequences. It seems that the sum of the story is that Goddard has an edge because he's been the unarmed victim getting bullets pumped into him while he lies defenseless on the ground, and that should be the best policy. He's also a fudd, so there's that too.

Arguments based entirely on emotion don't get much pull with me. How about putting some facts in there somewhere for the people who aren't so naive.

Gun bills in Virginia

The VCDL's blog, The Sentinel, has the latest on gun legislation in the Commonwealth.

See here for the Castle Doctrine bill, a bill to make it a violent felony to get caught with a gun on school property, and another to make it OK for cops and lawyers to be under the influence while carrying.

See here for a Virginia Supreme Court gun ruling, as well as about half a dozen new gun bills.

See here for eight more bills; two of them are Castle Doctrine and one of them is for Constitutional carry (no permit needed for CCW).

See here for a local media look into these proposed laws. I got a kick out of this from the second page:

Among the bills the group opposes, Goddard finds particularly onerous a bill from Del. Bill

Carrico that would exempt any firearms manufactured in Virginia, that remain in Virginia, from federal regulations.

Goddard called the bill "an absolutely, utterly stupid thing," and said there's no way Virginia could ensure that firearms made here don't leave the state.

And? Is there any way to ensure it right now? Has there ever been? Seems to me that if a scumbag in Virginia wanted to build a sheet metal Sten clone that's fully automatic for the sole purpose of gunning down lots of people in Nebraska, then there's no way a law or lack of one is going to make one bit of difference.

Amtrack starting to become rational

Come December 15, they will join most of the rest of mass transit and allow firearms to be in checked baggage. Now, about that carry on stuff. . . .

Also, I do note the guidelines for checked baggage says:

". . .the maximum weight of each piece (50 lb/23 kg)."

So your mortar tubes and 20mm rifles will have to be checked separately.

Actually, I took that rule entirely out of context. Forgive me?

Your ammunition rights are under attack!

When a political critter can't take away the guns, they go for the next best thing - ammo.

It doesn't seem likely at all that this EPA petition will get enacted, but still. . . .whoa!

Gun show poophole

Yesterday the news was awash in coverage of the meeting in congress from families of the Virginia Tech massacre. These folks were asking congress to pass federal law aimed at making private sales at gunshows go through a background check. This seems to come up several times a year, so I'll address some of the issues with this.

The main argument against is that there are tens of millions of gun owning Americans that will not be told that they cannot sell their personal property to another American unless they get government approval for the transaction. This is entirely missed by advocates of new federal law. If I want to sell my Marlin .22 rifle to my brother, I'll be damned if I'm gonna ask for permission. This goes the same for an AR15 as it does for a Mossberg slug gun.

On top of this is that there is no mechanism in place that I'm aware of that would even allow it to begin with. Can anyone walk me through how Joe Schmucketelly would be able to conduct a background check on John Quincy Public so that he can legally sell him his Colt Peacemaker? Who provides the forms? Who does Joe Schmucketelly call to do the check? Who pays for the call? Who pays the cop who has to conduct the check? Has anyone conducted a study to find out how many Police officers and federal agents will need to be hired for each state to entertain the capacity to do these checks? How will Joe Schmucketelly be required to keep the record, and for how long? Or would somebody else be required to do it? Will ATF agents then be authorized to come to Joe Schmucketelly's house and audit his records? Who is going to provide the training needed to properly and legally assert the forms on the buyer, and who pays for that?

None of this is insurmountable, but how long will it interfere with American's rights until this whole process can be implemented and working smoothly? Do any of these people care?

So really - they might not realize it - they're asking for a fiction, which ultimately means that if congress does pass such a law, and tomorrow an American has to provide for a background check in order to sell a personal firearm to another American, there is no means to do it, so the law becomes a de facto gun ban. Raise your hand if you want to be the person to tell America that their personal property is now frozen in place.

