Jump to content

Bearing Arms

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Bearing Arms last won the day on September 18

Bearing Arms had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

284 Excellent

About Bearing Arms

  • Rank
    American Partisan

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. For most people, guns aren’t part of the job. Sure, they are for the police and those who sell them or repair them, but for most folks? Guns aren’t part of their day-to-day work. They may carry a firearm at work, but that’s for personal protection, not due to job requirements. However, some jobs supposedly control things tightly. Some would say as tightly as anti-gunners would like to control guns. Earlier, a friend of mine, who wishes to remain anonymous, recounted a tale of one job’s response to constraints not unlike a gun control activist’s most fervent dreams. So we are a department that only does stocking, order picking, packing, and shipping. I’m on the packing line. A few weeks ago our supervisor, a married lesbian [Yes, it matters. Bear with me], henceforth known as Supervisor, decided we, as a line, possessed too few utility knives and tried to order some. This resulted in her boss handing her a box of “safety” box cutters to officially hand out, and a box of actual utility knives that “don’t exist, and if I see them outside of that room, I’ll have to take them away.” Yes, Ma’am. We’ve been oh so very good about doing so. Every single member of our small department (less than 20 of us) is “molon labe” about our utility knives. Everyone knows the packing line possesses them because we use them the most, but everyone uses one at least once a day. We know where everyone stands on the issue. The packing line consists of a refugee from a war-torn country (Coworker 1), a single mother of biracial kids (Coworker 2), a Hispanic woman who’s married to another woman (Coworker 3), a gamer dude (Coworker 4), and me. The other people in the department are similarly of…demographics usually assumed to vote for a certain political party. Which is why I use those descriptors. Coworker 1 and Coworker 2 have already left for the day. In walks this higher-up we don’t usually see. If he saw us more often he might have recognized our silent preoccupation with our work as a sign that we were listening for all that we were worth. …He hands the Supervisor six utility knives, and lays out the new rules. All knives have a number. All knives must be signed out and signed back in by the end of the day. Supervisor will personally email him the logs every day. By this point Coworker 3 is looking at me and making “kill me now” motions. Coworker 4 is so wrapped up in his earbuds and podcasts, he has no clue what’s going on around him. Supervisor looks at us, and asks us if we use knives all that often. “Of course not. We’ve got no need for them.” Supervisor looks at the higher-up, says, “See, I’d be surprised if we sign out even one a day. Now, I have an idea for where to put the knives, we just need a pegboard right here, right where the security camera can see it.” She’s successfully gotten the higher-up to turn his back. Coworker 3 and I hide all of the knives, everyone’s, especially the one belonging to Coworker 2, which is hanging in plain sight with her name on it. I even elbow Coworker 4 and tell him to make his knife less f***ng visible. He asks me why. I tell him just to do it, we’ll explain later. Another coworker walks up while we’re doing this, asks us what we’re doing, we shut him up and tell him we’ll explain later. By the time Supervisor is done loudly talking about her ideas for knife security, all knives are hidden and we’re all conspicuously doing our jobs as expected. Higher-up leaves, totally ignorant of the fact that we are harboring unregister and uncontrolled knives. Supervisor makes sure we’ve successfully hidden our knives, which will never been seen outside of the room. No outsiders are to know. The rest of the department still at work is informed of the new rules, to the general consensus of “molon labe, but only if we’re stupid enough to let you know we have them.” Two levels of management are complicit in our continued possession of these utility knives. The moral of the story? With no notice and only using subtext and gestures, my small department managed to protect and hide unregistered *utility knives* from our company, and keep our armory to ourselves. That’s among core demographics of a certain political party. Yet there are people who think requiring all firearms to be registered and stored off-site with intensive tracking is ever going to work on millions of gun owners who will have plenty of warning. Also assuming that, unlike our management, all levels of government will actually go along with confiscation, instead of paying lipservice while looking the other way. The truth of the matter is, people who want or feel they need something will continue to obtain the item they need. Rules designed to keep it out of their hands won’t do a whole hell of a lot. This is especially true when that ship has already set sail. In this instance, people already had their knives. They refused to let management know they had them. Do you think that millions of gun owners in this country would automatically comply with such a requirement? Yes, it happens at the state level, but there’s something different about a state doing it. With states requiring registration, there’s still a vague hope that it’ll pass. Further, the state itself can only get so tyrannical before the federal government steps in to tell it to knock that crap off. In other words, state registration feels a bit safer, so they comply. But federally? That changes things. Additionally, those who do comply are only those inclined to follow laws as a general rule. Those who are generally disinclined to follow them–you know, people like criminals–won’t. They won’t register their guns. They won’t tolerate keeping them off-site and unloaded. They’ll do what they want anyway. The difference is, a lot of other people will join them in that. Just something for anti-gunners to consider as they continue their push. They should think about how they would react to a situation similar to the one above and then ask themselves, “Why would gun owners be any different?” The post A Job Site’s Lesson In Gun Control appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  2. I’ve always been wary of people who hold up their love of hunting as a shield against criticisms that label them as anti-gun. Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester is such a person. He supported a Feinstein-backed bill that would have expanded the NICS system to include people on the terrorist watch list, even though the proposal was in response to the Orlando Pulse shooting and the killer wasn’t on the watch list. That alone is sufficient to label someone as anti-gun, in my mind. But Tester represents Montana, a state not really known for its liberal policies. How did someone like Tester get elected there? Well, he did it by using hunting as a screen, arguing that he understands it and all that jazz. However, for Tester, it seems hunting is something that only matters in election years. Montana Sen. Jon Tester, a red state Democrat running for re-election in one of the closest Senate contests this year, has campaigned as a big hunting proponent, sending out mailers to voters that show him on his farm with his gun in hand. “As we gear up for hunting season, Montanans know that hunting isn’t just a sport – it feeds our families, and it creates lifelong memories with our kids and grandkids,” Tester says in the campaign flier. “Montanans are lucky to have some of the best access, longest seasons and greatest hunting in the world.” But according to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks records reviewed by Fox News, Tester hasn’t had a hunting license in six years. He last had one in 2012 – the same year he was last on the ballot. Records dating back to 2002 indicate that the agency had no records of Tester having a hunting or fishing license for 12 out of the last 16 years. In 2012, Tester had a resident conservation and fishing, antelope and hunting access enhancement license. The agency said it has no records yet of Tester having a license this year. Now, to be fair, Tester only implies he’s a hunter. He doesn’t explicitly say so, which his office is now using to justify the deception. The fact is, Tester is a fair-weather friend to hunters and gun owners. He was quick to side with Feinstein over a bill that would have barred thousands of innocent people from buying a gun with no recourse. Anyone remotely understanding of the Second Amendment would have recognized the problems with this right off the bat. The measure died, thankfully, but that doesn’t absolve him of his sins on this, especially since he last held a hunting license the year of his last campaign. The implication is clear. Tester holds up hunting as a shield, a way to pretend to be pro-gun without having to take a pro-gun stance. He doesn’t alienate the DNC and the more rabidly anti-gun folks in his state, but he makes Montanans feel safe and sound. Now, I don’t live in Montana, but I do think it might not be a bad idea of the good people of that state to take a long, hard look at the man representing them in the Senate. The post Anti-Gun Senator Campaigned On Hunting, Hasn’t Had License In Six Years appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  3. For some reason, Democrats figured that Sen. Ted Cruz was vulnerable, that his seat in Texas was somehow up for grabs. They were sure that the Lone Star State was ready for more things like gun control. Apparently, none of these Democrats had ever been to Texas. Poll after poll claimed that Cruz’s opponent, Beto O’Rourke, was challenging the former presidential candidate. This information, in turn, seemed to encourage O’Rourke to continue talking about all kinds of things that usually don’t fly in Texas. You know, things like gun control. After all, I’m not sure O’Rourke has ever met a gun control policy he didn’t like. And how well is this working out for him? A new poll released by Quinnipiac University Tuesday shows Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke down nine points in his race against Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Fifty-four percent of likely voters said that they would support Cruz in the election, compared to 45 percent who said they would support O’Rourke. The two candidates have overwhelming support within their parties: 94 percent of Republicans would vote for Cruz, and 94 percent of Democrats would vote for O’Rourke. Independent voters support O’Rourke by 51 percent. O’Rourke also has the youth vote, as a majority of voters between 18 and 39 would support him. Ninety-seven percent of black voters are also in favor of O’Rourke, and 54 percent of Hispanic voters are supporting him. However, Cruz has wide margins of support among white voters. A majority of Cruz voters said that the economy and gun policy were the most important issues to them in the election. O’Rourke is a supporter of gun control. A majority of O’Rourke voters said that the most important issues to them were health care and the Supreme Court. Cruz voted to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. He is also a critical vote in the potential confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. A recent NBC News/Marist College poll found O’Rourke only four points behind Cruz, trailing him with 45 percent to Cruz’s 49 percent. In other words, O’Rourke is trailing. Further, we’ve seen plenty of evidence that polling in recent years has skewed left. Whether that skew is intentional or due to some outside factor is irrelevant. The polls seem to routinely claim that left-leaning candidates and positions are doing better than they do on election day. That means there’s a good chance that O’Rourke is even further behind than these polls indicate. However, here’s an interesting line from the above quote: “A majority of O’Rourke voters said that the most important issues to them were health care and the Supreme Court.” Now, I’m not interested in talking health care or SCOTUS at the moment. What I am interested in is how O’Rourke supporters don’t seem to be prioritizing his anti-gun stance as all that important. This fact goes along with something I’ve noted several times in the past, and that’s how anti-gun voters tend to prioritize other things over gun control, while pro-gun voters tend to prioritize gun rights over other things. This information is yet another data point that seems to support that. And with that in mind, it will be hilarious to see O’Rourke lose, lose big, and wonder just how he went wrong by being anti-gun in the state many consider the most pro-gun state in the country. The post Anti-Gun Stance Clearly Not Helping O’Rourke appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  4. The National Rifle Association has been vilified by pretty much every left-leaning politician for months now. Somehow, an organization doing what its members demand is somehow evil, and