Firearms Friday: Continuing The Dialogue

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a “Firearms Friday” post which was requested by a friend. I did what I could to address their original query but had no illusions that it would be an answer to their question. There are simply too many aspects to this whole discussion to offer a definitive response but it was a means to have a respectful dialogue. And so, with that in mind, below is their response to that post:

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question seriously. I really do appreciate it. Like you, I'd rather have smart laws and knee jerk reactions. As you say you may not be an expert, but you have more experience on this topic than I do and can point out the flaws in my arguments. My goal is a reduction in gun violence and I don't really care much how we get there, as long as it's a path that works and not a token effort.

Here are my immediate thoughts:

When I've been thinking about the problem of shootings I've been dividing it into three categories: one-on-one (most self defense cases would fall into this category, I imagine), one-on-many (mass shootings) and many-on-many (gang violence maybe?). I'm mostly concerned about the one-on-many, mass shooting case. I'm looking for ways that could render a gun less effective when attacking a crowd that would have minimal impact in the one-on-one case, and thus minimal impact on self defense uses. In our legal system it is considered inhumane to maim. If lethal force is warranted you are supposed to take lethal force. That is a sentiment I support. To be 100% clear: If your family is threatened, I want you to be able to defend yourself with lethal force.

I do think there are ways we can make guns less lethal in the one-on-many case that have little impact in the one-on-one case since. Bullet ricochet increases the number of casualties, whereas (I believe) it is a virtually non issue in most self defense cases. It's my understanding that most (all?) bullets are deadly, but not all bullets are equally effective at passing through a person harming the person behind them. Most one-on-one situations don't require dozens of dozens bullets be fired in mere seconds. This is why the arguments of limiting gun magazine sizes, limiting bullet caliber, and firing rate make so much sense to me. (Guns are machines and it is possible to engineer them to fire no faster than a specific rate, regardless of how fast one can pull the trigger.) For a one-on-one scenario, there is no rushing the shooter/person defending themselves. In a one-on-many such changes might give the crowd a chance. At least the casualty count should be lower.

I was unaware that there was a sport dedicated to conduct speed reloads. How long does it take the average-to-above-average person to reload? If it's non trivial, than limiting capacity sizes still makes sense to me. I think (hope) most would be mass shooters are not in the elite class.

I strongly agree with both your points that gun violence is glorified in the media, and that the way the media reports on shootings encourages copycats. I have no idea how this can be addressed given the first amendment.

I also agree that we as a nation need more support for mental health issues. What's less clear to me is what this kind of approach would look like, especially since mental health status can change. I think it's a noble, but unrealistic goal to catch everyone who would commit a mass killing before they have a chance to follow through. Besides, hate is protected under the first amendment. One cannot be committed saying people of a certain race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or anything else should be executed. (David Duke is a terrifying example of this.)

I know I will not change your opinion on the matter, but I support gun free zones. For what it's worth, I don't think the intention behind gun free zones is to prevent intentional shootings. As you, and others, have pointed out, there's nothing magical about a gun free zone that keeps bad guys with guns out. Rather, I thought gun free zones are intended to limit guns from areas where thinking may be impaired (such as places that serve alcohol) or judgement lacking (schools). They're intended to prevent heated arguments and rash decisions from turning into tragic mistakes. While I agree with you that we should hold the shooter responsible for his or her own actions, it's little solace to the person whose life was lost. In these situations I feel the potential for tragic accidents is so great it warrants special treatment.

In this response I will focus on where we seem to be the furthest apart. Let us begin by discussing “limiting gun magazine sizes, limiting bullet caliber, and firing rate” which, to this person, seem to be the options that make the most sense regarding the prevention of mass shootings while having little to no impact on the ability to defend themselves. Unfortunately, this is a flawed argument as the assumption is that “there is no rushing of the person defending themselves”. On the contrary, in many self-defense scenarios there is immense pressure for quick and effective action as seconds count… if you hesitate you are most likely dead. Further, under duress the use of multiple rounds is commonplace. This makes all three of the above options dangerous in a self-defense situation.  

While caliber is something that is thoroughly discussed within the firearms community the simple fact of the matter is that in a self-defense situation accuracy diminishes and stopping power and capacity play critical roles in eliminating the threat. Further, there is no predicting the size of the assailant or how they will be dressed so, personally, I would prefer to have a little more punch than average. Over-penetration is a reality which is why anyone with a reasonable amount of training (and, in my opinion, anyone who owns a firearm) should always be aware of their surroundings and what is behind their intended target. The final point in this is that limiting calibers is a slip and slide that I don’t car to ride as it is nearly impossible to enforce, it would put those who reload in a precarious position, and, most importantly, it is completely against the rights for which I stand.

Rate of fire is something that is already regulated as automatic weapons are classified as Class III firearms and only legal for ownership with those who undergo the scrutiny of the ATF application process (and pay the tax). To regulate rate of fire would not only be dangerous in a self-defense situation but would add over-complication to a rather elegant mechanism. We don’t need to Rube Goldberg firearms… look what that thought process has done to our government.

