Open Carry Debate: Your Message Is Lost When People Stop Listening

Last week there was a rather raucous debate regarding open carry laws in Texas. Rallies organized by Open Carry Texas have been held on numerous occasions to amend a state law that only allows for the open carry of shotguns and rifles but bars the open carrying of handguns without a concealed handgun license. Currently, Texas is only one of 10 states that specifically blocks the open carry of handguns, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Last week, participants took things a step further and rather than keeping to one area, they entered local businesses with long guns handing from their shoulders and laying across their backs.

This week, the debate continued with the NRA leaning in on the discussion initiated by local carry advocate groups. It’s not the rallies or the advocacy for change that the NRA opposes, it is the recent change in the methods that these people have deployed by going in to public places and private businesses to ‘make their point.’ While the people and the protest are nonviolent, it still crossed a line that has resulted in rather significant backlash. The comments made by the NRA have caused quite a stir among those ardent open carry supporters which didn’t take kindly to the following statement (as part of a larger piece) published on the NRA website on Friday:

The second example comes to us from the Lone Star State, which is second to none for its robust gun culture.  We applaud Texans for that, but a small number have recently crossed the line from enthusiasm to downright foolishness.

Now we love AR-15s and AKs as much as anybody, and we know that these sorts of semiautomatic carbines are among the most popular, fastest selling firearms in America today.  Texas, independent-minded and liberty-loving place that it is, doesn't ban the carrying of loaded long guns in public, nor does it require a permit for this activity.  Yet some so-called firearm advocates seem determined to change this.

Recently, demonstrators have been showing up in various public places, including coffee shops and fast food restaurants, openly toting a variety of tactical long guns. Unlicensed open carry of handguns is legal in about half the U.S. states, and it is relatively common and uncontroversial in some places. 

Yet while unlicensed open carry of long guns is also typically legal in most places, it is a rare sight to see someone sidle up next to you in line for lunch with a 7.62 rifle slung across his chest, much less a whole gaggle of folks descending on the same public venue with similar arms. 

Let's not mince words, not only is it rare, it's downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself. To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one's cause, it can be downright scary.  It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates.

As a result of these hijinx, two popular fast food outlets have recently requested patrons to keep guns off the premises (more information can be found here and here).  In other words, the freedom and goodwill these businesses had previously extended to gun owners has been curtailed because of the actions of an attention-hungry few who thought only of themselves and not of those who might be affected by their behavior. To state the obvious, that's counterproductive for the gun owning community.

More to the point, it's just not neighborly, which is out of character for the big-hearted residents of Texas. Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners.  That's not the Texas way.  And that's certainly not the NRA way.

In summary, NRA certainly does not support bans on personalized guns or on carrying firearms in public, including in restaurants.  We think people are intelligent enough to resolve these issues in a reasonable way for themselves. But when people act without thinking, or without consideration for others – especially when it comes to firearms – they set the stage for further restrictions on our rights. Firearm owners face enough challenges these days; we don't need to be victims of friendly fire.

Some people within the firearms community may not agree with this statement. However, I am not one of those people. I firmly stand behind these words and encourage common sense to return to the open carry and overall Second Amendment debate. While I believe that the legal ownership of firearms should not be limited and that most local, state, and federal laws should be repealed, we also need to respect those around us and stray away from such boisterous statements as those recently seen in Texas.

Yes, it is there right to legally carry in such a manner but that doesn’t make it a good idea. While this is a form of peaceful protest, we still live in a culture of fear which must be taken into account when making such a statement. People are uneducated with regard to firearms and, therefore, they are afraid of them. This lack of understanding is not going to be addresses when those same people are griped by their fears and are offended by these kinds of displays. Just like the heinous acts by individuals that have been promoted in the media has swayed views to one side, such aggressive means of protest will have the same effect.

This is not to say that I am against open carry rallies. When similar firearms are on display in one location, I agree that those are a great way to make your voice heard. It allows us to show our support for our rights but also does it in a specific area that people with any trepidation can avoid. I also support those who chose to openly carry a handgun. I don’t necessarily think that it is the best idea and believe you are asking for more trouble than its worth but I support the right and those who decide to carry in such a way. I much prefer concealed carry which is the generally preferred personal carry option for more people than you think.   

