Within roughly the same timeframe as the Newtown Atrocity, a criminal armed with a crowbar broke into the home of a young mother who was there alone with her nine-year-old twins. When she and the kids had retreated as far as they could and the intruder still kept coming, she opened fire with a .38 caliber revolver.
When her gun went empty, five of the six shots had struck the intruder. Whether it’s drunkenness, drugs, or desperation, some violent criminals can be harder than others. In this case, the intruder was still up and running. The smart and courageous young mom bluffed him at the point of her now-empty six-shooter, telling him in essence that she would finish him off if he kept attacking.
The bluff worked. He fled, running out of steam later, though he is still alive to face criminal charges.
Anyone who is not blind from rabid anti-gun sentiment can see that this would not have ended well for the mom OR her young twins if the suspect had been just a little tougher and more resolved…or if he’d had an accomplice.
American Rifleman, the monthly magazine of the National Rifle Association, carries a regular column titled The Armed Citizen. It documents cases of good people using guns to protect themselves and other innocents from bad people. This continuing feature has run for decades, so old that one of my grandfather’s self-defense incidents is in its archives.
The Armed Citizen section in the current issue of the Rifleman, warrants our interest. Bear in mind that a real life self-defense shooting is not a “Dirty Harry” cinematic fantasy in which every shot fired will both strike, and instantly blow away, a bad guy. Real life is more like a zombie movie: if the first bullet doesn’t short-circuit the central nervous system, you have to keep shooting until the skeletal support structure no longer holds him (and his weapon) up where he can hurt you and yours, or until his cardiovascular system has run out of oxygenated blood for his brain. The latter mechanism’s effect can often be better measured in minutes than in moments.
Traditionally limited to a single page, the Armed Citizens column in the February 2013 issue contains seven incidents “torn from the headlines” as the dramatists like to say, all documented by the local news media where the incidents took place.
In EACH of those incidents, only ONE of the intended victims was armed and capable of fighting back.
A mere two of those seven documented incidents were “one on one” confrontations. In each the Good Guys were actually Good Gals: A 35-year-old woman in New Mexico and Jill Stucker, 64, of Florida had to deal with only a single attacker apiece.
Three of the people saved by their guns were up against two-to-one odds: An unidentified farmer in West Virginia, store owner Roger Webster of Maryland, and an 83-year-old lady with a “walker” in Tennessee.
And two of the seven documented cases – A 35-year-old woman in the New Orleans area and a Pennsylvania man – were each up against a gang of at least FOUR home invaders.
In a world where the Good People With Guns often have to deliver several hits to neutralize even one Bad Person With Deadly Weapons, and in which there is often more than one attacker, anyone applying logical thinking can only end up shouting one three-word mantra:
DO THE MATH!!
I would like to propose, at the risk of angering LEO’s (which is not the intention of my argument, and I hope the careful reader understands the point), that law enforcement be subject to the exact ammunition capacity limitations that are set forth in any new legislation. Why? Why not? The Supreme Court has clarified what most of us with common sense have always known – that police have no duty to protect us. Further, assuming that they are not the aggressors of violence – their guns are basically for the same purposes that our guns are for: Self Defense. If (insert your favorite arbitrary number here) rounds are sufficient for you and I to defend ourselves, our homes, our families – then surely it would be sufficient for a LEO to defend himself.
Every cop I know personally stands with the law abiding citizen and opposes gun control legislation. But for the few sellouts that would rather defend career opportunities than rights, and the unsubstantiated claims of “law enforcement agrees” that the left likes to spout, perhaps if this amendment to any proposed ban were insisted upon, it might force a truthful conversation about what one “needs” for defense.
“Anyone who is not blind from rabid anti-gun sentiment can see”…
This is the major problem.
Mas,
The need for multi-shot, quickly reloadable weapon systems availability is aptly explained in your article.
Thank you.
Mike
ps – Glad to see you are still able to blog after the ‘chopper ride’.
6 shots was not enough to subdue that criminal; she had to bluff that there were more rounds available.
Here in NY we now have a SEVEN round limit. And we can’t bluff, thanks to the Loud-Mouth Governor-who-would-be-President.
Debate the gun grabbers on TV Mas.
John Georghiou –
Smith & Wesson makes a dandy Model 686+ that holds seven rounds of .357 Magnum! If the price tag makes you blanch, the Taurus .357 Magnum Tracker, the .357 Magnum Model 617, and the .38 Special +P Model 817, also hold seven rounds.
My sympathies on the stupid gun laws in your state. You could always move to Oklahoma…
ECS
Mas, have any of your LEO compatriots made their stands known on magazine capacity? I’m surprised that not more have stood up and said that limiting magazine capacity is not effective in curbing gun violence, especially if it detracts from defending one’s self, as it now is in New York for all citizens, LEO and non-LEO alike.
A group of the quiet warriors have made their stand known in a letter standing up for the Second Amendment:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/special-forces-take-on-domestic-enemies-of-gun-control-in-letter/
The title of the article is, “Special Forces Take On Domestic Enemies Promoting Gun Control In Letter.”
God bless all the warriors and first responders standing on the wall!
Ladies and Gentlemen, I want to 1st say THANK YOU, each and every one of you, for supporting our Precious 2nd Amendment. WE DID IT! The Petition went Public earlier this morning, and is “Quickly” getting on track to reach the Goal of the needed 100,000 SIGNATURES requiring a Response from the White House. This will again become possible only because of YOU and the Combined Support of Everyone that signed the Petition.
For ALL of you that have not Signed the Petition, and wish to do so, I have included the link to the White House dot gov website below.
Once again, THANK YOU for standing up for LIBERTY!
.
.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-people-united-states-demand-any-infringement-our-2nd-amendment-be-impeachable-offense/hPHY24RY
Dave,
I believe that- technically- what you described is already sort of happening in New York as a result of their looney-tunes new bill they voted into “law” (used quotes because Unconstitutional laws are not laws).
As I understand it, former NY police (who generally have been able to freely carry for a long time now) have been “confirmed” to no longer be “allowed” mags with a capacity above 7 rounds, either. Add that to the growing number of gun/gun accessory dealers who have stated they will no longer sell or otherwise administer to the NYPD, and the de-facto result is very close to what you’ve described.
I fully admit that I do not know the complete details of this and am presenting all of this information second-hand; makes sense if it did actually pan out this way, though. Knee-jerk (stupid) actions have consequences, after all.