As for “gun free zones”, the idea that these places are made any safer by eliminating the presence of legal firearms is preposterous. It has proven, time and again, to be a fallacy… nothing more than a means to provide a “warm and fuzzy” feeling for some people. Anyone who has carried a firearm and knows others who carry on a regular basis knows that the one thing that maintains a person’s even temperament is not a sign but the fact that they are carrying a firearm. Those who accept this responsibility also accept the fact that they must go above and beyond when it comes to keeping calm in precarious or stressful situations. This also means that those who responsibly carry will not allow themselves to enter into an altered state of rage or intoxication.

While I would like to say that there is an answer to preventing, as a whole, the practice of mass shootings in this country that is simply not a part of reality. I have already made a few suggestions regarding how we can go about addressing the issue of mass shootings but they are by no means a way to “solve” the problem. The best way that we, as a society, can face this is to come to terms with the fact that this is the reality in which we live. And while the contrary is reported on the daily news, this persons primary objective has already been realized... shooting deaths and gun violence continue to decline while gun sales continue to rise.

However, an important point to remember is that while this person, and many others, continue to make statements regarding the importance of the first amendment and how it limits our ability to address certain statements, stances, and positions that heinous people take, those same people are willing to do anything to limit the second amendment. Remember, the only reason that the second amendment is second is so the first amendment has backup. Why is it that so many people are willing to acknowledge that heinous people are outliers regarding the beauty and effectiveness of the first amendment but those who commit heinous acts are representative of those who support the second amendment? While the person with which I am having this discussion isn’t one of these extremists, the position is all too common.  

If we really want a solution to the situation that we find ourselves in it would be to face the reality that there is evil in this world. Evil people will commit evil acts and we need to confront that evil head on by defending ourselves, defending others, and eliminating the threat when we are threatened. We can’t rely on government in general or legislation in particular. If anything, we need to eliminate the hurdles that continue to plague law abiding gun owners. We must educate ourselves, our families, and our fellow citizens about firearms. We must respect what they can do and appreciate the freedom that they represent. So, my advice is simple, go to a range. Understand, appreciate, and respect firearms. Teach one another. And never allow yourself to be helpless and maintain your self-reliance. I’m sure that this is not the response that they were looking for but it is an honest response and one that has proven, time and again, to be the most effective was to address the issues that we are currently facing.

Firearms Friday: Upgrades and Contributions

It is no surprise that recent events have put a greater strain on our rights with particular focus on the second amendment. I am actually surprised that the tragedy in Turkey hasn’t filter back into the debate more than the occasional mention. Thus far, the right decisions have been made overall but this debate and the attempted infringement is by no means concluded. It is because of this simple fact that we have continued to be vocal about our rights and, when able, we have contributed to this fight in a variety of different ways.

It really comes down to the individual. Some have more flexibility in their schedule than others and can be in attendance at events, campaign, and volunteer their time to one or more groups. I have had many opportunities to do this but, as of yet, I have been unable to find any free moments that could be dedicated to this endeavor. Maybe in the future but I am really not holding my breath on this one.

Others apply their efforts in the few minutes stolen from each day to write blogs, letters, article, and other means of communication, dissemination, and advocacy for our rights. This is where my efforts are applied because while there is no way that I am able to set aside hours or days to dedicate to a particular endeavor, I can find the minutes scattered throughout my day between various projects and assignments to write letters, emails, articles, and blog posts such as this. A lot can be done with this found time and this defense of our freedom needs every minute that each of us can spare.  

And, of course, there is the financial means of support of which we are all very familiar. This is especially true now as the campaign calls have increased over the last couple of months driven by recent events and the natural progression of the campaign season. This is an area where I do what I can. Lately, I have been looking more at transitioning from annual to life memberships and, in other situations, upgrading my life membership. Thankfully, the extended payment options for most of the major second amendment organizations is very reasonable and financially possible for most members.

There isn’t a cut and dry answer that one can give when asked “how can I contribute or make a difference?” What works for me may not work for you and vice versa. In the end, we all have to figure out how we can support our second amendment rights and we all must be willing to stand our ground. That is how one goes from contributing to making a difference.

Firearms Friday: Knowing Where And How To Travel

Traveling can sometimes come with a whole host of issues… at least for those of us that have a concealed carry permit or just enjoying going to the range every now and again. Even traveling within your home state can be problematic if you find yourself venturing into urban areas. This is why it is important to know the laws and regulations of the place to which you are traveling.

When I am traveling within the Commonwealth, I know that there are certain areas where the legal concealed carry of a firearm will bring undue attention, and attempts at legal action, from residents and local authorities. While an uncomfortable predicament in certain areas, I do abide by the regulations outlines in those more densely populated areas. Further, even when in a firearms friendly part of the state, I do pay close attention to the signage posted by proprietors. After all, they have a right to ban firearms from their establishment and I have the right to not give them my business.