Some of you may not be familiar with some aspects of this debate and some of the differences that exist between states so I will take a moment to relay some information regarding Pennsylvania law as it pertains to open carry and concealed carry, the foundation of which can be found in Article I, Section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which states the following:

“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

Essentially, the carry laws in Pennsylvania can be boiled down to the following summaries from the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association website:

Concealed Carry:

Pennsylvania, like most states requires people to have permit to carry a concealed firearm as regulated by the following statute:

18Pa.C.S. § 6106: Firearms not to be carried without a license

·         (a) Offense defined.--Any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.  

This license can be in the form of Pennsylvania's "License To Carry Firearms" (LTCF) or a permit issued by another state that Pennsylvania recognizes as valid through a reciprocity agreement.

Open Carry:

While Pennsylvania has a specific law that requires a License To Carry Firearms for the concealed carry of a firearm, and the carry of firearms in vehicles, the law is silent on the legality of openly carrying a firearm in other situations, making it de-facto legal.

There is however a law that requires a License To Carry Firearms to carry either way in "cities of the first class", which as defined by law is only the city of Philadelphia.

18Pa.C.S. § 6108: Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia

·         No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless:

o    (1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or

o    (2) such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

To summarize, open carry is legal in Pennsylvania without a License To Carry Firearms except in "cities of the first class" (Philadelphia) and vehicles where a License To Carry Firearms is required to do so.

With that said, we would like to point out that there is much debate among firearm owners about whether openly carrying firearms is really a good idea. While we will leave that choice to the individual we will state that in many urban areas (namely Philadelphia) doing so will draw unwanted attention from law enforcement that may include (but not be limited to) the following repercussions:

 

1.      Being stopped and questioned by law enforcement.

2.      Having your License To Carry Firearms seized and sent back for revocation.

3.      Being arrested either improperly or for other charges like disturbing the peace or creating a public nuisance.

While this may not happen should you choose to carry openly, many urban law enforcement officers we have talked to have expressed a very negative opinion towards the idea. Some have suggested that law enforcement will do everything in their power to make your life difficult should you choose to.

As a “shall issue” state, Pennsylvania is rather unique with regard to the northeast region of the country and, so far, has kept the laws of the Commonwealth in line with both the Constitution of the Commonwealth and the United States Constitution. Firearms owners, should not be tempting public ire unnecessarily and should take the responsible step of getting their concealed carry permit. Even those who currently chose not to carry on their person, it is something that should be obtained. So while the debate will surely continue in states across this nation, we should be cognizant of both our message AND the audience to which we are speaking. If our actions prevent people from listening then our message will be lost. Keep fighting for your rights just make sure that you do so in a manner that promotes education and understanding.

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: Always Consider The Caliber

Sig Sauer P238.

A couple of years ago, firearms chambered in .380 ACP surged in popularity. This spike in sales was largely due to the compact nature of the firearms being produced. Heck, I was one of the people that purchased a firearm for that very reason (the Sig Sauer P238 to be exact). Since that phase, 9mm firearms have definitely caught up and have been shrunk down to approximately the same size. With size now pretty much out of the equation, more and more .380 firearms can be found in the used cases than ever before (my Sig suffered the same fate) and many of them are discounted heavily due to the number of firearms that are coming back in and the significantly decreased demand.

Another deterrent keeping the .380 market subdued is the simple fact that ammunition prices for the necked down cartridge are still high when compared to 9mm. Essentially, you can get the same sized firearm with the same round count and spend a lot less on ammunition (a difference big enough to justify the slightly larger price tag for 9mm). All those small firearms don’t make much sense anymore even though the upfront cost is much lower.

However, in the end that is now the biggest draw of these firearms. People go to the used display cases, see the price difference, and decide to save a few dollars. The rude awakening (most commonly with new gun owners) doesn’t happen until later when they keep spending more and more money on ammunition with the price of 9mm, sitting right next to those pricy boxes, staring them in the face. Overall, anyone who has been around firearms knows that this is not a new dilemma just the current incarnation.

This is still something that happens when you aren’t quite paying enough attention before buying that surplus rifle or dusty revolver. I still see people, many with a pretty good background in firearms, bring back their ‘bargain’ buys once they feel the pain of the prices associated with uncommon calibers. Primarily I see with 32 and 38 Smith & Wesson revolvers. These firearms frequently rotate in and out of used cases with nominal price tags… seeing a price in double digits pretty much ensures that the firearm will be sold quickly. What many buyers don’t realize as they are filling out the forms is that they will actually spend more money on ammo during a single day at the range than they spend on the gun itself (if they can even find the ammo).