the group becomes worthy of scorn. Even when the NRA is barely involved in something, it seems anti-gun crusaders feel justified in fighting its activities just because there’s some flimsy tie between the organization and whatever else. In this case, we have the governor of Washinton refusing to sign marksmanship awards–something every other governor in the country does–because the event was registered with the NRA. Governor Inslee is doing something unbelievably petty. Back in 1903, there was a group that started in our nation called the Civilian Marksmanship Program. They would get together and have shooting competitions. It was for a while under the auspices of the Department of Defense. Here in Washington, they have a couple of groups that go and compete in marksmanship — the Washington State Rifle and Pistol Association, and the Washington State Police Pistol Association. This organization always holds an annual banquet, where the top shooters — both civilians and law enforcement officers — are given certificates signed by the governor. Most states do this every year. It’s known as the Governor’s 20. “The Governor’s 20 has been around for years — it’s a competition of law enforcement officers [who] are competing for skills,” Jane Milhans of the Washington State Rifle and Pistol Association told me. This year, however, Governor Inslee’s office sent this letter ahead of the banquet. “The certificates that were signed last May will be the final certificates signed by the governor … Governor Inslee is no longer able to support any program affiliated with the National Rifle Association (NRA), due to the organization’s obstructive efforts to undermine common sense gun safety measures, including those that enjoy broad public support. We understand competitors will be disappointed by this decision; however, the Governor [sic] believes constructive conversations and meaningful action around gun safety are necessary to better protect our families and communities.” But isn’t that a principled stand? I mean, if Inslee believes that the NRA is really that vile, then shouldn’t he make a stand? Well, not really. You see, the NRA’s involvement is minimal. Let me tell you the extent of the NRA’s involvement. The organization that runs this is just a little 501 (c)(3). They only register these competitions with the NRA so the shooters can get classifications if they set national records and so that the NRA can set a common set of standards for each state’s competition. “The big focus and emphasis [of the NRA] is all on safety, and even the NRA … will provide training to smaller law enforcement agencies that don’t have the manpower for a training department,” Milhans said. In other words, because the NRA is also a body that standardizes these competitions as well as defends our right to keep and bear arms, Inslee won’t sign marksmanship certificates for his state’s best shooters. These are the people demanding we work with them? Why? All I see out of them is vindictiveness and pettiness. Worse yet is that this doesn’t impact the NRA. It’s not being hurt by this. Instead, it hurts the shooters who earned their status as the state’s top shooters. You don’t create “constructive conversations and meaningful action around gun safety” by refusing to conduct a traditional act because there are some loose ties between the contest and an opponent organization. In fact, because of this action, I see even less reason to try and work with people like Inslee. It’s clear that their approach is “my way or the highway,” and when it comes to my rights, that’s not remotely viable. Pettiness in politics isn’t new, but it’s rarely been quite this grotesque. The post Washington Governor Too Petty To Sign Marksmanship Awards appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  5. Defense Distributed’s Cody Wilson, the man who led the fight against the State Department, and now against various states, to get 3D-printed gun files onto the internet, is now facing a sexual assault charge against a minor. The shocking development comes from a local report (via KVUE ABC). Cody Wilson, the Austin man who owns controversial 3D-printed gun company Defense Distributed, has been accused of sexually assaulting a child, an affidavit obtained by KVUE reveals. During a forensic interview with the Center with Child Protection on Aug. 27, the victim told counselors she met Wilson through the website, SugarDaddyMeet.com. Court documents show Wilson used the profile, “Sanjuro,” and told the victim that he was a “big deal.” During the conversation, he also identified himself as “Cody Wilson.” Police said the two exchanged cell phone numbers and continued their conversations using the Apple iMessage service on her phone. The alleged victim’s age is not specified, but the affidavit reportedly shows the girl is under the age of 17. According to the report, Wilson allegedly met the girl at a coffee shop before driving her to a hotel in a “black Ford Edge four-door sports utility vehicle with a license plate that matches one registered to Wilson’s business, Defense Distributed.” “The victim then told police that Wilson took her to the Archer Hotel at 3121 Palm Way. Surveillance cameras captured the two using the valet service, in the lobby and in the elevator,” KVUE reports. The victim, who is not named, gives the room number at the hotel where the sexual assault allegedly took place. After the alleged sexual assault, the victim claims that Wilson paid her $500. As of now, Wilson is not in custody. It sounds like Wilson is about to be wrapped up in two major legal battles. As Tom reported earlier, Wilson’s legal battle to post his 3D-printed gun files to the internet is ongoing. In recent developments, Wilson and Defense Distributed are now teaming up with the Second Amendment Foundation to sue more states that are blocking Wilson and his company from posting the files. Though they can’t be posted to the internet by Wilson, the blueprints are still widely available online. Wilson is also selling USB drives that contain the 3D-gun files, as the court did not prohibit him from distributing them entirely. The post Defense Distributed’s Cody Wilson Charged With Sexual Assault appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  6. Ever since the horrific events in Las Vegas almost a year ago, bump stocks have become the bane of anti-gunners’ existence. They’ve campaigned against them left and right, despite them having been legal for years and precisely one crime having been committed with them, but none of that matters. After Vegas, a handful of states