The obvious elephant in the room is that despite what the "panel of experts" (snicker) found in their report in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre, the scumbag murderer did not buy firearms from a gun show. I saw on the news last night, and can't seem to find it this morning, a reporter talking about how the two murderers at the Columbine massacre bought their firearms at a gun show, which is flat out wrong. Three of their guns were purchased at a gun show by an 18 year old girl who would have passed any such background check, and the fourth was sold to them by a friend, which was already illegal and would not be any more so with the passage of new federal law.

The thing that grinds in the minds of gun owners is that there is no "loop hole" in the law; a gun dealer that wants to sell guns at a gun show has to conduct a background check, and they are licensed by the federal government who provides the infrastructure to conduct that service. Those advocating the passing of new federal law are saying that the government will have to provide for the licensing and service to tens of millions of people. This would ultimately create a massive federal agency. Maybe that is their secret hope.

Turning my mind to the offense, would that mean that every Tom, Dick, and Harry that wanted to sell a firearm would need to be licensed by the federal government in order to have access to the N.I.C.S.? If I have to have a license to sell a gun, than by selling the gun aren't I now acting in a public capacity, and not a private one? Doesn't that make me bona fide gun dealer? Wouldn't that enable me to buy directly from the wholesaler, or possibly even the manufacturer? Do these folks really want tens of millions of bona fide gun dealers able to buy and sell as they please from Smith and Wesson, without regard for quantity? How many federal, state, and local gun laws would that render obsolete with the swipe of a blue pen?

The anti-gun folks may not realize how well they have it right now. Best leave the hornet's nest alone.

Virginia laws in effect today

Concealed carry in restaurants that serve alcohol is legal today, as well as being legal to transport a firearm in a vehicle's locked compartment. Also, you can ask Master to renew your concealed carry permit by mail, and court clerks now have to tell you that you can appeal a denied concealed carry permit.

Not too shabby.

Do notice some of the people's confusion in the comments at the article.

Oh yeah, and check out the picture to the article on NBC Washington's front page. Smart anonymous reporter takes you back to the Wild West, despite the Wild West not being very wild. Predictable.

Gun rights in sheep's clothing

The old policy prohibited town employees, except police officers, from bringing firearms into town buildings or properties during working hours. The new policy bans weapons on town property unless they're legally permitted. It will allow employees to carry weapons in places where other residents could.

There is a whole lot in that paragraph to address.

First, the old "policy" exempted cops, of course, but more importantly barred town employees. Policy is not law; thus it was not unlawful for town employees to carry, but getting caught meant potentially getting fired. Citizens however, were not held accountable by this policy as they do not risk losing their job.

The new "policy" is where the meat is. Again, it's policy, not law. As the article describes it, this policy now allows everyone to carry as long as it's legally permitted. To be contentious, there is a big difference between legal and lawful; the latter meaning true law, and the former meaning color of law, or basically fiction.

In my opinion, this new policy under the guise of freedom and 2nd Amendment rights is really a dangerous way of making people think that they have more, when in fact it seems written to control people under color of law. A wolf in sheep's clothing, if you will. What it boils down to is that town employees want to carry without the worry of losing their job, which is understandable to say the least, but the method towards this end is to give up more of their rights - keeping in mind that the employees rights were not threatened before this new policy - in exchange for being "allowed" by the local government to carry.

In short, they're offering the same entity that discriminates against them more control in exchange for not discriminating. It's the same as telling the bully that steals your lunch money that you will clean his room every week if he doesn't steal your money. And I am sure that this is being haled as a gun owner's victory.

On the flip side, there is the typical resistance from the scared senseless folks that can't bear to see anyone armed and capable of protecting themselves, and they offer to the local news man the predictable "guns near kids" sacrifice. Also, do not miss the NRA, Pro-Gun spokesman mouthpiece giving his burnt offering of "this is going too far." Sometimes the Redcoats are dressed in Mossy Oak.

My point is to be careful of what you wish for. Everyone wants to be able to carry where they want; just be sure that you don't give away a right for a promise to be left alone.