So, in the end, whether you are buying your first gun or your hundredth, don’t forget to factor in the price of ammo especially in a market that retains some volatility. Make sure that you consider both the price and availability of the ammo for the ‘bargain’ that you just discovered in the used (or new) case. Practice is an essential part of firearms ownership and if you can afford to practice it really isn’t a bargain after all. Buy what makes financial sense in the long run not just in the short term. Of course, if you really want that PPK and you can afford to feed it by all means go right ahead just stay away from the Martinis.

Bringing Equality To The Courtroom

Pennsylvania House of Representatives

I have been keeping an eye on the state legislature for the past couple of weeks in the hope that actions would be taken to uphold previously passed legislation designed to curb the plethora of firearms regulations that are constantly being debated across the state under the public and media radar. While firearms preemption has long since been enacted, these state measures have largely been ignored by those who refuse to understand firearms and insist on restricting our rights. This week the Pennsylvania legislature took a step forward by providing additional means for citizens of the commonwealth to protect their second amendment rights. You can imagine my relief when I received the following email from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action:

After four years of effort, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives finally passed critical firearms preemption legislation. Yesterday, the state House voted to concur on the Senate amendments to House Bill 80 by an overwhelming 138 to 56 vote. HB 80, when signed into law, will strengthen the state firearms preemption statute to further ensure that firearm and ammunition laws are consistent throughout Pennsylvania.

State firearms preemption was originally enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature to avoid the possibility of 2,639 separate firearm laws across the Commonwealth. However, over recent years, more than fifty localities have enacted gun control ordinances in violation of the current state firearms preemption law, creating a myriad of local gun laws that make compliance difficult for responsible gun owners. HB 80 will provide a way for responsible gun owners to hold these municipalities responsible for infringing on our Second Amendment rights.

Contrary to reports from the Philadelphia Inquirer and statement made by other politicians, this is NOT a means of weakening the laws that we all agree must be enforced against straw purchasers. That is NOT what this legislation is designed to do and this is not how it should be applied. We all agree that those who break the law should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Additionally, the vast majority of firearms owners support stiffer penalties for those who are found guilty of breaking those laws especially those found guilty of illegally purchasing firearms.

The problem lies in that those who support “common sense firearms legislation” don’t have any common sense when it comes to firearms or the second amendment. Law abiding gun owners are constantly going out of their way to accommodate state, local, and federal laws no matter how absurd they really are but this is not enough for the Bloomberg devotees. There are already enough laws on the books that we abide by, many of which we disagree with but follow, and we should not face further regulation and restrictions of our rights.

So, ignoring the liberal hype and media mongers, what is the real purpose of this legislation? Essentially, the law allows citizens of the commonwealth to bring suit against local and state agencies with the assistance of national organizations such as the NRA, 2^nd Amendment Foundation, National Association for Gun Rights, etc. Laws and regulations are ever changing in the commonwealth thanks to the actions of irrational hoplophobes and this strengthening legislation is a means to even the legal playing field as many of us do not have the means to defend our rights in the courtroom. After all, we are only looking for equality, the ability to exercise our rights without fear of the repercussions and a means of support if we are refused those rights and we are forced to fight for them. Of course, there is also this little piece of legislation in Pennsylvania law which can be found in Article I, Section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which states the following:

“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

Firearms Friday: Fulfilling A Request

Following my previous Firearms Friday post, I received a request from a friend on Facebook. This is someone who has demonstrated time and again an even temperament regarding a variety of topics whether or not they agree with the stance that I am taking. It is because of this thoughtfulness and willingness to discuss various issues that I am honoring their request for the Firearms Friday post this week. Their request was as follows:

“I fully accept your premise that mental health is significantly lacking, however I don't believe focusing solely on mental health with solve the problem of gun violence. (Some people really are just are evil.) I would be happy to support legislation that limits evil people's ability to do harm with fire arms, while still allowing gun owners to own fire arms. As a non gun expert I can only guess. I've been thinking in terms of limits on clip sizes, the rate at which bullets could be fired, or the maximum force behind the bullets. My requested topic is this: As a gun expert, how would you make firearms safer so that if they were to fall into the wrong hands they would do less damage?”