For those who have a concealed carry permit that are traveling beyond the borders of your home state, the first step is to find out which states will honor your rights. For me, the states that will honor (through reciprocity agreements) my Pennsylvania concealed carry permit are as follows:

• Alaska
• Arizona          
• Arkansas        
• Colorado        
• Florida
• Georgia          
• Idaho  
• Indiana           
• Iowa   
• Kansas
• Kentucky       
• Louisiana        
• Maine 
• Michigan        
• Mississippi      
• Missouri         
• Montana         
• New Hampshire         
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Oklahoma
• South Dakota 
• Tennessee       
• Texas  
• Utah   
• Vermont         
• Virginia          
• West Virginia 
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

It is a surprisingly extensive list given the “Shall Issue” status that Pennsylvanians enjoy in this current political climate… it goes to show the authority that a State Constitution should have in granting rights to citizens. What is not surprising is the fact that many adjoining states will not recognize my right to carry (i.e. Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York) so when planning my travel I must take the appropriate steps to make sure that I am not in violation of the laws in those states. Of course, I try to limit my exposure to such intolerant climates.

And that is the most important thing to remember when traveling and being a supporter of the second amendment in general. While we are members of the majority in this country, there are many that will insist on relegating us to the role of second class citizens. They would prefer to segregate us from the rest of the entitled population and attach derogatory labels and unfounded allegations on us in an attempt to promote their intolerant message in the hope to strip us of our rights.

Well, that isn’t going to work as we are law abiding citizens that promote and the defend the rights of all people and want nothing more than to prevent violence rather than incite it as the anti-gun movement has done for years. However, those motives speak to the importance for us to be diligent in our observation of state and local laws. The last thing we want is to give them the ammunition because while they may oppose our rights, they will shoot you every chance that they get.  

Firearms Friday: A Rambling Summary

Those of you who have been following this blog for any significant length of time pretty much know where I fall on a variety of political issues especially with regard to the second amendment. However, I still get questions from time to time regarding where I stand on a variety of topics so I have decided to dedicate a couple of posts to summarizing those views. Of course, given the day that I am posting this, it is only right that I start with the topic that seems to garner the most support and criticism… Firearms ownership.

Simply put, I believe that law abiding citizens, in accordance with the second amendment, have the right to own firearms. In fact, I believe that many of the laws in force overstep the boundaries of government and should be revoked particularly as it pertains to those that fall under the purview of the ATF. Generally speaking, restrictions and registrations are infringements upon our rights and should deemed as such.  

‘Gun free zones’ are an insane propaganda piece to promote a false sense of safety when, in fact, they merely ensure limited if any resistance ensuring targets of opportunity for those who wish to commit evil acts. This is why you are seeing so many shootings in these shocking areas. Not because we have a ‘gun problem’ in this country but because we instill a false sense of security and ignore the evil that exists in this world.

However, there are many laws in place that I support as it relates to firearms ownership as I believe a basic background check has the potential to be an effective tool should the necessary implementation of existing laws and technology be applied. I have seen too many posts noting that NICS is down and we already know that the system has not been optimized. In the end, NO other legislation should be passed until the existing measures are fully operational.

As it pertains to those who break the law I firmly believe that those who commit a crime with a firearm should be given sentences longer than those who commit the same crime without the use of a firearm. Those who unlawfully purchase or sell a firearm should also be given harsh sentences. In the end, the individual should be punished for what they did not the entire community.

Basically, people should not rely on the authorities to keep them safe when we are capable of doing so ourselves. For the great work that they do, they can’t anticipate what is going to happen, they are limited to responding to situations. We need to protect ourselves. The government can’t solve our problems… we must be self-reliant and self-sufficient and acknowledge the limitations that should be placed on government.

Firearms Friday: Justice Scalia

A couple of weeks ago we lost a tremendous intellect on the Supreme Court when Antonin Scalia passed away. While there have been many who have criticized his views over the years, including in the firearms community, there is no questioning the passion that he had for the Constitution and for the true intent of the Founding Fathers who wrote it. In fact, there were times when he himself didn’t completely agree with his own decision but reached the conclusion that he did because it was the right decision. As he has been quoted as saying, “If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong.”

Surprisingly, one of the more balanced ‘obituaries’ written shortly after his death can be attributed to Mark Sherman at the Associated Press who rightly focused on Scalia’s commitment to textualism. In part, he writes:

Scalia showed a deep commitment to originalism, which he later began calling textualism. Judges had a duty to give the same meaning to the Constitution and laws as they had when they were written. Otherwise, he said disparagingly, judges could decide that "the Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean."

A challenge to a Washington, D.C., gun ban gave Scalia the opportunity to display his devotion to textualism. In a 5-4 decision that split the court's conservatives and liberals, Scalia wrote that an examination of English and colonial history made it exceedingly clear that the Second Amendment protected Americans' right to have guns, at the very least in their homes and for self-defense. The dissenters, also claiming fidelity to history, said the amendment was meant to ensure that states could raise militias to confront a too-powerful federal government if necessary.