Ditto what Chris – VA said above–Mas, you putting a smackdown on Piers Morgan so hard he’d run crying back home to Mommy in Old Blighty would be worthy of a Pay-Per-View. 😀
Here is an excellent story, by a recent Immigrant to America, as to why Gun Control Doesn’t work, and what he believes is the real cause of the current school shooting.
Legal Immigrant’s Must-Watch Testimony Against Gun Control: ‘Few Saw the Third Reich Coming Until It Was Too Late’
Jan. 31, 2013 12:40am Jason Howerton
We tracked down Mr. Ong and he gave us an exclusive interview. See what became the tipping point for his support of the Second Amendment here.
Connecticut resident and legal immigrant Henson Ong (YouTube)
During a public hearing on gun violence in Hartford, Conn. on Monday, a legal immigrant by the name of Henson Ong issued a passionate defense of the Second Amendment and argued that gun control simply “does not work.” The video of Ong’s testimony has already surpassed 130,000 views on YouTube.
“Forgive me, English is not my first language. I am a legal immigrant and I am an American by choice,” he began, prompting applause from the audience.
“Thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my opinion and give my testimony in opposition to the majority of the proposed bills, which do nothing to deter future crimes,” he added. “Gun control doesn’t work.”
Ong then launched into a impassioned diatribe about what he considers to be the real problem fueling gun violence — “societal decay.”
“Your own history is replete with high school rifle teams, boy scout marksmanship merit badges,” he explained. “You could buy rifles at hardware stores, you could order them… your country was awash in readily available firearms and ammunition, and yet in your past you did not have mass school shootings*.”
“What changed?” he asked. “It was not that the availability of guns suddenly exploded or increased, it actually was decreased. What changed was societal decay,” he added, resulting in more applause.
Ong pointed to the Washington, D.C. and Chicago as two cities with some of the strictest gun laws but also “the highest crime and murder rates.”
“If gun control actually did work, Washington, D.C. and Chicago would be the safest cities in your nation. But [they are] not, they have the toughest gun laws and the highest crime and murder rates,” he said.
Ong also defended Americans’ right to own so-called “assault rifles,” which are really just semi-automatic rifles. Citing a recent purchase of 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” by the Department of Homeland Security, he noted how the agency described the weapons as “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”
He went on: “Had the Koreans in the LA riots not had AR-15s and AK-47s with 30-round magazines — and Ruger 30s — their businesses would have burnt to the ground like all the other businesses in their neighborhoods. Theirs stood because they stood their ground.”
Driving a point home that many U.S. lawmakers don’t even seem to fully understand, the legal immigrant stated definitively that the Second Amendment’s purpose was not for hunting.
In closing, Ong quoted a famous statement by Judge Alex Kozinski in his dissent on the case of Silveira v. Lockye in 2002.
“My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime usually do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed only for those exceptionally rare circumstances when all other rights have failed. A free people can only afford to make this mistake once.”
Ong ended his testimony to applause from the audience.
Follow the below link to the complete article:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/31/legal-immigrants-must-watch-testimony-against-gun-control-in-america/
Mas,
This is excellent, but you are preaching to the choir here. What you wrote in this blog needs to be heard on Hannity’s show, or the NRA should make an infomercial or some video presentation of this should be spread far and wide. Need money? There must be some rich guys on our side. Maybe Steve Forbes. Maybe John Milius has Hollywood connections that would work.
More bad news. NJ, the little daughter suburb of NYC (and Philly), wants to imitate her big sister and has proposed 43 new anti-gun laws. These proposals include psychiatric evaluations before gun purchases, home searches (I’m guessing they are to make sure guns are stored safely) and FIVE ROUND MAGAZINE LIMITS. That does it. I’m outta here. I won’t even wait for the vote.
Dave says:
“that law enforcement be subject to the exact ammunition capacity limitations that are set forth in any new legislation”….
Excellent point.
I may add, to include weapon systems.
What’s good for the Goose/gander thing.
Mike
Oh, but this is so, so simple. Everyone should easily agree that the good gun owner should have at least as many rounds readily available as each of the bad guys that confront him or her at any given point in time. Even a Progressive should be able to understand this.
Glad you made it back to Earth in one piece. Bet you have some twitchy nightmares for a bit.
The Anti-Constitutional Left has been very effective at defining terms, and we have followed along. They operate on the principle that if something is repeated enough it will gain traction. And it has. We have Assault Rifles, Assault Pistols, Assault Shotguns, and now, Assault Magazines. We can take our cue from Janet Napolitano over at DHS. I think we must repeat, correct, repeat, and interject, and over talk, and emphasize using the following terms (which, most importantly, ring true), Personal Defense Rifle, Personal Defense Pistol, and Personal Defense Shotgun. Why do you need such capacity? Be confrontational. “Because this isn’t a movie fantasy. Do your research. Bad guys want the deck stacked in their favor. They strike at the helpless, the defenseless, and they don’t let you know in advance when they are coming and how many will show up to humiliate, steal, beat, rape, maim, terrorize, and enslave, and modern Personal Defensive firearms can help protect us. The Police meet the same animals, and feel they need these effective, modern weapons to protect themselves. So do we!”
Keep up the good work, and please continue to spread the word.
Her is the math folks:
Good guys weapons/firepower =to or > bad guys weapons/firepower.
Formula works for any point in history. Swords, spears, rocks, arrows, AR15s
Charlie
As a retired police officer who began my career in the 70’s and ended in the 2000’s I carried everything from a Model 10 Smith & Wesson, with a 4 shot Remington 870 at the start of my career to ending with a Glock 22 16 shots .40 caliber with a Ruger Mini 14, 30 magazine and a tactical 8 round shotgun.
I also carried a chief special .38 for a back-up/off duty gun to a Glock 27 with twice the firepower at the end of my career.
My whole point is we the “POLICE” kept up with the criminals of central Florida and needed the added fire power to do so. No longer did criminals carry Saturday night specials and sawed off shotguns when committing crimes, they carry the modern day firearms and ordinary citizens and law enforcement has to have the ability to purchase these weapons in order to stand a fighting chance in the event of a home invasion, car jacking.
Please don’t think home invasions don’t happen often, I experienced four armed individuals at my rural home attempting a home invasion while me and my family were clearly home and the intruders knew this. How the “HELL” could I properly defend my family and myself with 10 shots, if that ever happen to me again especially this day and age with criminals using Glocks and AR’s and many having military training???