They later added the following:

“Fundamentally all I care about is a reduction in gun violence. Propose something I can get behind and I'll happily advocate for that when I call my representatives, otherwise I'm forced to stick to the generic "do something!" plea… We may not always agree, but I appreciate the effort. Our end goals are the same. The best polices come from listening to people on all sides of the aisle.”

Again, they were reasonable and respectful in their approach so my response was rather simple… ask and you shall receive. Of course, I made sure to point out that there it is likely that they will not agree with my response but I can't expect everyone to agree with me. In the end, we all have our own views. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. So, here is my response…

First of all, it is very important to note that I am by no means a firearms expert. This is an enjoyable hobby and a means to defend myself and my family. I enjoy and respect this right. I may have more knowledge in this field than others but I am by no means an expert. 

Second, the concept of "making guns safer" is simply an impossibility. Capacity is a moot point when you watch people dedicated to the sport conduct speed reloads. The same can be said regarding rate of fire when you consider the capabilities of the British Army conducting "Mad Minute" drills during World War I. Of course it should be noted that while the media and politicians may use the term "automatic weapon" we are really talking about semiautomatic firearms that fire one round per pull of the trigger. Finally, regarding lethality of the projectile, I wouldn't even consider this as plausible because while I can understand the perspective of the questioner I also have to consider the fact that, if put in a situation to defend myself and/or my family, I don't want to question the lethality of the rounds I am using... I just want to eliminate the threat. 

That being said, I will do my best to address the larger subject at hand. 

The sad fact of the matter is that there is no way to stop all violence committed with firearms. Bad and/or evil people will always find a way to get them and thinking just because something is illegal that criminals will stop using them is lunacy. Evil people will find a way to commit evil acts and the most recent Terrorist attack in France is a prime example of that fact. This is the world in which we live, like it or not.

As I previously mentioned, mental health is the primary means of further decreasing the number of crimes committed with firearms in this country. I specifically used the term “further decreasing” as PEW research shows the steady decline since the early 1990’s. Unfortunately, the media coverage of “gun violence” has not only distorted public opinion but also has offered a tremendous incentive to those looking to commit such a heinous crime… fame. What further sickens me is the fact that the individual who committed this act, the one responsible for the death(s), is seen more as an accomplice rather than the perpetrator… the ones “found guilty” are gun owners in general. As I have said before:

“…The most commonly used of which was a quote from then Governor Ronald Reagan when he addressed the Republican National Convention in Miami Florida on July 31, 1968 amid a time of tremendous racial turmoil which erupted in riots. The excepted says simply “We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”” 

What I am getting at is that there needs to be a drastic shift in the mentality of the American people. We can’t glorify violence on a daily basis and we can’t assign blame to those who had nothing to do with the crime. We have to return to a society that accepts individual responsibility and promotes self-reliance. Too often, people are blaming others for crimes, addiction, health issues, financial situations, living conditions, and limited employment opportunities. We need to take responsibility for our own lives.

Education is fundamental to a healthy and thriving society but the idea that institutionalized settings are the only place that offer this is a misconception that is continuously perpetuated in every political circle. In this instance, on this topic, people need to be familiar with firearms and have at least a basic understanding. This used to be part of growing up and it was slowly strangled from the consciousness of the schools. We need to teach children and adults not just about how a firearm operates but also, and more importantly, proper gun safety. Firearms should be respected not something that should be feared or, even worse, painted as an innocuous piece of video game memorabilia.

These things would take time but, per the request above, what can be done NOW? My stance is rather simple in this regard. What we need to do is enforce the volumes of laws that are already on the books before any other measures should even be considered. Besides, overzealous kneejerk local laws work so well, right? Additionally, we need to spend the money allocated, through legislation, to improve the NICS system. By the way, it was signed into law by President Bush. Here is an overview that I previously wrote:

“Lastly, the other part of this whole equation that is being overlooked is the fact that even when bills are passed, they are not being enforced and/or the funding is not being spent (i.e. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System). The NICS Improvement Amendment Act was signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2008 with the explicate mission to improve the background check system in this country. The law, endorsed by the NRA by the way, allocated Congress $1.3 Billion to improve record keeping in states which would allow greater transparency and improve the Federal gun background check system. To date nearly 90 percent of funding has never been spent and the Obama administration will further reduce spending from its peak in 2015 of $78 million down to $55 million in the President’s 2016 budget request.”