But Scalia rejected that view. "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct," Scalia wrote.

Unfortunately, his passing leaves a gaping hole in the highest court in the land. Not because he sided primarily with one party or another but because he was an originalist. There is too much ‘selective interpretation’ in politics and in the courts today and having someone relying solely on the text is a tremendous grounding asset that has been taken for granted for too long. Additionally, the passion that he freely expressed for our founding document is something that was evident in the eloquence of his majority opinions but especially in his dissenting opinions.

It is a shame that the two things that have been talked about most since his passing is the lack of respect by the President in not attending his funeral (but he took the time to meet with the ‘death to the police’ Black Lives Matter organizers) and the ongoing debate surrounding the nomination of a replacement. Here is a revolutionary idea, why don’t we honor his memory by nominating someone who views our Constitution in the same unbiased way making decisions based on the text rather than the social flavor of the month. No politics, just focusing on the text. I’m not even asking for nine, I just want to see one Justice on the Supreme Court who takes their oath literally.

Firearms Friday: A Tale Of Two States

The laws that have been proposed, speeches given, and legislation that has been passed over the past few years is troubling to say the least and unconstitutional at worst. While we have been able to fight and defeat many of these bogus promises of safety, there are a few that managed to get on the books and have been restricting the rights of second amendment practitioners ever since. One of the more egregious and confusing laws which was brought to my attention recently is one that comes from, don’t be shocked, California.

A number of years ago (effective January 1, 2001), legislators in the Fool’s Gold state enacted PC 12131 which established the “Safe Handgun Roster.” While sold to the public as a means to limit the sale of unsafe firearms in the communist bloc, the reality of the legislation is that it was a means to shake down the firearms industry by imposing unnecessary testing and exorbitant fees on an annual basis. No wonder why Leland Yee turned to the black market!

The definitions of those firearms that meet the criteria to get on this list was then expanded upon in 2007 as “legislators passed AB 1471 which mandated that all semi-automatic pistols must employ microstamping technology.” What this now means is previous generations of firearms are safely housed on this arbitrary list while new generations are considered un-safe. A perfect example of this is the cluster that one law enforcement finds themselves in as they attempt to transition to the 4th generation Glock 19 as their service weapon. According to the Attorney General, the office of which previously exempt law enforcement from selecting from the list, they are a generation too late and therefore cannot use their newly purchased roster of service side arms.

There is a much more comprehensive blog post on Full30 at the following link, which was referenced for much of the material above, if you would like to read more about this SNAFU: https://blog.full30.com/ca-gun-law-stupidity-knows-no-bounds/.

However, not all the news recently makes you want to slam your head against the wall repeatedly. Come to think of it that might make that a semi-automatic assault wall which would also be illegal in California. It also used to be illegal in Maryland until the good news was handed down by the Maryland 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Kolbe v. Hogan decision. The case challenged the 2013 Maryland arms prohibition statute which bans the sale of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and also bans many firearms, by labeling them as “assault weapons.”

Some of the important highlights which were reported in the Washington Post include:

In a 2-1 decision written by Chief Judge Traxler [appointed by President Clinton in 1998], the Fourth Circuit held that strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for bans on common arms, such as those at issue in Kolbe. The case was remanded to the district court, which had applied the wrong standard, namely a weak version of intermediate scrutiny. The Maryland attorney general announced that he will seek en banc or Supreme Court reversal of the Kolbe decision. Below is a summary of the most important parts of the Kolbe decision.

Why the arms are part of the Second Amendment

Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “common” and “standard.” There are more than 75 million of them in the United States. Indeed, “most pistols are manufactured with magazines holding ten to 17 rounds.” In fact, “Virtually every federal court to have addressed this question” has found that magazines over 10 rounds are in “common use,” and thus are covered by the Second Amendment.

Why strict scrutiny is appropriate

First, because the prohibition “burdens the availability and use of a class of arms for self-defense in the home, where the protection afforded by the Second Amendment is at its greatest.”

Second, because the burden is substantial, “not merely incidental.” For example, the statute imposes “a complete ban” on “AR-15 style rifles—the most popular class of centerfire semi-automatic rifles in the United States.” Notably, the ban “also reaches every instance where an AR-15 platform semi-automatic rifle or LCM [large capacity magazine] might be preferable to handguns or bolt-action rifles–for example hunting, recreational shooting, or competitive marksmanship events, all of which are lawful purposes protected by the Constitution.”

Strict scrutiny was also appropriate for the magazine ban, because “a citizen’s ability to defend himself and his home is enhanced with an LCM.” For example, the inherent difficulties of some defense situations mean that citizens often need the ability to fire multiple shots, and changing magazines while under violent attack may not be possible.