Dave:
I agree with you completely. After all, police are in the same situations, with the same needs for self defense and projection of force that Joe and Jane Public have.
And if we can’t have ‘high capacity murder magazines, good only for spraying into a crowd and causing the most damage in as little time as possible’ why should they?
I would like to repeat what many others are saying. I would love to hand pick a few such as yourself To go head to head with the ignorant anti-gunners that are getting all of the media attention. After watching almost all of the hearing the other day I find it disturbing to hear lapierre say that a pistol grip is purely cosmetic. I agree it has no effect on the cycling of the action but unknowing people need to understand that it helps the user have better control as he/she engages targets. Whether they be paper, a run of plates, a charging boar or a armed maniac who just broke into your home. What can we do to get a better set of voices out there ?
Just remembered someone was going on and on about the “optic sights” that can be put on these killing machines. As if the “optic sights?” were themselves capable of “spray firing” bullets from the “30 round magazine clips”. Everybody needs to be educated about firearms before they get involved in voting on legislation involving guns.
Two of the shootings that were in the American Rifleman this issue happen in my home state. One was less than 20 miles away. This woman was able to be the moma bear this time.Because of good training and the will to take care of her kids is what won this fight. Not being the sheep we are exspected to be. When I leave my 9 year old son home alone he knows where his 22lr pistol is and it is loaded. He knows what to do in case he needs it. I have taught him what to do and how to do what needs to be done, this is the sad part. For a child to be left home alone at his age and has to know how and when to take a life because someone who wants to harm him is able to do this. Whats is wrong with this? Whats wrong with the world that has come to be? Our kids have to grow up in this? Prepare them for they are going to face thing we only have seen on TV. High capacity magazines and the ammo to feed them is just tools to fight the evil they will face. Just one thing to ask everybody out there. Will you please quit hoarding ammo? I am down to 11,000 rds and can”t replace it if y’all keep buying it up. ( haha)
Another good article Mas. Keep feeding us the ammo we need to fight the evil who wants to take our freedom away from us and our kids. Everybody just remember when you are surrounded, you have the enemy just where you want them. All you have to do shoot amongst them. Remember aim small miss small. I have to remember don’t spray and pray. Mas you are teaching me and others that words well aimed are just as important. Thanks!
Even though I can’t type my words perfectly. My aim with a firearm is a lot better than my typing.
I caught part of the woman’s testimony to Congress on the news. She seemed to be having trouble convincing the good congressmen why women feel the need to be armed… while he continued to bully her for having an opinion of her own.
The example we need to give these block-heads, isn’t home defense. It’s coping with the reality that women are the ones running errands – before & after school/work, often in the dark. They’re coming out of Walmart or the grocery store at all hours of the night – and having to cross the lot to their car or walk several blocks, either with children in tow or by themselves. When they DO run into a threatening situation, most often it’s not some lone bad guy… (I’d love to see the numbers btw)… most often it’s a group of at least 3 bad-A boys (or girls, more often than in the past) that are simply looking for an opportunity in the form a WOMAN who looks vulnerable.
To be able to continue to confidently travel hundreds of miles by car, alone, in this country – through places like Detroit – or to simply live my life confident in my own safety and freedom – I feel I need to carry. And since we’re all for equality for women – in pay, reproductive freedom, etc – I maintain my right to defend myself — with as many bullets as can be stuffed into a magazine — has to come FIRST, before I can exercise any other rights.
That’s why my AR sits by my bed at night, 911 is 20 minutes away at best. And, I do sleep well at night. So do my neighbors, who also have
AR’s by their bed at night. Crime is allmost nonexsistant in our area of South Texas, wonder why.
Much of the Senate hearings revolved around what is reasonable for a citizen to have. Everyone was discussing what is “reasonable”. I am a strict Constitutionalist so I think all restrictions being suggested are garbage. I don’t believe many on the Anti side have a clue what happens out in the real world, and they scoff at the suggestion that a citizen requires the same type of firepower as the police. I think framing the argument in the following manner might sway some to our side.
Citizens should at least have equal arms as the police. I believe this is a standard that the pro-gun side should be pushing harder for the following reasons:
The police use firearms to defend and protect lives, the same way average Joe Citizen does. Their overwhelming choice for effectiveness is semi-auto handguns and AR-15 rifles. The SA handguns have standard magazine round counts in the teens and the AR-15 has a standard 30 round magazine. Police officers also carry spare ammunition magazines on their belts.
The police choose these firearms, as do the majority of citizens, DESPITE the great advantages that officers have.
Officers, unlike citizens, typically get to determine the Where, How, and When a confrontation with a criminal occurs. Police have the element of surprise on their side over Criminals.
•Where: In many instances police determine where they will confront bad guys. They track them down and ensure the confrontation is done in a way that maximizes officer safety.
•How: Officers typically work in pairs and they also have the advantages of radios to call up their equally well-armed buddies to assist them in any confrontation. They have group tactics that they employ to help ensure their success and safety. They have superior numbers, tactics, and firepower.
•When: Officers will hold back and wait until their back-up arrives to sway the numbers on their side for a confrontation. They will confront the bad guys when they believe they have the tactical advantage over them. Offiders have the element of surprise on their side.
Joe Citizen does not have any of the aforementioned luxuries when their home is being invaded, when they are being robbed at gunpoint, or when they are being raped. Criminals have all of the advantages over Joe Citizen…they determine the where, How, and When a violent confrontation will occur. Criminals have the element of surprise on their side over Joe Citizen. Criminals typically have the numbers on their side, weather they are attacking a smaller person/woman, or they are operating in a group. It is more imperative that the average citizen actually be BETTER armed than the police officers.
Police hit ratios are horrible…I’ve heard many statistics that say less than 20% of their shots find the intended target. This despite all of the claims we hear about how well trained they are. We’ve also heard many many stories about bad guys taking multiple hits before going down. If there is more than one bad guy the amounts of rounds potentially needed increases dramatically.
( #BG X #Hits / %Hits) = LOTS-O-BULLETS-NEEDED
Just today in the Senate hearing they were discussing a lady who emptied her 6 shot revolver into a guy invading her home, hitting him 5 times, and he was able to drive himself to the hospital. This lady’s hit ratio is MUCH higher than the police officers and much higher than any of us would realistically dream of achieving should we be put in such a situation. If this guy decided to keep coming at her she and her children would be dead. If he had brought one or more of his criminal friends this lady and her children would be dead.
Anyways, I just thought the opportunity was missed to present an argument along these lines.