This is something that really bothers me as it seems as though the intentional “spenddown” is being leveraged to paint a completely different story about the system and the way it should be working. Again, even the positive actions taken are spun to accommodate a political objective. After all, if you improve the system you can’t blame it and try to pass additional legislation.

The final “recommendation” I would make is that we need to increase the penalties associated with crimes (violent or nonviolent) with a firearm. I’m talking decades not simply years. Basically, instead of the mandatory minimums for drugs, why don’t we change things up and have mandatory minimums for these crimes. This would also apply to those using something (i.e. a toy) to misconceive people in thinking they had a firearm. Those found guilty of straw purchasing (including members of the media) should be brought up on criminal charges. Those found in possession of a loaded firearm while intoxicated need to be penalized as well.

Lastly, we need to eliminate gun free zones. They have been proven time and again to be ineffectual. In fact, rather than offering real protection they have presented wicked people with targets of opportunity. In addition to the multitudes of accounts, police reports, and stories about firearms being used to stop crime even the CDC has noted in one of their own studies that the use of firearms in “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.” Again, we need to be more self-reliant and willing to take control of our own lives in every situation rather than relying on the faux fairy dust sprinkle around certain places in the community.

So, let us review.

What is the current situation that we find ourselves in?

• Violence is a Part of the Real World
• PEW: Gun Violence in Decline
• CDC: Self Defense is an Important Crime Deterrent
• Mental Health Resources are Lacking
• Government is NOT Spending Allocated Funds on NICS
• Firearms Education is Lacking
• More Gun Laws are Ineffectual

What needs to be done to address the problems crippling our society?

• Increased Focus On Mental Health
• Firearms Education (with Particular Focus On Safety)
• Reintroduce Self Reliance and Self Sufficiency
• Stop Assigning Blame to Others
• Acknowledge and Refute Media Bias
• Use The Funds Allocated To Improve NICS
• Increase Penalties for Crimes Committed with Firearms
• Eliminate Gun Free Zones

Of course, these are just some of the thoughts that came to mind over the past week since being presented with the original question. Again, I didn’t say that they would necessarily agree with my perspective on the topic but I hope that I have been able to answer their question. If you have a question or request, on this topic or others, please feel free to contact me or comment below. You never know, I may end up writing on that topic.

Firearms Friday: Inexpensive Alternatives

Anyone familiar at all with firearms knows how expensive this hobby can be. I have been at the store and seen some of the astronomical totals that people have spent on firearms. It doesn’t matter who you are, you always get that feeling of ‘if I only had the money’. Barring some sort of lottery windfall, that isn’t going to happen for most of us. However, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some interesting options out there that are considerably less while retaining a decent level of quality.

While last week I wrote about some of the interesting firearms that I have come across at the gun shop (Tanner's Sports Center), this post will focus on the budget firearms. These are the ones that are affordable even if you bought them new. Of course, if you buy a used firearm you can get a lot more for your money and expands the budget minded options considerably. While I may write about the used market in a later post, today I am going to focus on the new models (which you can also find used to save even more).

SCCY CPX-1

While cheap firearms are not something that are usually well received, inexpensive ones are and the CPX-1 falls in the latter (Hi Point would be a good example of the former). With a MSRP of $334 and unfired used examples on the market for below $200, this is a great firearm for the budget minded. Having come across these in the local shops on numerous occasions, the quality was rather surprising even if the trigger is far from average. Overall reliability has been good with little wear to be found on many of the more heavily used examples that I have come across. And you can’t really argue with a lifetime warranty which follows the firearm. This minimal investment is definitely worth picking up especially if you find one in the used case.

Smith & Wesson Sigma / SD9 / SD9VE

Shortly after Smith & Wesson introduced the Sigma, they were sued by Glock for infringing upon their patent. While there have been a variety of similar accusations made over the years between various manufacturers, few have been successful. That was not the case in this instant as Glock won and now Smith & Wesson has to pay royalties for every Sigma / SD9 / SD9VE they sell. When you handle one of these Smith & Wesson introductory models you realize why they lost in court. However, while there are numerous similarities that this line has with their Glock counterparts there are a couple of glaring differences namely in the trigger and the price. While a Generation for Glock regularly sells for around $550, the Sigma can easily be found for right around $300. 

Zastava CZ999

I previously mentioned this firearm as a Sig Sauer P226 clone. While no one can deny the quality produced by Sig, not everyone can afford the price tag associated with the name. However, for those interested in Sig’s flagship pistol but don’t have the means to spend $700, the CZ999 is a decent alternative which can easily be found for $300. While you may not get the same high quality and finish (machining marks are notable on the inside of the slide) the firearm is well constructed and reliable. Not a bad alternative for half the price.