A statute that “completely prohibits, not just regulates, an entire category of weaponry . . . might be ‘equivalent to a ban on a category of speech.'” (Quoting D.C. Circuit Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent in the Heller II case.) The extensive prohibition is “akin to a law that ‘foreclose[s] an entire medium of expression.’ City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 55 (1994). Such laws receive exceptionally rigorous review in the analogous context of the First Amendment, id., and we see no reason for a different method here.”

Unlike some other courts that have upheld magazine and firearms bans, the Kolbe majority did not purport to be expert in gun-fighting tactics, or to claim that judges know what law-abiding citizens “need” for self-defense. To the contrary, the 4th Circuit recognized that under the Second Amendment and Heller, choices about self-defense are reserved to the defenders. For “whatever reason” particular arms are preferred by particular law-abiding citizens, “The right to self-defense is largely meaningless if it does not include the right to choose the most effective means of defending oneself. . . . The extent of danger—real or imagined—that a citizen faces at home is a matter only that person can assess in full.” (Quoting 7th Circuit Judge Manion’s dissent in Friedman v. Highland Park).

In the short term, this reestablished the second amendment rights of the citizens of Maryland but that it the short sighted measure of this case. The reaffirming ramifications of this decision could potentially be applied across the nation serving as the judicial support, firepower if you will, sometimes needed to protect and defend affronts to our Constitutional rights. Nicely done Maryland. Glad there are some in the courts will to take a stand and do something that the President refuses to do… defend the Constitution of the United States of America!

Firearms Friday: NRA Decals

And we all have the pin to match our car!

One of the interesting things for me when my wife and I lived in Bala Cynwyd was the looks on faces when people would see the NRA sticker prominently displayed in my window. While they may have been appalled and had their liberal sensibilities offended, I remained entertained by their hoplophobia and had to keep myself from chuckling at their wide eyed stares. Having moved out to the country, that is no longer an issue but there is another entertaining aspect to the proud displays around me.

These days, rarely will I come across a car without an NRA decal or some other means of supporting the second amendment. This lack of decoration is usually accompanied by a New York or New Jersey license plate. Actually, looking around the difference is much more drastic than those previous experiences. Now, there is a variety of NRA stickers on display and there is clearly a pecking order to the cars in the parking lot of the local Turkey Hill.

Seldom will I come across a car with a single, basic, sticker. It seems as though the basic rule of thumb is that one should put a sticker in their window for each year that they are a member of the NRA. I guess you could say that this is the hillbilly equivalent of a beach tag collection. Some have about half a dozen while others clearly don’t care about seeing out through the side windows of their car. That is your basic membership level.

From there you have a number of other options. I probably see more Life Member stickers than any other kind on a daily basis. This is usually the people that put a lot of miles on their car and need the visibility. At some point, we all look at the annual cost of membership and realize that it make more sense to wait for one of the discounts offered on life memberships.

The next level up is the Endowment Member. It is pretty much guaranteed that if you see a car with an endowment member sticker, the person getting out will be wearing some piece of NRA clothing. This is also where you find the Golden Eagle members. Basically, this is the double down category of NRA members where multiple levels of membership apply. The same basic trend applies to members at the Benefactor and Patron levels the primary difference being the base price of the car to which it is affixed. And, yes, I am one of these Endowment Members.  

In the end, what is important is that we all have our membership and support for the second amendment in common. We also all have the same look on our faces when that New York plate pulls into the lot for a cup of coffee. And, of course, we all have the same smile when that person gets out of the car with their wide eyes and their panties in a bunch. You’re not in New York anymore and I’m not on the Main Line anymore!

Firearms Friday: Executive Orders

This past week was an interesting one to say the least as the President postured in front of the media looking to continue to falsehoods of a decades old failed policy. In a press conference filled with a flood of forced tears, the President announced a series of executive actions regarding gun control. And that last word is key to this whole equation as the posturing and proclamations are all about control which was again driven home by the “Guns in America” town hall that was held last night two days after his speech.

While the discussion that night was more evenly distributed between those on both sides of the issue… the highlight for many was the statements made and questions asked by Taya Kyle, widow of Chris Kyle, who, in part, said, “The laws that we create don't stop these horrific things from happening. That is a very tough pill to swallow," This was in addition to her additional statements stating that criminals would not be stopped from getting guns even if background checks were expanded. 

However, the moment when she truly shined, far brighter than the president, was when she posted her response to the town hall event the following day on CNN. The paragraphs that stood out to me are as follows:

Cars are tools that is involved in about as many deaths as guns. If you are a driver prone to drinking and driving, should we only allow you to drive an ultracompact car? Not an SUV which could kill more people? No, we take away the drunk driver's access to legally drive any car. This is about freedom to do as you like until you prove incapable of showing good moral judgment.

In this country, we give freedom and take it away once you prove to be unworthy of the freedom we have given you. Nobody suggests taking away cars or going through a battery of tests to determine whether or not you might be a drunk driver one day.