To the people in NY. Remember that is only a VIOLATION for your first offense to have 10 rounds in a magazine in your HOME. Out side the home is a misdemeanor I believe.The first offense in your home results in a fine of up to $200, the same thing as jaywalking basically. The second time you’re caught would be a misdemeanor. Take a look at the law, section 265.37
I’m not telling people to violate the law, but the consequences for your first violation seem like they would be worth the risk.
Hang in there, we should hear something from the NYSRPA in the next couple of months about their challenge to the law.
Just a point here, folks. Still being a cop, I have to urge you not to break the law as it stands currently, however stupid it might be. “Only a violation” means ONLY a gun-related crime on your permanent record, and “only a misdemeanor” means ONLY up to 364 days in jail.
Urging caution,
Mas
WT,
The County Sheriffs of Colorado posted an excellent position paper
http://www.csoc.org/ppdocs/GunControlLegislation.pdf
True story circa 1972. Spent the night with three of my buddies and our friend who was the security guard for an old western movie set outside Tucson. We were all to spend the night together and get up early in the morning and go coyote hunting together. About 1AM the Hells Angels motorcycle gang showed up at the gate and informed us they intended to take over the place. There were about 20 or more of them and known to be armed and dangerous. We grabbed whatever we had with us and stood with our friend at the gates. The sheriff was called and about 15 minutes away. I was armed roughly the same as my friends with a scoped lever action 30/30 and .357 magnum revolver. I had one in the chamber, the hammer cocked and cross-hairs on the head of the leader. Scared spit-less! They were kind of loaded and belligerent and we kept talking and told them there were more of us. They weren’t sure. They blinked and ended up waiting until the police arrived in force. No shots were fired, but I would have gladly traded whatever I had for an AR15 and a couple of 30 round magazines. None of us had anything like that in those days. Yes there are legitimate reasons for citizens to own Self Defense Weapons like an AR15.
This is a very well written post.
It appears that the NY AWB was shoved through in such a hurry that legislators actually had no time to read it before voting on it (those that voted for a bill they didn’t read should be impeached for dereliction of their oath of office), thus no one noticed that there was no exemption for LEO’s. In the ensuing uproar the head of the state police union was quoted in the news as actually saying that they knew the bad guys wouldn’t comply with the law, so they needed hi cap mags so as not to be outgunned. In the next breath he said the new AWB will make law abiding citizens safer.
(sigh)
Well said Mr. Ayoob. Thank You.
“Shall not be infringed” = Isn’t a tax, and maybe even the background check, an infringment?
What really scares me is the “cold dead hands” fanatics who have already made up their mind to die rather than live to fight another day.
I fail to be surprised how many cannot grasp the fact that they can’t stop a bat wielding mob of 20 rushing their house even if they have a full auto AK.
This has to the BEST NEWS that I have heard in the last four long years.
I certainly hope that it sticks to Obama like “TAR & FEATHERS”.
Video: Federal Court Indicts President Obama – Will not see the end of his second term!
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:57
On January 25th, 2013 , Mr. Lyndon Larouche, a well respected journalist and political activist recieved word from his sources within the United States government that President Barack Hussein Obama has been indicted by a Federal Court. Details of the indictment has been ommited by Larouche but he characterized them as probably the greatest indictment he has ever seen placed upon a standing president throughout history. Watch the first 5 minutes of the video to hear this explosive news. WOW!
Watch the Video here:
http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/01/federal-court-indicts-president-obama-will-not-see-the-end-of-his-second-term-2488220.html
As a cop Mas, you should grow a pair and say I refuse to enforce these pathetic unconstitutional laws.
Out here-in-the-middle in rcamo country, I was at a gun store 2 weeks ago, and several were sitting and talking, one was a local LEO about 35 yrs. with his badge around his neck. When some old guy asked him if he would confiscate weapons if ordered to…… he answered, “I have to keep my job.”……
You could see about 4 guys put an X on his forehead.
this information should be common knowledge and i do see a couple issues with why it is not:
1) the stories and the reasonable facts behind them circulate mostly within a community that has shown above average interest in firearms and is already aware of such information
2) understanding and accepting these facts is not easy unless a person has significant amount of knowledge (by reading books, blogs, etc) and having taken relevant training
for example: in April 2012 two NYPD officers fired a total of 84 shots at one suspect using their Glock handguns – each reloading their 15 capacity magazine twice. The suspect was hit a total of 14 times from a distance of 70ft and he refused to drop his .22 revolver. to an average person this may only read like a police over reaction. what i get out of is: roughly 16% hit ratio from a distance 25 yards by trained officers; 14 hits by HP 9mm ammo and a suspected murderer still standing.
the media, nor the less informed public, does not extract the realities of gun fites from such news stories. it really needs to be spelled out to a broader audience.
@David Smith, Sometimes the West was still a little wild. As a kid I was present at a similar incident in, 78 or 79. Small old western set/tourist town in the central part of AZ. My parents and a freinds family had taken us to view the sights and have dinner. The town had just reopened for buisness after being empty a year or two. Halfway through the meal the owners began evacuating the restaurant and town of the few patrons that were left. A biker gang (probably the Hells Angels) was headed in to burn the place around the owners and customers. It would be in retaliation for being forcibly evicted as squatters a couple of months prior. It was surreal to see cowboys and stuntmen, saloon girls and shop keepers ejecting blank rounds from rifles and pistols and passing out live rounds. We left as they turned off the electric lights and manned the parapet around the “towns” wall. Sheriff had been called, but no guess as how long it would take them to get there. On our way down the road, we passed the bikers and about a 1/4 mile behind them the sheriff. It was settled without blood shed, but not long after that the local population had to insist the bikers vacate the vicinity and relocate elsewhere. I am sure the defenders of that little spot would of loved to have AR15s, 30 round mags and probably body armor.
“John Says:
February 1st, 2013 As a cop Mas, you should grow a pair and say I refuse to enforce these pathetic unconstitutional laws.”
Mike says:
Mas and other officers have no authority to ‘enforce’ any law or to determine the constitutionality of any law. He and other officers are authorized and charged by statute and/or regulation to observe, investigate, cite, (to court if necessary) and arrest for violations of law. Compelling force may be required and used as necessary according to established law.
Willful failure of an officer to perform legally required functions may result in charges being levied, conviction, punishment and removal of police authority.
Determination of guilt of a law violation will be by a judge or other official duly authorized.
Punishment for violation will be determined by applicable law.