1911 Alternatives

For those who want to practice more often without spending the money on thousands of rounds of 45 ACP, the 1911-22 has proven to be a great alternative. With rising ammunition prices in recent years, the 22LR variant has grown in popularity. Besides being a heck of a lot of fun to shoot, the practical training aspect cannot be overstated. Of course, it helps that previous reliability issues have been addressed and they are now a much more effective training aid. Current models made by Walther / Colt, GSG / Sig Sauer, Chiappa, etc. are pretty much on par with one another and can easily be found for under $300 new and under $200 used.   

Cobra Derringer

While there is a practical purpose (and has been for over a century) for a derringer these tiny firearms are falling further and further out of favor as semiautomatic firearms get smaller and smaller. However, Cobra is making a half decent effort on the old design offering small bore models for just north of $100. At that price, even given the questionable fitting of the firearms, they are worth picking up for the heck of it. Of course, if you want the same size and better quality I would consider either the North American Arms mini revolvers (22LR and 22 Magnum) or the Double Tap derringers (9mm and 45 ACP) both of which can be found brand new for around $200.

While you’re not going to win any competitions with the aforementioned options (although Jerry Miculek could probably win with just about anything), they are decent options for those of us without the means to buy the top of the line. And, honestly, there are a number of high end firearms that aren’t really that much better than some of the lower cost alternatives. If you take your time and consider the options that are available (which go far beyond those mentioned above), you can find something that works for you so that you can both enjoy the shooting sports and, if need be, protect yourself and your family.

WTF Of The Week: California Hypocrisy

Hey look, another quality California politician and official donkey cave.

Seems as though talk radio was blowing up a little more than usual this morning. I can’t really say I blame them for ranting the way that they have been doing lately. In addition to the national scams and acts of severe dishonesty there are also the local debacles. And I really don’t know which one is worse at this point.

First you have the overblown traffic jam from New Jersey which started as just that, a means to try and blow a traffic jam way out of context in order to make Christie look bad. Honestly, I don’t even know why the other party even started this whole thing. Christie is one of those people that if you just let him talk for long enough he is going to hurt himself. Just like with this ‘scandal, the longer that it has gone on the more crap that Christie gets himself into. Recently he decided to spend over a million taxpayer dollars to hire his personal lawyer to prove his innocence. Let me see if I understand this… you hired someone you know, from a firm you are affiliated, to conduct an unbiased investigation which in the best case demonstrates that you have limited control over your own staff. You have got to be freaking kidding me.

The other situation going on is, unfortunately, in my state as the attorney general is lawyering up and threatening a defamation suit in order to ‘prove’ that she did not sweep a corruption investigation under the commonwealth’s carpet. This is the type of over-reaction that almost proves that you are guilty. What gets me is that this was allowed to just go unchecked for so long and that no one said anything, especially those in higher political offices.

While Kane and the fat man are enough fodder for a blogs worth of rants, there is another story that broke early this morning that easily overshadows all the aforementioned BS and so much more. Here is the first two paragraphs from the Forbes story by Greg McNeal:

California Democratic State Senator and candidate for California Secretary of State, Leland Yee, a gun control advocate, has been charged with conspiring to traffic in firearms and public corruption.  The charges are part of a 26 person criminal complaint and a major FBI sting operation.  The full criminal complaint is a massive 137 pages that tells the story of Yee’s involvement with a broad ranging conspiracy that includes firearms trafficking, murder-for-hire, drug distribution, trafficking in contraband cigarettes, money laundering, and honest services fraud.

Yee is charged with “conspiracy to deal firearms without a license and to illegally import firearms” as well as six counts of honest services fraud.  Each corruption charge is punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000, while the gun-trafficking charge is punishable by up to five years and $250,000.

That’s right, the gun control advocate is essentially an arms dealer. If he is so comfortable with dealing firearms, it makes you really wonder about his motivation to ban and control firearms. After all, I am certain that he didn’t restrict himself to selling six shot revolvers. There isn’t much more I can say to highlight the hypocrisy and heinous acts. However, I will say this… why is there such a light sentence for gun trafficking? While I am against the restriction of the legal ownership of firearms of all kinds, I am a firm believer in the harsh punishment of those individuals who so blatantly break the law and deal in illegal firearms. If anything, the penalty should at least be equal to the sentences doled out for the other corruption charges.