passed laws banning the devices in typical knee-jerk fashion. Now, one of them is demanding those who purchased bump stocks to turn them in immediately. Authorities are not offering to pay for the now-banned devices, but those caught with them could risk up to one year in prison and $1,000 in fines. With Vermont’s new law banning the sale and possession of bump stock is set to go into effect Oct. 1, the State Police announced Monday that they will offer an anonymous collection program for the devices. “In compliance with that law, the Vermont State Police will allow members of the public to voluntarily surrender their bump-fire stocks anonymously at any of the 10 VSP barracks in the state,” Capt. Timothy Clouatre said in a release. “People may turn in the devices during regular business hours of 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.” The devices were outlawed in the state after lawmakers approved S.55, and sent it to Republican Gov. Phil Scott to sign in April. The sweeping anti-gun law placed a limit on magazine capacity for handguns and rifles, upped the age to buy all guns in the state to 21, and outlawed bump stocks and similar devices. Those who have the devices after the law takes effect in October will be liable to as much as a year in prison and a $1,000 fine. There is no path to legal ownership and no reimbursement program for the forfeited property. Good luck seeing them all. Because bump stocks weren’t considered firearms, there are no records kept of who purchased them. Gun stores can’t comb through 4473s and look for who bought them so they can hand this information over to law enforcement. There’s no way for Vermont to know just who bought what and when. So they’re having to use the honor system. There’s a problem with this, though, and it’s not a difficult one to foresee. Namely that the people most likely to use the bump stock illegally are also people that aren’t likely to comply with a demand to turn in bump stocks. In other words, it’ll take bump stocks from the people who aren’t a problem while likely leaving them in the hands of people who are. Just like all other gun control measures. If the honor system is good enough to collect bump stocks, then why is a bump stock ban even necessary? Well, it’s not. Like I said, before Las Vegas, there had been no crimes committed with them. Since Las Vegas, there have been no crimes committed with them. In almost a year, no one has used a bump stock in an illegal manner that I can recall, despite the whole world seeing the horrors unleashed with one. It’s almost like they’re not the threat the anti-gunners claim they are. For folks in Vermont who have bump stocks, I’m not going to tell you to hold onto your bump stocks. I can’t advise you to do anything illegal. But I can say that if you go Molon Labe over this one, I’m sure not going to blame you either. Yes, I believe in following the law, but I certainly understand making a stand on principle as well. The post Vermont Police Demand Gun Owners Turn In Bump Stocks Immediately appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  7. Ever since the Trump administration dropped it’s challenge to Cody Wilson’s decision to post files for 3D printers on his website, the anti-gunners have gone freaking nuts. They’re absolutely convinced that it will be the end of the republic as we devolve into a war-torn failed state, all because some people can build some gun without saying, “Mother may I?” to the government. Nevermind the fact that people have been building them for years or anything. Anyway, the battle has now landed in court, with several states suing to prevent the distribution of the files by Wilson. Of course, by now those files are in thousands of computer hard drives, so Wilson doesn’t have to share them. In response, though, gun rights advocates started suing states. Now, they’re suing even more of them. Gun rights advocates announced on Monday night that they expanded their suit over whether gun schematics can be published on the internet to include representatives from new states. The Second Amendment Foundation, in cooperation with 3D-printed gun pioneer Cody Wilson’s company Defense Distributed, added New York governor Andrew Cuomo, Pennsylvania governor Thomas Wolf, Delaware attorney general Matthew Denn, and Pennsylvania attorney general Josh Shapiro to their suit. They accuse the defendants of “unconstitutional prior restraint” for their efforts to block the publishing of gun files, including those with instructions for printing gun components on 3D-printers, despite the State Department settling with the plaintiffs to allow their publication earlier this summer. “Under the color of state law, the Defendants are denying us our civil and constitutional rights by waging a coordinated and politically fueled campaign to censor Defense Distributed,” Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in a statement. “What these public officials are attempting is an unconstitutional exercise of prior restraint. They are trying to prevent Defense Distributed and its founder, Cody Wilson, from exercising free speech.” The suit accuses the government officials of abridging Wilson’s First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, due process rights, and equal protection rights as well as violating the Commerce Clause and attempting to supersede federal laws. Their brief said government officials are specifically targeting Wilson’s company because they don’t like his message. Wilson has repeatedly argued for these files being free on First Amendment grounds, not Second Amendment grounds, which is clever. He’s building upon the long-held notion that code is speech, and what are 3D printer files other than bits of code. Further, he’s not wrong. I have all the files myself. They’re just sitting there. I can’t shoot them. I can’t do anything with them except use them to build a firearm (I really need a 3D printer). At this point, they’re not guns and shouldn’t be treated like firearms. They’re just bits of data. In other words, they’re free speech. Once they’re used to create receivers, then we have actually firearms and the Second Amendment kicks in. These states, by trying to shut down Wilson’s Defense Distributed from sharing the files, are trying to restrain free speech. That argument is far more likely to win in courts than the Second Amendment grounds, I suspect. I can’t wait to watch this blow up in these states’ faces, though. The post Lawsuit Over 3D-Printer Files Expands To More States appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  8. There’s no