While it is true that someone can ‘force’ one to obey, or be subject to penalty, (sometimes severe), only the individual can decide to ‘enforce’ the law upon oneself.
The individual decides, and must be prepared to live with the result.
Right or wrong, like it or not, at the end of the day, that’s the way it is.
If one, or many wish to not have ‘unconstitutional’ laws, representatives that obey the laws of the Constitution must be elected.
Mike
Mayors Against Illegal Guns Threaten Gun Buy Boycott Over Gun Control
“If we find out they’re not partners, and if we find out they’re working against us, then we all ought to have a conversation as taxpayers about whether our dollars should be used for people who are not working to reduce gun violence.” That’s the threat issued by Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak (above) against gun and ammo makers who don’t tow the line laid down by The Mayors Against Illegal Guns. minnesota.publicradio.org reports that “Rybak told members of the City Council’s Public Safety and Civil Rights Committee that he and mayors from approximately 60 cities are taking a closer look at the companies that manufacture the guns and ammunition that cities buy for police officers . . .
He said over the past eight years the city has spent nearly $800,000 on guns and ammunition. Rybak, who supports stricter gun control laws, wants to work with firearms manufacturers to reduce gun-related crime and violence. He wants to know if those companies also are lobbying against tighter gun laws . . .
Rybak did not propose specific changes to city laws or purchasing rules, but said any changes would have to be examined by the city attorney. There are city ordinances and state laws which regulate procurement of goods and services, according to City Attorney Susan Segal.
“The city can always set reasonable specifications for purchases that it’s making,” Segal said. “The question is what is included in those specifications.”
So this is how they do it, eh? Manipulate the levers of power to undermine the Constitution that they’re sworn to protect? Thugs. And it looks like the Gun-Grabber-in-Chief may be on board, as well.
Rybak said he mentioned this approach to President Barack Obama during a recent visit to Washington, DC. He said Obama and his staff were delighted by the idea.
Obama plans to speak in Minneapolis on Monday to promote his plan to reduce gun violence.
He wouldn’t dare, would he? Meanwhile, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) says Ryback’s threat looks awfully familiar . . .
This is a re-hash of the Clinton Administration threat, spearheaded by then-HUD Secretary and now governor of New York Andrew Cuomo, to do the same with federal agencies. Despite a successful court action by NSSF to counter the threat at the time, the idea was kicked up again in 2010 by disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who suggested that gun makers must cease and desist the sale of ALL semi-automatic firearms to escape this punishment.
The battle to defend and extend Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms continues.
American Bar Association Endorses Civilian Disarmament
Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members of the Committee:
I am Laurel Bellows, President of the American Bar Association (ABA). I am submitting this statement on behalf of the ABA for the Committee’s consideration for its January 30, 2013 hearing on “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?” The ABA, with nearly 400,000 members, commends the Committee for holding this hearing and its early scheduling. We also commend President Obama and Vice-President Biden for their leadership. They have acted responsibly in instituting and conducting the Administration’s recently concluded comprehensive review of recommendations to end gun violence in America, resulting in the issuing of the far-reaching report, “Now Is The Time: The President’s Plan to Protect Our Children and Our Communities by Reducing Gun Violence.” . . .
America is paying attention. The unthinkable slaughter of 20 young children and six adult staff members of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut shortly before Christmas has shaken our nation’s confidence that we can protect our nation’s children and ourselves from senseless gun violence. It has also caused all of us to pause and take stock of how such horrors seem to occur with increasing frequency in our country. This mass killing event – following months after a mass killing at a movie opening in a theater in Aurora, Colorado, and the mass killings in Tucson, Arizona, that also resulted in severe injuries to former Representative Gabby Giffords – has led the nation to more fully recognize the dangers posed to the public when the common components of these shootings come together.
These incidents have in common military firearms, high-capacity clips and their use by mentally disturbed persons who easily amassed the firepower capable of quickly killing many innocent citizens involved in everyday activities and settings. As many have commented and is noted by= the President’s report, however, the shooting and killing of individuals on a daily basis takes place in America at a level far beyond that of other nations. We have become too inured and perhaps numb regarding this reality. We have begun to wake up to our responsibilities to confront and to end this violence.
The ABA has been concerned with the human toll and impact of gun violence upon our society and has advocated for stronger regulation of firearms for a long time. Shortly after the assassination of President Kennedy, we first called for more careful regulation of firearms sales in interstate commerce. Since then, through our the House of Delegates, a policy making body that includes representatives from state and local bar associations around the country, the ABA has approved more than a dozen policy resolutions directed toward reducing gun violence.
The ABA continues to believe that our nation’s laws can be significantly strengthened by taking reasonable, common-sense steps that do not violate the constitutional right to bear arms as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), or that would unreasonably impinge on gun owner traditions and ordinary uses of firearms. We recognize, however, that there is no simple solution to gun violence. We know that steps are needed to address school violence, mental health services, and juvenile crime prevention, in addition to gun safety and greater enforcement of firearm violations.
A synopsis of these policy recommendations is at: americanbar.org
In the wake of Newtown and the focus on proposed legislative action, the ABA wants to clearly state its strong support for the major recommendations of the President. We further believe there is now a remarkable consensus among the American public regarding the urgency for lawmakers to take responsible and prompt action to prevent future incidents as those we have recently witnessed. We urge the Committee to speed action to:
Strengthen Background Check Requirements and the National Instant Check System
The current operational status of the National Instant Check System for background checks of prospective purchasers of firearms is deeply flawed; it must be strengthened by Congress on an emergency basis. Since 1968 federal law has limited gun sales through licensed firearms dealers to legally qualified purchasers, and since 1993 the law has required a background check, prior to completion of the sale of a firearm, of federal and state records through the National Instant Check System (NICS). However, federal law continues to exempt an estimated 25-40 percent of all gun sales in the United States from this requirement. Unlicensed sellers are permitted by law to sell firearms with no background check whatsoever. Convicted felons, domestic violence abusers, persons who are dangerously mentally ill and potential terrorists can walk into any gun show or flea market, or click on their internet browser, and buy any weapon and unlimited supplies of ammunition with no background check and no questions asked.