My congressman, Representative Joe Pitts, also made his thoughts known at the end of the week following the President’s statements and actions. A portion of his weekly email newsletter read as follows:

On Tuesday, President Obama announced a series of executive actions he would take, as well as proposals for Congress to consider, on the regulation of gun ownership. The President is proposing to spend more money on mental health, though he has not said where that money will come from. From now on, the background check system will be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, rather than normal business hours. Doctors will be allowed to tell law enforcement about mentally ill individuals, but only until they have completed treatment.

The largest change will be expanding the scope of federal background check requirements. Federal law requires a federal firearms license for firearms dealers.  Under the President’s new rule, you would need a license and must conduct background checks if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit, even if that’s not your livelihood.

I am a strong supporter of background checks, and I have voted that way. Two years ago, I voted to increase funding for the background check system by 20 million dollars. But I have also sworn an oath to support the Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment. It is also important to note that these actions would not have actually stopped any of the most horrific mass shootings that have occurred in recent years.

The last paragraph is or particular note in this who smoke show by the White House. Funds to improve background checks in general and the NICS system in particular have been voted upon and passed many times over in Congress. This is a non-issue. The focus should actually be on two parts of the actions that the President would like to take… patient confidentiality should not be something that is breached. While I can see the need to know those who are mentally unstable this should also be seen in the same way that it is in the legal system… sane until proven otherwise.

However, here is the most troubling aspect of the announcements made on Tuesday night… restricting gun sales and requiring a FFL for those who sell firearms for a profit. In the end, the FFL requirement through the ATF can potentially be used as a means to restrict sales well beyond the broad brushstrokes that the president likes to paint. There is nothing happy about these trees:

Thanks to a carefully drafted statute enacted in 1986, the president had relatively little room to maneuver in this regard. Those reforms were part of the NRA-supported Firearm Owners’ Protection Act. They were enacted specifically in response to abusive practices by the ATF, which included treating occasional sales of personal firearms as unlicensed “dealing” or seizing private firearm collections, on the pretext that they were the “inventory” of illegal “dealers.” 

At the end of the day, the administration’s big move on background checks was, instead, a 15-page brochure or “guidance” which explains the relevant federal statutes and regulations concerning firearms dealing and summarizing its view of the controlling case law.  Even though the president cannot unilaterally expand the law, he can still instill fear in gun owners and intimidate them into believing that private transfers are now illegal.  ATF can take his directive push the envelope with marginal cases that would be ignored in a less agenda-driven administration. They may well be looking to “make an example” of somebody, especially in the realm of sales advertised online. 

Obviously, chilling otherwise lawful firearms transfers could be just as effective as restricting such activity with passage of a new law or regulation.  There can be little doubt the president knows this and why he and administration officials have repeatedly said, “even 1 or 2 sales” can make one a dealer.

Based on evidence from past practices, the administration will likely try to have it both ways – revoke licenses for “dealers” who don’t sell a “sufficient” number of firearms, but prosecute those who sell a small number of firearms without a license.  In the 1980’s for example, there was evidence of ATF revoking the FFL of a person because he only sold three guns during the year, while simultaneously prosecuting another person for selling three guns that year without a license. And during the Clinton administration, after ATF had forced low-volume private sellers to become FFLs, the agency then aggressively reduced the number of FFLs for lack of business activity. 

There is a lot of posturing by the President as he concludes his second term in office. It is almost as if he really doesn’t care about the facts or what is right, he just wants to feel the warmth of the spotlight for as long as possible and try to grab as much power and control as he can before heading out the door. Sadly, the events this week are only the beginning to a very long year… hopefully we can get things back on track by the time November comes around.

Firearms Friday: Adding Security

It is no secret to anyone that has read this blog that I am a strong supporter of the rights to own and carry a firearm as well as an advocate for those choosing to own a firearm for self-defense. It is something that I choose to do as a means to protect my family. However, let me be clear, it is a last line of defense in maintaining the safety of my family. Contrary to some misguided opinions that I have read, your firearm should not be your only means of defending your home and your family.

While I have no qualms about doing everything in my power to defend my wife and son, it is with that aforementioned point in mind that I called ADT shortly after settling on the house, had the consultation on moving day, and had the system installed this past weekend. In addition to the security and peace of mind that it provides (and the hard evidence as we have video surveillance) whether we are home or away, it also serves as a warning system should someone continue with their devious motivations and enters our home while we are asleep. Even if it is only a few seconds, that is enough time for me to prepare and make ready to eliminate the threat to my family’s well-being.

As I have written about before, there are other steps that need to be taken as well including making sure that the firearms that you do have in the house are secure. The last thing you want to happen is for a child to gain access to your firearm(s). The second to last thing you want to happen is for someone to break in and have access to your weapon. In addition to a decent safe in a more secure area of the house, you should also have some kind of quick access vault in your bedroom should something or, more accurately, someone go bump in the night.