one fix for school shootings. Anyone with half a brain will tell you that, regardless of where they stand on the gun issue. There will always be evil people who will try and use schools as the prime location for their murder sprees. The only way to prevent that is to abolish schools, and since that’s not remotely a viable idea, we have to look elsewhere. In Illinois, some private schools have taken to placing alarms in schools that will notify the police if pulled. Over 20 Illinois private schools have installed emergency alarms that notify police in the event of an active shooter, according to the Chicago Tribune. The blue boxes were installed over the summer as parents and administrators worry about the mass murders that took place in Parkland and Santa Fe last year. “[Parents] really, sadly, are aware of this possibility,” said Rachel Gemo, head of St. Benedict’s Preparatory School in Chicago’s North Side. “They are not immune to what they hear on TV.” The system was developed by a company called BluePoint Alert Solutions and works like the fire alarm systems students are already familiar with. The light blue box is stamped with the word “Police” and includes a pull-down handle to notify authorities in case of an emergency. Even though most teachers, administrators, and students have cell phones, BluePoint says their system saves precious seconds that might be wasted fumbling with a phone. In addition, the BluePoint system includes building alerts that notify occupants of danger. I don’t disagree here. After all, we still have fire alarms despite the prevalence of cell phones. During high-stress events, fine motor skills degrade, and dialing a phone is a fine motor skill. Yanking a handle down on an alarm, however, is a gross motor skill. Anyone with hands can accomplish that during a high-stress event. But if they think this is sufficient, they’re deluding themselves, seriously deluding themselves. It’s like the old saying, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. This isn’t a slam on law enforcement, either. The police would love to be there and prevent these atrocities, but they can’t be everywhere. The odds of them being in the exact spot at the right time are so slim as to be nonexistent. They have to respond to the aftermath. And that’s even with these alarms. Instead, these alarms need to be part of a more comprehensive approach to school security. Speeding up response times in addition to hardening the schools will make a significant difference in keeping students safe from these horrific events. Arming teachers would be far, far better, but I’m not sure that’s even a remote possibility in Illinois, even for private schools. My sincere hope, though, is that these schools don’t look at this and think, “Good enough.” While I support law enforcement and know they’ll do all that they can to protect the children, they’re not the solution here. They may want to be, but realistically, there has got to be so much more done. But it is a start. The post Illinois Installs Police Alarms In Schools To Combat School Shootings appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  9. Dianne Feinstein doesn’t think AR-15s are common firearms. Somehow, she’s convinced that only a handful of people own and shoot these guns on a regular basis. At least, that’s what she’s previously indicated in her deluded effort to try and claim the Heller decision doesn’t cover AR-15s. Well, the National Shooting Sports Foundation has some numbers that prove just how wrong Sen. Feinstein is. Figures researched by the National Shooting Sports Foundation show that just over 16 million semi-auto rifles such as AR-15s and AKs have been produced or imported into the country since 1990. Combing through figures from federal regulators and verifying the break out against companies who make selected semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines, termed modern sporting rifles by the industry, the group says guns like the AR and AK are white hot with consumers. “Modern sporting rifles remain the most commonly purchased rifle by Americans today,” Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president, told Guns.com. Keane explained the guns are popular in large part due to the inherent modularity of such platforms, which provide the ability to customize them to fit the individual owner and the wide variety of needs they can fulfill. “They are offered a wide variety of calibers and the design of the firearm allows beginners to quickly master safe and accurate marksmanship skills,” he said. “Modern sporting rifles are the choice for millions of Americans for hunting, recreational target shooting and self-defense.” Subject to a federal ban on “assault weapons” that ran from 1994 through 2004, the NSSF found that the number of MSRs dipped to a low of just 70,000 produced and imported in 1996, but has been climbing ever since. By 1998, even while the ban was in effect, the figure doubled to 145,000. By 2003, the last year of the ban, the numbers of guns broached 380,000. Five years later, with the election of President Obama, numbers hit 633,000. Then, in 2009, a solid 1 million. In 2013, following the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut and a wave of gun control legislation both proposed and enacted: 2.3 million. Why it sounds like these are pretty damn common firearms, doesn’t it? That’s because they are. They’re among the most popular firearms in the country, to the tune of 16 million produced. That doesn’t count CETMEs, FALs, and M1As produced that fill a similar niche. It also doesn’t count the other 5.56 semi-auto rifles developed to get around various state restrictions on so-called “assault weapons.” In other words, these types of weapons are all over the place. My guess is that you’re easily looking at 20 million rifles with tactical applications in civilian hands, and that’s probably low. Based on the Heller decision, these guns should be protected. Not that it’ll stop anti-gun zealots from doing their level best to undermine our efforts and claim these are dangerous and unusual firearms that need to be kept out of the hands of private citizens. Frankly, I’m glad to see these rifles are common. I urge everyone to have one or two of these bad boys, if not more. They’re legitimately fun for the whole family, and they make all the right people’s heads explode. What’s not to love? The post Are AR-15s Common? Feinstein Says No, NSSF Provides Evidence Otherwise appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  10. We often talk about the “good guy with a gun” as being the