Well, with the mid-term campaigns about to warm up along with the weather, put some thought in to who you are really voting for. Don’t let a despicable donkey cave like Lee hold public office and open your eyes to the hypocrisy that might be as blatant. It is all around you and, in fact, you probably voted for some of the ones that pride themselves on this practice. A traffic jam doesn’t seem so important now, does it?

Firearms Friday: Second Looks

Anyone who frequents gun shops or shows comes across some interesting firearms during those periods of browsing. It is one of the reasons why I enjoy browsing through the used case and why it is the first place I look when I walk into the store (Tanner’s Sports Center has a phenomenal used selection). During my many trips over the years I have come across a variety of firearms that have piqued my interest that many simply pass by for one reason or another.

It is with this in mind that I decided to go over some of the firearms that caught my attention. Sometimes the reason why people look the other way is because of appearances or because they don’t recognize the name on the side of the slide. Each of the following firearms had me taking a second (sometimes third and fourth) look for one reason or another.

Beretta 9000s

Commonly known as “that gun” from the movie Minority Report, this firearm looks like a 92FS that had an unfortunate encounter with Wayne Szalinski or Willy Wonka. It is an interesting little firearm which was originally conceived by Beretta as a concealed carry option although the bulk of the firearm leaves little to be desired when compared to modern firearms designed for the same market. While no longer produced (in favor of the subcompact PX4 Storm), it is an interesting firearm and one that shows the modern evolution of the old world manufacturer.

Tressitu TZ99

Even those with little exposure to firearms are familiar with the Sig Sauer P226. Even if they don’t know it by name they have seen it countless times on the big and small screens (NCIS comes to mind). However, the clones that can be found are rather interesting as well. While the most common and familiar is the Zastava CZ999, there are other companies and countries that have offered their interpretation over the years including the South African made Tressitu TZ99. While price and built quality are common points of comparison, the TZ99 is a solid piece of craftsmanship if you can find one. The only real difference being in the mechanical functionality is the fact that the decocker also serves as the slide stop. These firearms are seldom seen as there was limited quantities produced and imported (by Mitchell Arms) before the South African company declared bankruptcy. However, if you are interested in seeing it in action you can always watch episode four of the first season of Top Shot.

Heizer Defense PAR1

Unlike the aforementioned two above, the Heizer Defense PAR1 is a new firearm that pretty much defines the concept of “because we can”. Despite no real practical use, the single shot pocket firearm is a rather interesting sight to behold. And that is pretty much as far as I would go as I have no desire to fire a rifle round from a barrel barely extending beyond the tip of the bullet. I imagine the sound from this noisy cricket wouldn’t be very pleasant either even with ear protection. If you really want one by all means go ahead but I think there are better options for under the $499 MSRP.

Chiappa Rhino

Revolvers are simple. Easy to maintain and easy to use (even though some of us can’t shoot them well). Chiappa decided to change us “grandpa’s pistol” and while the design is slightly (despite the looks) more complicated, it is a great improvement on a proven design allowing for a much lower bore axis (allowing for greater accuracy and faster follow up shots). While the prices are still way too high (MSRP of $800+) for firearm from Total Recall, it is something a little different for those who enjoy a good revolver. However, I am not one of those people (at least not at the moment).

1911 Alternatives

I added this section to the post because depending on with whom you speak, these can be seen as unique firearms. While the traditional size 1911’s have been chambered in other calibers, the recent popularity of the Sig Sauer P238 and P938 have sparked greater interest in the pocket 1911 market beyond that which was seen when the Colt Mustang was introduced two decades prior. These are great options for those who prefer the 1911 platform either as a small primary or a backup. Despite the small size I can attest to the high degree of accuracy hitting the red consistently at 25 yards at a medium rate of fire. None of the aforementioned models are cheap but are well worth the investment if you looking for a high quality, 1911 style, pocket option.

As you can see, it is a mix of some new and some that can only be found in the used case. Each has their merits and each has a few things holding them back. However, if you see any of them in the case I recommend taking a look. Maybe you will be surprised. Maybe you might have to spend a little more time in the store filling out some paperwork. Of course, you may look at all of them and wonder what the heck I was thinking when I wrote this. You won’t know until you take a look.

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.