I also recommend having a second quick access vault in areas of the house where you spend the most time. Remember, not all break-ins will occur in the dead of the night. They should be in places that are easily accessible and would be considered obvious to those who know where they are because you are not trying to hide, you are trying to conceal and defend. It is the last thing that you want to have to reach for but you never know when you might need it. Again, this is not something anyone wants to have to do and it should be a final not a first act but at least this was you can ensure that your family is safe at all times.

Yay (Or Nay) For UN Day!

In all honesty, I have mixed feelings every year when UN Day comes around. There have been so many great things that this institution has accomplished in its history and yet so many things that it continues to get horribly wrong in its current incarnation. If only they could look at what they have done in the past and applied those same virtues to the present the situation would be completely different and many questions regarding its modern viability would be alleviated. My personal opinion (i.e. detest for the current body of politicians) is one that is formed from the current positions that the United Nations has taken but it is also curbed by the things that, historically, this international body has allowed to happen.  

I can’t help but maintain my focus, above all other work being done, on two current issues in which I hold a personal stake in the outcome. The first is the ongoing push for the UN Arms Trade Treaty and the impact it could have on my rights. In an article published on April 14, 2013 in The Wall Street Journal, former United States UN Ambassador John Bolton summed up the push for this distasteful policy when he wrote the following:  

While much of the treaty governs the international sale of conventional weapons, its regulation of small arms would provide American gun-control advocates with a new tool for restricting rights. 

…

Like many international schemes, this treaty has seemingly benign motives. It seeks to "eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market," where they are used in civil wars and human-rights disasters. The treaty calls for rigorous export controls on heavy conventional weapons, such as tanks, missiles, artillery, helicopters and warships.

…

But the new treaty also demands domestic regulation of "small arms and light weapons." The treaty's Article 5 requires nations to "establish and maintain a national control system," including a "national control list." Article 10 requires signatories "to regulate brokering" of conventional arms. The treaty offers no guarantee for individual rights, but instead only declares it is "mindful" of the "legitimate trade and lawful ownership" of arms for "recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities." Not a word about the right to possess guns for a broader individual right of self-defense.

Gun-control advocates will use these provisions to argue that the U.S. must enact measures such as a national gun registry, licenses for guns and ammunition sales, universal background checks, and even a ban of certain weapons. The treaty thus provides the Obama administration with an end-run around Congress to reach these gun-control holy grails. As the Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald cases recently declared, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right "to keep and bear Arms" such as handguns and rifles. Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce remains broad, but the court's decisions in other cases—even last year's challenge to the Affordable Care Act—remind us that those powers are limited.

The other reason for my disdain is rather simple… the United Nations ongoing efforts to vilify Israel and attempts to prevent the Jewish State from defending its boarders and living in peace. In addition to the outright deplorable statements made related to Israel’s acts of self-defense, the UN’s unwillingness to recognize the terrorist states that surround the country and levy harsh penalties for their actions is borderline anti-Semitic. It is amazing how much this international body has devolved from one that supported the country’s right to exist to now defending those who seek to destroy it.

It is because of these reasons that I cannot support the United Nations nor will I celebrate this day. It is a shameful institution full of people who cannot see past their utopian ideals and view the world through the prism of reality. If justice is blind then the United Nations is Helen Keller.

Firearms Friday: Come And Taken It!

Late last year I was introduced to Para Ordinance. As I previously wrote, I was not a big proponent of the 1911 platform before that time. While I didn’t have anything really against the design it was still a higher price point and, for the most part, one that had limited capacity. Para Ordinance changed that perception for me and early this year my perception of Para Ordinance was altered as well and in a very good way.

Like many firearms manufacturers, Para provides firearms for the movie industry. It is for this reason that you sometimes see different firearms in movies when you know that the police force that is being portrayed does not issue that manufacturer. This has always been the financial game that Hollywood has played… it is all about product placement.

However, Hollywood in general has always had a tenuous relationship with the firearms industry with many of the stars of the movies having very loud and opinionated views on firearms ownership. Case in point, Liam Neeson’s interview in late January with Dubai-based Gulf News during a promotional tour to tout his recent film Taken 3 which he said the following:

“First off, my thoughts and prayers and my heart are with the deceased, and certainly with all of France, yesterday. I’ve got a lot of dear friends in Paris.”

“There’s too many guns out there. Especially in America. I think the population is like, 320 million? There’s over 300m guns. Privately owned, in America. I think it’s a disgrace. Every week now we’re picking up a newspaper and seeing, ‘Yet another few kids have been killed in schools.’”

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion even if they don’t have all the facts. Most of the time, this would be the end of the story but Para Ordinance decided to take a stand. Shortly after the interview went to print, the firearms manufacturer posted a response on their Facebook page:

“PARA USA regrets its decision to provide firearms for use in the film Taken 3. While the film itself is entertaining, comments made by its Irish-born star during press junkets reflect a cultural and factual ignorance that undermines support of the Second Amendment and American liberties. We will no longer provide firearms for use in films starring Liam Neeson and ask that our friends and partners in Hollywood refrain from associating our brand and products with his projects. Further, we encourage our partners and friends in the firearms industry to do the same.”   