way to stop a whole lot of crimes in their tracks. Meanwhile, anti-gunners pretend the good guy with a gun is a myth and little more. Of course, we know that’s untrue and have plenty of examples otherwise. However, we now have one more. This time, the good guy with a gun also put an end to a #MeToo moment. A 14-year-old was arrested after Clay County deputies said he threatened a Fleming Island Walmart customer with a knife and demanded she have sex with him. According to the Clay County Sheriff’s Office, a man who was nearby stepped in with his gun to help. Deputies said he had a concealed-carry license and did the right thing. According to the incident report, the assault happened Tuesday around 6 p.m. at the Walmart on County Road 220. In a Facebook post, the women explained she thought the teen wanted to help her with groceries, but as he approached he told her, “I want you to have sex with me. I’ve got a knife in my pocket.” When she saw a man walking by the aisle, she yelled for help, the Sheriff’s Office said. News4Jax spoke with that man, who wished to remain anonymous. You never know when something bad is going to go down. As I’ve said before, we good guys don’t have the initiative. The bad guys always get that because they pick the time and the place of the crime. All we can do is respond. Luckily, though, in this case, the woman called for help, and the assistance came in the form of an armed citizen. That ended the threat quick, fast, and in a hurry, as it should have. Of all the crimes out there, sexual assaults of various degrees are among the very worst. They not only victimize the person at that moment, but the damage is long lasting. It creates trauma like few other crimes do. To see a 14-year-old attempt something like this is horrific, but knowing that a good guy with a gun was there to stop is settles my soul. I can’t help but think of my own son at 14, when he was more likely to be focused on video games and goofing off with his friends, and not carrying a knife to force a woman to have sex with him. Then again, it’s also clear that I’ve raised my son far better than some people have raised their own kids. I’m just saying. Luckily, this ended well enough for all involved. The teen is being held for mental evaluation, though he’s lucky he didn’t get perforated by the armed citizen. The woman was unharmed, and the armed citizen is fortunate not to have to deal with the psychological ramifications of shooting a 14-year-old kid, regardless of what he was doing. And yet, let’s also remember that this encounter won’t show up in many statistics as a defensive use of a firearm simply because the gun wasn’t fired. Go figure. The post Concealed Carrier Ends Sexual Assault appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  11. When anti-gunners prattle on about the total number of “gun deaths,” we tend to respond that roughly two-thirds of those deaths are suicides. We say that because it’s true. There are more than 20,000 suicides each year that involve a firearm. Now, some gun sellers are working with suicide prevention activists to try and reduce that number. Gun dealers, range owners and firearms instructors have found that suicide prevention fits into their mission to promote the safe use of guns. Hundreds of them around the country now share suicide-prevention literature, emphasize prevention techniques in their concealed-carry classes, teach workers to recognize distress among customers and welcome prevention advocates to firearm trade shows. This seemingly unlikely partnership has unfolded quietly, in contrast to the public divisiveness that typically characterizes the debate over gun violence. It originated from mental health researchers and advocates, who see curbing firearm suicides ─ which make up more than half of all suicides in America, or nearly 23,000 in 2016 ─ as integral to reducing the number of firearm deaths. “This is a new way to go about reducing suicidal persons’ access to guns ─ not by promoting an anti-gun agenda but by asking gun owners to be part of the solution,” said Catherine Barber, who directs the Means Matter Campaign to prevent suicide at the Harvard School of Public Health’s Injury Control Research Center. “Vilifying them isn’t going to work.” ‘WE WANT TO WORK WITH THE GUN OWNERS’ The new public-health emphasis on gun suicides is driven in part by statistics showing that they are far more prevalent than homicides committed with a firearm. That is particularly so in rural areas and the intermountain West. Utah, Colorado, Nevada, Idaho and New Mexico all rank in the top 10 for suicide rates, with more than 20 deaths per year per 100,000 people (the national rate is 13.5 deaths and rising). Unlike “red flag” laws that allow police officers to temporarily confiscate guns from people deemed a danger to themselves or others, the partnership of the gun industry and the suicide-prevention community requires no new legislation. It is voluntary, focusing on public-education campaigns to make people more comfortable talking about guns and suicide, and encouraging gun owners who feel suicidal to hand their weapons over to someone they trust. While there are no studies yet measuring the campaigns’ effect on death rates, advocates gauge success by the growing interest in the gun industry. Honestly, this is something we should all get behind. For one, it’s the right thing to do. We should do what we can to help people who are suffering through something that might push them to take their own life. While we’re not responsible for what others do, we can and should help our fellow man or woman when they’re in need. Another thing, which is less important but still significant, is that a reduction in suicides means fewer deaths that anti-gunners can pretend are caused by firearms. That means working to combat suicide means we undermine one of their more persuasive arguments–the total number of “gun deaths” each year. Tell me that’s not a win-win. Further, since this is an effort that won’t be infringing on anyone’s rights, I suggest that this is something we should all get behind and support. Again, it is the right thing to do. The post Gun Sellers Team Up With Suicide Prevention Groups appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  12. Anti-gun lawmakers come up with some stupid ideas sometimes. Just look at the proposals being pushed on a given day and you’ll see plenty of them, such as banning guns based on cosmetic features. However, a lawmaker in Wayne County (Detroit), Michigan has trotted out the dumbest proposal yet. Wayne County Commissioner Reggie