Recent public polling suggests that for the first time there is broad recognition by the American public, including gun owners, that the background check system for gun sales is in reality two systems that allow easy, unchecked access to guns by criminals and the mentally ill. The public has reached a high level of consensus seen on few public issues, as evidenced in several recent polls showing that more than 90 percent of responders support a “universal background check.” Pollsters often note that most of the public assumes that the law already requires a background check for all sales of firearms, including sales at gun shows and for private sales. Regarding this question, there is remarkably little difference in support for this reform between gun owners, NRA members, non-gun owners, men and women, Republicans and Democrats: all agree in overwhelming majorities seldom seen on national policy issues that requiring a background check prior to all sales of firearms is a necessary step that Congress should take with great dispatch to better protect our children and all citizens from gun violence.
The ABA believes that Congress should quickly legislate on this issue. Gun shows can continue to flourish with a background check requirement, while ending their role as a too easy source of guns for dangerous persons who should not have them. A number of states have required background checks at gun shows without serious harm to sales or the trade. We believe that those who have concerns regarding the means of instituting background checks at gun shows and in protecting narrow exceptions for background checks for private sales should come to the table: these issues can be resolved responsibly and in short order with responsible cooperation.
Stronger laws and enforcement are needed to prevent gun trafficking
In 2004, the ABA called for stronger enforcement and prosecution of federal gun laws. Under this policy, the ABA supports provision of adequate federal investigative and prosecutorial resources targeted not only to prosecuting crimes committed with guns, but also to prosecuting illegal gun trafficking, illegal sales by firearms dealers, stolen firearms offenses, and false statements by prospective buyers.
We support legislation that is expected to move forward shortly on a strongly bipartisan basis to address “straw purchases” of firearms. Straw purchases of firearms are one of the most common ways criminals obtain guns. Straw purchases occur whenever persons who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wish to do so anonymously, have a companion or colleague buy it on their behalf. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has identified straw purchases as the single most significant factor in illegal gun trafficking, accounting for nearly a third of all firearms involved in federal trafficking investigations.
In many places, criminals are more likely to obtain their weapons through straw purchases than at gun shows. Such straw purchases are regularly used by criminals, criminal gangs and persons disqualified by age, such as the individuals involved in the mass killings at Columbine High School. Numerous investigations of illegal gun trafficking, including undercover investigations conducted by federal, state and local officials, have found that the current prohibition on false statements regarding the purchase of a gun for the purpose of transfer to an ineligible buyer is widely disregarded by dealers and the persons involved in straw purchases.
These criminal violations are also not regularly prosecuted, as the current law is ambiguous, often difficult to prove in court, and accompanied by modest criminal penalties that result in these violations’ being deferred to prosecution of other crimes. We believe thoughtful legislation can close this gap in current law and help prevent the current widespread evasion of background checks through straw purchasing.
The availability of assault weapons and high-capacity clips should be limited to the U.S. military, the National Guard and law enforcement
The firearms used in these recent massacres are weapons of war. They are weapons designed to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest period of time. While we appreciate that there may be some recreational use of these firearms, and many of them are owned and handled safely and responsibly, we support legislation introduced by Senator Feinstein that would not take away or make the guns presently owned illegal, but would limit the future sale and transfer of assault weapons and ammunition devices that hold more than 10 bullets.
We urge the Committee to act swiftly to approve S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. The proposed act makes revisions to the 1994 Act that strengthens it in a number of important respects. The proposed act protects the rights of existing gun owners by carefully defining the characteristics of assault weapons to distinguish them from the more than 2,200 specifically named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes. It grandfathers into legal status assault weapons currently owned rather than rendering them illegal, but requires more careful regulation of their transfer and sale by bringing them and large capacity ammunition devices under the provisions of the National Firearms Act, subject to the existing registration requirements long in effect for fully automatic firearms. We also strongly support the proposed act’s ban on future transfer of grandfathered ammunition clips, as well as the proposed voluntary buyback of these clips, as we believe the public safety of everyone in our country will be best served by eventually eliminating these devices from civilian circulation. The purpose of the proposed act and its 1994-enacted predecessor is to narrow the availability of these weapons and dry up the supply over time.
The expired 1994 federal assault weapons ban clearly reduced the incidence of assault weapons used in crime. In the five-year period (1990-1994) before enactment of the ban, assault weapons constituted 4.82 percent of the crime gun traces that ATF conducted nationwide. When the ban was in effect, these assault weapons made up only 1.61 percent of the guns ATF traced to crime– a drop of 66 percent from the pre-ban rate. ATF data showed a year-by-year decline in the percentage of assault weapons, evidence that the longer the statute was in effect, the less available these weapons became for criminal misuse. A report by the Department of Justice documented these findings along with a decline in the absolute number of assault weapons traced to crime during this period. Every major law enforcement organization in the country has long supported a strong assault weapons ban.
The Police Executive Research Forum found that 37 percent of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the ban expired. A study by the Violence Policy Center found that, between 1998 and 2001, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon. Virtually every major law national enforcement organization supports limiting the availability of assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips. While some maintain that the Second Amendment should apply to prevent any regulation of assault weapons and high-capacity clips, the ABA believes that the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment must be understood to have some limits, just as does the First Amendment and every individual right under our Constitution. As it is often noted regarding the right to free speech that there is no right to falsely cry “fire” in a crowded theater, likewise there are limits to Second Amendment rights, They must be balanced against other rights in serving the common welfare, including protecting the safety of children and all citizens from especially dangerous weapons. It is on this basis that fully automatic “machine guns” have been carefully regulated since the 1930s. As Justice Scalia stated in his majority opinion in the Heller case:
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
The muskets of the 18th Century and other single-shot weapons have little in common with the military-style assault weapons today and the100-round ammunition drum that was used at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. These are unusually dangerous weapons, which the government may regulate under the Second Amendment and the Heller decision. We believe the government has a duty to do so to protect the common good – specifically, the safety of American citizens.
Strengthen and fully implement the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
As we have noted, Congress must act to close the current significant gaps in the requirement for a background check prior to all purchase of firearms. Congress should also act to strengthen the system that is set up to insure that background checks will be thorough and complete. Federal support, authorized under current law to assist states, territories, and Tribal governments in establishing or upgrading technology used for determining firearm purchaser eligibility, must be adequately funded and supplemented even in a difficult budget environment to achieve a more complete check system. Federal grant support is needed to improve the automation and transmittal to federal and state record repositories of felony criminal history dispositions, records relevant to determining whether a person has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, court orders, and mental health adjudications or commitments.
Only a portion of state mental health records are presently provided and integrated into the NICS system. Although the number of mental health records available to the system has increased significantly in recent years, a recent report by the Government Accountability Office found that 17 states still have made fewer than 10 percent of their mental health records available. Other record categories are provided to the NICS at a higher rate than mental health records, but state records for felony convictions and domestic violence offenses are still incomplete and should be improved to make sure dangerous people are stopped by the NICS background check.