The firearms industry and all those who support the right of firearms ownership shouldn’t let such brash comments go without a response and the stance that Para Ordinance has taken is one that we should all support. Hopefully other manufacturers will join suit and instead support those who support the firearms industry and our rights as a whole. After all, this country does not and never has had a gun problem, we have a problem with those people that have deep seeded issues that perpetuate the violence. I was a new fan of Para Ordinance before and now, so long as they hold their ground, I will be a lifelong fan.

Firearms Friday: Pennsylvania Pride

Last week I came across a post on The Firearm Blog about a new handgun that was being introduced to the marketplace. Produced by Evans Machining, Nite Owl Firearms is only the most recent firearm to come out of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The new offering from my state joins a long list of manufactures that call Pennsylvania home. Here is a list of some of the companies that are producing high quality items:

Nite Owl Firearms / Evans Machining Services (Clairton): http://niteowlfirearms.com/

Evans Machining Service Inc. has over 35 years of experience in the manufacturing sector and a long history of producing key components and assemblies for all types of small weapon systems for the United States Department of Defense. With the launch of the consumer facing brand "Nite Owl Firearms", their vision is to be recognized as the most modern, reliable and customer friendly manufacturing company in the Outdoor & Personal Defense Industry.

IWI (Israel Weapon Industries) US Headquarters (Harrisburg): http://iwi.us/

IWI US, Inc. is a subsidiary of Israel Weapon Industries (IWI) Ltd., which for many years has operated in the global Defense and Law Enforcement markets. IWI US, Inc. was established in 2012 in order to offer the highest quality and most advanced products available - as well as to provide a high level of service and support for American consumers. Located in Harrisburg, PA, IWI US has appointed a very experienced team of senior managers to oversee its operations in the US market. The IWI US line of products includes several configurations of the TAVOR® SAR, GALIL ACE®, UZI® PRO and Jericho® pistols.

Kahr Arms / Magnum Research / Thompson / Auto-Ordnance (Pike County): http://www.kahr.com/

 Kahr Arms, an innovative firearms manufacturer, was founded on fifteen years of manufacturing service in precision metalworking industries. Kahr incorporates the inherited professional, technical expertise into all of its operations. Kahr's parent company, established in 1981, has been a leading supplier of computer numerical control (CNC) machine tools and applications engineering. In 1986, the company expanded by forming a manufacturing division which provides quality contract machining, manufacturing and assembly services for diverse industries, including aerospace, automotive, electronics, medical equipment, scientific instrumentation and telecommunications. This division offers in-house engineering and precision tooling services, as well as, secondary operations that complement the machining and manufacturing capabilities.

Cabot Guns (Cabot): http://www.cabotguns.com/

Cabot Guns is collaboration between Cabot Guns and Penn United Technologies Inc., a world-leading precision manufacturer. Together they design, build, and market seven model 1911 handguns. Cabot Guns are machined from solid blocks of 4140 billet steel to within tolerances of 2/10,000th of an inch. Cabot believes our frames and slides are the most highly-engineered components ever made for a 1911. Penn United Technologies' proprietary technology allows the frame and slide of a Cabot 1911 to be completely interchangeable with other Cabot 1911 frames and slides. This is unheard of in our industry. Cabot Pistols exceed National Match Standards for accuracy right out of the box.

Geissele Automatics (North Wales): http://geissele.com/

Geissele Automatics was established in 2004 as a manufacturer of trigger mechanisms for the AR15 rifle. Our first trigger, the Hi-Speed National Match, was designed by our Founder, Bill Geissele, for CMP and NRA Hi-Power Rifle competition. Although designed for target shooting, the Geissele Hi-Speed trigger was found by the U.S. Military to have applications in semi-automatic sniper weapons. In 2005 Geissele Automatics received a request from the Department of Defense: "Can you build us a select-fire trigger that is as good as your Hi-Speed?" In response, Bill designed the Geissele Super Select-Fire trigger (SSF). After rigorous testing the SSF was adopted by entities in the U.S. Special Operations community and has become their trigger of choice for M4 carbine based weapons. A derivative of the SSF trigger was developed to meet the needs of law enforcement and civilians who do not need select-fire capability. This trigger, the Super Semi-Automatic (SSA,) combines stellar performance with the safety, reliability and forgiveness for which 2 stage triggers are known.

While Pennsylvania remains a second amendment friendly state and gun owners across the commonwealth are now able to legally defend their rights, it remains important that we hold fast to our tradition and continue to produce industry leading firearms and accessories. While we carry the northern stigma from those that surround us, we remain far different from our neighbors and embrace the rights that every citizen should have. We are dedicated to supporting individual rights and, despite recent political turnover, those rights will continue to flourish in this great commonwealth.