Davis, who represents the 6th district, is announcing a new proposed bill that would limit the sale of ammunition and increase checks for people buying ammunition in Wayne County. Nicknamed the ‘Bullet Bill,’ Davis said the bill will require a mental health background check on those who purchase ammunition in Wayne County as well as limit the purchase of ammunition. On top of that, ammunition would have to be purchased from a law enforcement agency. … According to Davis, additional county taxes would be imposed on the purchase of ammo with revenue from it going to cover administrative costs, assist victims of gun violence and help with education programs. Yeah, nothing intrusive about that at all, now is there? Let’s also not forget the fact that this proposal is utterly useless except as a grandstanding opportunity. I get that Commissioner Davis has lost a family member to violence, so I’m somewhat sympathetic, but that doesn’t excuse this kind of idiotic nonsense that can only exist as a way to advance his career, not as a way to legitimately curb violence. First, let’s look at what will happen if someone wants to buy ammo, but doesn’t think they’ll pass a mental health check. Let’s be honest here, they’ll either order ammo online or they’ll simply leave the county and buy ammo, thus completely bypassing the check. Ammo is far too plentiful in this day and age for anyone to reasonably keep ammunition out of someone’s hands. It might work at a state level, but those who live near the borders will easily be able to sidestep the regulations. At the county level, it’s easily enough for anyone to bypass these checks. Then, when people do believe they’ll pass a check, they’ll simply be faced with a pain in the rectum prior to buying ammo. You know what happens when people have to deal with crap before they can buy a product? They’re more likely to stock up on that item, just so they won’t have to deal with these roadblocks again any time soon. So now, there will actually be more ammo out on the streets. Frankly, I’d like to believe the commission would see these problems from the start and smack this nonsense down. However, it’s Detroit. The thing is if Detroit wants to curb the violence on its streets, then how about correcting the city’s economy by attracting good-paying jobs. Then, crack down on the criminals you have so you don’t need to worry so much about people buying ammo. Of course, this is Detroit we’re talking about. If they could do any of that, they already would have. Since they don’t know how, they’re just going to take a big, steaming dump on people’s Second Amendment rights in the misguided name of public safety. In the process, they’ll accomplish nothing. The post Detroit-Area Lawmaker Wants Mental Health Screening Before Buying Ammo appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  13. There’s been a lot of talk about guns. It has probably been a contributing factor in the SAFE Act not being passed. It’s unlikely we’re going to get a lot of pro-gun legislation passed for some time, which is a shame. However, one thing that can pass is pro-hunting legislation. The measure, H.R. 2591, termed the Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow’s Needs Act, passed Sept. 12 on a voice vote. It aims to give more flexibility to state wildlife agencies in using the funds generated from a longstanding excise tax on guns and ammunition, primarily directed at the recruitment and retention of hunters to the sport. “With a national decline in outdoor recreational activities, Pittman-Robertson funds are shrinking and our state and local habitats are suffering, which is why I have been fighting to give states more flexibility in how they use their PR funds and hopefully attract more Americans to the outdoors in the process,” said the bill’s sponsor, U.S. Rep. Scott, R-Ga. The bill, which passed the House Committee on Natural Resources in May and has nominal bipartisan support, aims to modify the 1937 Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. This 80-year-old law uses an excise tax levied on all firearms and ammunition sold or imported into the country to perform conservation-related tasks as varied as restoring elk habitat to funding safety programs and establishing public shooting ranges. Paid for by manufacturers and producers, the fund has been pushed into overdrive in recent years because of a spike in gun and ammunition sales. In 2012, the fund apportioned $371 million to state conservation agencies. By 2015, it broke $1 billion and has maintained that level since. This works out to be a win for states and for hunters since the state level is far more likely to know what hunting in a given state needs than the federal government. In this case, they need more hunters. For some reason, hunting numbers have fallen off drastically through the years. Partially a reaction to anti-hunting activism and claims that hunting today isn’t sporting, coupled with attempts to curtail firearm ownership, have likely contributed to some extent. Additionally, hunting is one of those pastimes that people who live in cities often don’t think about as even being possible for them. To make matters worse, I can’t help but think that when they watch hunting shows to explore any interest, what they see are people going to these private hunting resorts that cost thousands of dollars per trip, making the pastime look out of their financial reach. If they know about publicly accessible hunting land, they may be fearful of stupid people hunting near them–it’s a concern of mine, to be sure–and be turned off. In other words, there are a lot of challenges in attracting new hunters. However, conservation efforts require hunters to generate the needed funds. I’m perfectly fine with money already being collected to be used in a manner like this. Now, if it were a new tax or something, I’d probably feel differently, but the money is already there and is just being used differently. I’m OK with that. The post Pro-Hunting Bill Passes In House, Now Moves To Senate appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  14. There’s a mindset that comes into play during a violent confrontation. Not everyone has it, but if you do, it means that you can prevail no matter what. It’s this inability to accept surrender in the face of unspeakable evil, an idea that you might go down, but so are they. That ferocity is something that evil people usually don’t count on and it changes the equation of a violent encounter. Take an incident recently in Israel. Ari, as he was aptly named, fought terrorism to his last