We applaud the President’s action to issue a Presidential Memorandum requiring federal agencies to fully cooperate and share relevant records with the background check system. Congress should act as well and address how to provide incentives to states to examine and overcome barriers to provision of mental health records, in particular. We also urge the Committee to reexamine the provisions of current federal law to better assure that its provisions regarding disqualification of purchasers on the basis of mental health status adequately protect the public against dangerous persons. The ABA also supports amending the law to expand disqualification for gun purchase of persons convicted not only of domestic violence misdemeanor offenses, but also for other misdemeanor violence offenses against a person.
Further, the ABA called for the enactment of legislation to require retention of gun sales background-check records for 90 days and to authorize sharing federal data regarding the point of sale of guns traced to crime with state and other law enforcement entities.
Strengthen regulation of gun sales and transfers
In addition to our support for the President’s recommendations for these key proposals, the ABA has called for a number of amendments to federal law necessary to strengthen regulation of gun sales and transfers in order to better protect public safety. These amendments would:
• Prohibit sales, transfers, and possession of firearms by persons convicted of violent misdemeanors, including persons convicted of domestic violence and child abuse offenses or subject to a protective order.
• Prohibit interstate sales by unlicensed persons of ammunition and firearm components.
• Upgrade standards of eligibility for licensing of dealers; require stringent background checks of dealer applicants and employees, and make issuance of dealer licenses discretionary rather than mandatory.
• Require dealers, manufacturers, transporters, and importers of firearms and ammunition to provide adequate and secure storage facilities to reduce theft, and require dealer cooperation with criminal investigations and reporting of all gun thefts to ATF and local police.
• Provide ATF sufficient resources and authority to conduct periodic audits of all firearms dealers.
• Require licensed dealers to comply with state and local laws and maintain adequate business insurance.
I appreciate the opportunity to share the views of the American Bar Association on this pressing subject. We look forward to working with the Committee in support of its expeditious action on legislation to prevent and reduce gun violence in America.
)
3 Reasons Why 7-Round Mag Cap Limits Are Good for Gun Rights
New York lawmakers consider ten-round ammunition magazines a bad, bad thing. The recently enacted SAFE Act reduces the legal maximum number of cartridges (a.k.a., bullets) to seven. Come April 15, Empire State gun owner can no longer buy a ten-round magazine. Nor can he or she load a pre-ban ten-round magazine with more than seven rounds. The “thinking” behind the seven-round law is as convoluted as it is capricious . . .
If a spree killer has three less cartridges in his gun there could be three less lives lost when he starts murdering innocent children. By the same token, the measure could (in theory) limit the lethality of gang bangers, armed robbers and other n’er do wells.
Also, reloading takes time. Not much if you know what you’re doing. Hardly any, really. But lawmakers would have their constituents believe as they do (apparently) that the time a madman/criminal spends reloading is “extra” time for innocents to escape and rescuers to intervene.
Of course, that’s assuming the madman/criminal uses a magazine that only holds seven rounds. The logic also assume that he/she/they don’t fully load an illegal ten round magazine, of which there are literally millions in circulation. Or use a higher capacity magazine, of which there are literally millions in circulation.
What are the odds that three rounds will be the difference between life or death for someone on the wrong end of a madman/criminal’s gun? Slim? None? Of all the “crime fighting” measures lawmakers could have added to their unconstitutionally enacted civilian disarmament legislation the seven-round limit is easily the most absurd. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Which brings us to the first of three reasons why New York’s seven-round magazine capacity law (coming soon to a New England state near you) is good for gun rights.
1. Seven-round mag cap laws reveal the “gun control” lobby’s true intentions
Unlike New York state’s freshly minted laws regarding background checks, ammo sales registration and “assault weapons,” no one in their right mind could possibly argue that the seven-round limit is anything other than an infringement upon lawful gun owners’ Second Amendment protection.
The limit sends a clear message to millions of law-abiding gun owners: we (the state) control your guns. Not you. We decide how, when, where and why you can defend yourself, your family and your community. Not you. If we say you can only load your magazine with seven bullets, what we say goes.
As will Americans’ gun rights, eventually. The mag cap limit is a blatant—and so far successful—attempt to chip away away at American citizens’ firearms freedom until it’s gone. Which is, clearly, the mag limit backers’ plan.
2. Seven-round mag cap laws waken the sleeping giant
I’m no intellectual powerhouse. If I can figure out that a seven-round magazine limit does nothing to fight crime and everything to promote a civilian disarmament agenda so can every single gun owner in the United States. But it’s more than that.
The seven-round magazine capacity limit is literally taking bullets from their gun. It’s the government directly and capriciously reducing gun owners’ ability to defend themselves, their family and their community. And that’s pissing them off.
Sure New Yorkers (and residents of Massachusetts, Hawaii and other states) “agreed” to a ten-round magazine capacity limit. It’s just as non-sensical and a seven-round limit. But there is a point at which Americans say enough to their government. The ten-round mark is it.
To wit: at a recent meetings with the law enforcement officials tasked with implementing the SAFE Act, hundreds of NY gun owners showed up, in person, to voice their anger. Would they have made the scene if the Act was “just” about the ban on transferring modern sporting rifles in-state (including the gun owners’ progeny)? Sure.
But the seven-round mag cap limit gives New York gun owners the moral impetus to get off their asses and fight for their rights. And it places them on the moral high ground. It also shows out-of-state gun owners that the push for gun control is not about any particular type of weapon. It’s about civilian disarmament. Seven rounds? I’m not going to stand for that.
No. No they’re not.
3. Seven-round mag cap laws enable civil disobedience
Let’s say you want to protest a state or federal ban on assault weapons. What are you gonna do, show up with a modern sporting firearm on your back? If you do and get arrested all of the people who don’t own guns are going to say “Thank God they arrested that gun nut!” BUT—
If thousands of people show up at NBC with empty 30-round AR-15 magazines—an inert piece of plastic and metal—how’s that going to go down? If the cops arrest all of them that won’t look good for the government. If they don’t it will empower the gun rights movement and spark similar protests in exactly those states where gun rights are most under threat.