breath. On September 16, 2018, while outside of an Israeli shopping mall, Ari Fuld was attacked by a Palestinian terrorist who ambushed him from behind and stabbed him four times in the back. “A lowly terrorist came up behind him, and in a cowardly way stabbed him,” Lior Shurka, a friend of the victim, described to TPS news agency. Ari fought back. With gaping stab wounds in his back, he ran after the fleeing terrorist and shot him, effectively “neutralizing” the attacker, according to Israeli police. Another armed civilian assisted Ari and also shot the terrorist. The name Ari translates to “lion” in Hebrew, “eagle” in Old Norse, and “brave” in Armenian. It is a name fit for a hero. Ari Fuld lived up to his name. Ari’s heroic actions stopped the terrorist from hurting anyone else. Ari passed away from his wounds, but not before he put down the threat before the terrorist dirtbag could hurt anyone else. Ever. He sent the pussball to his 72 virgins despite being so grievously wounded. He refused to surrender, and if he was that badly wounded, no one would have thought ill of him if he had. He was dying, after all. But Fuld didn’t. He drew his weapon and went to work, putting down the terrorist scum. Look, I get that this wasn’t some armed robbery gone awry. This was something very different, a terrorist looking to kill as many people as he could in the name of his religion. What Ari Fuld encountered isn’t something most of us will deal with. Yet that doesn’t mean that the lesson doesn’t stand. Terrorism, mass shootings, serial killers, or just jacked up thugs wanting to pretend The Purge was a documentary, all of these things are potentialities in this country, and bad people need to be stopped. Sometimes, even if you’re horribly wounded, you may be the only wall between evil and your loved ones. Now, not everyone can do what Ari Fuld did, and for a number of reasons. But Fuld did it, and who knows how many lives he saved in the process. I’ll be honest, if I were in his boat, I don’t know that I could do what he did, but I sure do hope I could. One thing for all of us to keep in mind is that being wounded doesn’t mean we’re out of the fight, necessarily. If our loved ones are threatened, or even other people who we don’t know in the least, sometimes we’ll need to push through the pain and take care of business. Just like Ari Fuld did. The post Never Give Up: Israeli Stabbed Four Times, Still Shoots Terrorist appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article
  15. Hawaii lost in court. The case involved open carry. Hawaii doesn’t allow it, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Hawaii lost, and it was a massive blow to the anti-gun state. Gun rights activists throughout the nation rejoiced. It seems that the Aloha State is far from finished with this case, however. State and local officials last week filed a 114-page request to overturn the decision of a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit and send the case before a larger 11-judge en banc panel for a retrial. At stake is Hawaii’s ability to keep its strict limits on the unconcealed carry of firearms in public, which a two-judge majority found in July was unconstitutional. “The importance of this case is beyond dispute,” argues Hawaii officials in the filing. “The panel struck down carry restrictions that have been in effect in Hawaii in some form for over 150 years. In doing so, it overruled a sovereign State’s judgment on a matter of the utmost concern to public safety. And it did so on the basis of a severe misunderstanding of state law.” The case involves George Young, whose repeated attempts to obtain a permit going back as far as 2011 were rebuffed in a state where it is notoriously hard to be granted a carry permit of any sort. Young held that his denial of an application for a handgun license stepped on his Second Amendment rights to carry a loaded firearm openly for self-defense outside of the home and the panel agreed. Hawaii law narrowly allows the ability to open carry to a select few — such as security guards — which the state supported in arguments earlier this year. This, the majority held, was just plain wrong. However, in a 10-page opinion, delivered last week by Hawaii Attorney General Robert Suzuki to Lt. Gov. Douglas Chin, the state’s top lawyer said state law does not limit “unconcealed carry licenses” to just private security officers, and that police chiefs can grant such licenses to those who meet certain standards. That last paragraph is interesting. You see, the law may allow, but if it doesn’t happen, then gun owners are still limited by law. When you give a bureaucrat the power to say “yes” or “no” to exercising a right, and that bureaucrat says nothing but “no,” can you claim a person’s right isn’t being infringed? This is an important question, and if Suzuki’s claim is right, then that makes this case even more important. One routine concern many gun rights activists express is the idea of the law theoretically permitting citizens to carry guns, but in practice, it almost never happens. This isn’t a hypothetical case, either. We routinely see this happening in places like New York City where the average citizen can’t get a firearm legally. It also occurs in California where many responsible for issuing permits don’t issue many at all. Let’s also not forget New Jersey where many gun owners find that their reasons to want a concealed carry permit are insufficient to sway the people who make the decision on who gets to carry. In other words, no one can claim this doesn’t happen. Honestly, this is perhaps a bigger problem than a law that forbids open carry. A law like that is unconstitutional on its surface, and everyone knows it. But with a case where the law technically allows it, where it’s virtually impossible to get the necessary permit, things get murkier. While folks like myself generally don’t see it as murky in the least–the phrase “shall not be infringed” makes it clear, at least in my mind–we’re not the majority. For others, they accept that the government can limit gun rights, and this looks like a limit. At least, on the surface. When it looks like a limit but is a de facto ban, that complicates things. I still believe Hawaii’s restrictions are unconstitutional and need to be smacked down, but now we get to watch as they waste taxpayer money in an effort to continue this battle. The post Hawaii Wants Second Chance In Open Carry Court Case appeared first on Bearing Arms. View the full article

Important Information

Your Privacy Is Important To Us Learn More: Privacy Policy