In short, the seven-round magazine limit law is a gift to gun rights advocates. Americans who seek to defend and extend their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms can use it to highlight the true motives of their aspiring oppressors, to beat back the efforts of unmasked gun grabbers, hoisting them by their own petard
Mas,
For your information, there are at least two (2) Sheriff’s Departments, here in Montana, that have already gone on the record, stating that should Obama’s current gun control bills pass into law, that they will not enforce them, since they will violate both the US, and the Montana State Constitutions, and that they will not permit any other agencies to enforce such laws within their jurisdictions either.
Not sure how that will shake down in the future, but if enough S.O.s, Nationwide, decide to do the same thing, it might just nullify any such laws that are enacted?
Thanks for another wonderful entry here. Like many, glad you came out of the crash with no major injuries. I’ve been using some of the arguments presented here with some friends on the fence for some time but they’re more likely to take it more seriously coming from you. The only thing I’d have to add that I believe the Armed Citizen section is in all the NRA magazines. That’s usually the first thing I go to when I get a new 1st Freedom in the mail.
Kevin,
Thank you for the link to the County Sheriffs of Colorado Position Paper on Possible Gun Control Legislation.
The Sheriffs inject a healthy dose of sober truth and real-world experience with their statements that “The Second Amendment is not a guideline but rather a right” and “The County Sheriffs of Colorado know first hand that strict gun control laws do not deter criminals from getting firearms illegally and committing crimes. Rather they hurt law-abiding citizens who may be left unprotected because law enforcement cannot arrive in time to stop a criminal’s bullet once he has pulled the trigger.”
Their position paper is reasoned and proactive, and the other 49 states’ LEO organizations should present their views, as the County Sheriffs of Colorado have done, for consideration by the legislators writing future gun control legislation.
In the final analysis, it is not a matter of “need”, although as pointed out the need is there. It is matter of a right which the Constitution says “shall not be infringed”. Every gun law that I can think of, other than those prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms, is an ‘infringement’ and thus violation of the Constitution, that I like so many others, including Mr. Ayoob, are sworn to support and defend. I would even like to see the “felons” law changed somewhat, but that is a discussion for another time, and perhaps another venue.
It’s that simple, we have a government that respects the limits the Constitution puts on it, or we don’t. Right now, we don’t.
“I fail to be surprised how many cannot grasp the fact that they can’t stop a bat wielding mob of 20 rushing their house even if they have a full auto AK.”
But in general you can, even with only a semi-auto AK. We are not talking about trained soldiers or even jihadists. Drop a few at the head of the herd, and they will go elsewhere. Worked quite well for the Korean shopkeepers in LA. The only except might be if they are after you in particular, and even then, they’ll drop to regroup, which will give the police that much more time to arrive.
CT Gun Owners Staring Down the Barrel of Confiscation
I used a CAGV (Connecticut Against Gun Violence) PSA in our Question of the Day, and linked to the org’s agenda. I’m republishing it here because it’s important to recognize a simple fact: the forces of civilian disarmament are all in. Before Sandy Hook, it was all about being for the Second Amendment, but. Now it’s ram through as much gun control legislation as possible. Yes, the possibilities are narrowing on the national level; unless there’s another horrific attack in the next few months, the chances of a federal assault weapons ban are lower than the chances I’ll link this sentence to a non-Israeli model. (See what I did there?) Meanwhile, the lights are going out up and down New England. NY’s ban on in-state transfer is de facto confiscation. Is CT next? Send those emails, make those calls and watch this space. And make the jump to get your dander up . . .
The Nation Is Calling Out For Connecticut To Lead By Passing Strong, Smart Gun Violence Prevention Legislation
Please pass legislation that:
1. Strengthens our assault weapons ban with a focus on improving current list and strengthening functionality features; apply “one military feature” test to definition of assault weapons. Bans possession and sale with no grandfathering.
2. Bans large capacity ammunition magazines of more than 7 rounds. No grandfathering.
3. Requires universal background checks on ALL sales and transfers, including long guns.
4. Requires registration of handguns with annual renewal. Require annual fee and annual background check for all guns owned; stipulation that they are still in the possession of original purchaser or transferee; explanation for any gun still not being in their possession. Require safety inspection every three years. Charge fee on initial registration and renewal.
5. Make gun owners liable for negligent storage if any person gains access to firearms and injures himself or another person or causes damage to property. The violation would be a Class D felony
6. Requires permit/license to purchase and carry all guns, including long guns, and to purchase ammunition
7. Prohibits sales of guns or ammunition via internet to CT residents.
8. Restricts handgun sales to one gun/month.
Other issues recommended by others and supported by CAG
50% tax on ammunition sales. Finished ammunition, not components.
Graded permits based on level of training and proficiency (recommended by gun
owners and NRA members).
Liability insurance required for gun owners (most popular with the public).
Microstamping of bullet casings
A truly comprehensive bill that will stop these massacres (most consistent plea from the public)
Everyone who understands the undermining concept of the New York 7-round capacity law also understands that, say, seven or fourteen dead are better than, say, 15 or 20+. We really want to make sure that the potential “mass” of a “mass murderer” is potentially limited more by some arbitrary limitation on the criminal as opposed, say, to the ability of a citizen to defend him or herself.
As I understand it a sword or a knife, while lacking the range of a firearm, have an unlimited “magazine capacity.”
I need a high capacity magazine because when I will most likely need a gun, I will be in my pajamas or underwear, half asleep and responding to a bump in the night that turns out to be a bad guy.
If this occured when I am awake (not likely) or out and about, then I would have a gun on my hip and spare ammo, but criminals just never seem to come after you at a convenient time. I guess it must be different in NEW YORK STATE.
Jim
I guess the big question Mas, Is this. Will you follow an unconstitutional order to disarm the citizenry? It is time to tell us the truth if you will.
We can talk about this all we want, as has been said, you are preaching to the choir. The person who does not believe in the necessity of a gun for self protection believes that absolutely – and they believe it because it never happened to them. And even if it did, they would never have fought back. I know that because I used to be one of those people. Its not like I’ve “seen the light”. it is that the changes to America; its government, the ‘societal decay” of its people are becoming obvious. And as I become older, my own ability to fend for myself with hand and body are more limited. On the other hand, there are those who respond to what’s happening with nothing more than cries of “2nd ammendment” and a lot of promises of armed insurrection. Even the idea of better background checks are being declared as nothing more than a form of gun registration. As supporters of the 2nd ammendment, are you all ready to abandon the due process of our system for armed insurrection? That is terrifying to me, as the martial law that will be declared will take away ALL our constitutional rights.