Happy 4th of July! 

Updated: 07/14/2015

resized pic to fit. that is what happens when you post via smartphone.

Please remember those that have, and  are serving!

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

What’s all this about Australia as a role model?

Wow, lots of people are taking about the great gun control they have in Australia in the wake of the Charleston shooting. Most noteably even the President mentioned it. Zero shootings since 1996 they claim. I know very little about AUS so I looked into the country briefly. I like to start with demographics. After all, to make such bold statements like we should adopt their gun control model we must be very similar, right?

Land mass:
Australia 2.97 million miles
U.S. 3.8 million miles

Population
Australia 23.13 million
U.S. 318.9 million (population of CA alone is 38 million)

Largest city
Sydney 4.3 million
NYC 8.4 million

Almost 50% of its ENTIRE population is within the largest 3 cities!
It jumps to 60% if you count the largest 5 cities.

The largest 5 cities in the U.S. combined make about 19 million people about 6% of the total population.

Keep in mind that the U.S. and Australia are very similar in physical size. Maybe not a 1-on-1 good comparison?

See something about the demographics that might make AUS a little different than the U.S.? By the way, all these numbers come from internet Google and Wikipedia.

And speaking of Wikipedia…so there is the assertion that gun crime/mass shootings stopped in 1996 after the Port Author Massacre.
According to Wikipedia that is not true. There are at least two: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

That’s as far as I have got so far. I stopped reading at the point that their constitution had “implied rights” and that voting was one.

Anyway, just some thoughts…

Why a Federal Gun Owner License is NOT a compromise

So, at first glance being background checked and approved to purchase a firearm may seem ok to some. However, the proposal is being fingerprinted and background checked administered by local law enforcement who will then provide the information to a unspecified Federal agency and database.

hmm…Since all 50 States issue CCW licenses (in some format) wouldn’t you think that some sort of system ALREADY exists and that we should utilize that? Every CCW license holder that I know of has already had both fingerprints and background check done. This information/mechanism is redundant. Not to mention the wait and fees involved.

Additionally, what happens when you purchase a firearm at a dealer? A background check is done. The exact SAME background check that would be for the “gun owner license” and waiting period depending on your state.

Seem redundant? Yet, no one has talked about replacing or retiring the current system for this new one.

So, let me get this straight…
– Want to have a firearm? Get gun owners license: apply, fingerprints, background check, pay, wait
– Want to buy a firearm? Get gun owners license, background check, pay, wait if applicable to your state
– Want to carry a firearm? Get gun owners license, apply, fingerprints, background check, pay, wait

You see what they have done here? There is not even the premise of reducing crime, it is simply to discourage people from having firearms by increasing the wait times and increasing the process and government bureaucracy required to process it. Oh, and in addition to your home state having your information, now so does local law enforcement and the Federal Government in their own separate databases. That’s efficient.

Does that sound like a compromise???

How about this for a compromise:

I will support a “gun owner license” by going through a background, fingerprint, photo, paying, waiting, etc. *IF* that license is SHALL issue (meaning it will be approved there is a clear objective criteria) and it entitles to own, purchase, and carry a firearm without going through the whole process again in ALL 50 States.

That should be a reasonable compromise right? After all, wasn’t the real goal to make sure that people were qualified and legal to own firearms?

 

 

NV New Reciprocity List Now! And it’s disappointing

Updated: 06/18/2015

Well as of today the new list available (2nd link below). Arizona has been added but disappointingly neither Florida or Utah have.

Some folks had some questions about my last post and the passage of Nevada SB175. Mainly folks wondered about what states would be added especially those that had been removed recently: Florida, Utah and Arizona.

Unfortunately, I have no idea. What makes us hopeful is that a number of those states were removed since they were not as restrictive as Nevada:


Two states will be removed from the list of recognized states. They are Utah and Florida. It was determined that these states no longer met the two step test required by Nevada law. Utah’s permit process does not require live fire training that Nevada law requires and Florida changed its permit renewal time from five years to seven years before renewal. These issues were substantially different from Nevada’s law.

http://www.nvsca.com/documents/CCWRecognition2009.pdf

 

But the “at least as restrictive” requirement has been stricken:

Sec. 4.5. NRS 202.3689 is hereby amended to read as follows: 202.3689 1. On or before July 1 of each year, the Department shall: (a) [Examine the requirements for the] Determine whether each state requires a person to complete any training, class or program before the issuance of a permit to carry a concealed firearm in [each] that state . [and determine whether the requirements of each state are substantially similar to or more stringent than the requirements set forth in NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive.]

How that it is going to be determined and approved by the NV police associations remains to be seen. There is no residency requirement that I saw either, so I am hopeful.

The list may be done July 1, and hopefully be approved quickly if it has not been done already.

I am expecting that it will be published here: http://gsd.nv.gov/FeesForms/Brady/CCW-Permit-Recognition/
Notice that it was last published July 24 so it did take a few weeks to get the final list.

Knocking on wood!

Huge Bloomberg/Everytown DEFEAT: Nevada to add to CCW reciprocity and scraps Las Vegas ridiculous “notification/registration” law

SB 175 signed into law but you probably won’t hear about in mainstream media. We won’t have the new list until it is published July 1. 

I haven’t gone through the whole bill but it looks very hopeful:

Sec. 4. NRS 202.3688 is hereby amended to read as follows:
202.3688 1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person who is at least 21 years of age and possesses a permit to carry a concealed firearm that was issued by [a] another state [included in the list prepared pursuant to NRS 202.3689] may carry a concealed firearm in this State in accordance with the requirements set forth in NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive.
2. A person who [possesses a permit to carry a concealed firearm that was issued by a state included in the list prepared pursuant to NRS 202.3689] meets the requirements of subsection 1 may not carry a concealed firearm in this State if the person:
(a) Becomes a resident of this State; and
(b) Has not been issued a permit from the sheriff of the county in which he or she resides within 60 days after becoming a resident of this State.

It is also the end of Las Vegas’ antiquated notification and city  registration law. 

You can read it here: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/78th2015/Bills/SB/SB175.pdf

Obama Administration to make its own gun law changes – who needs Congress?

The Obama Administration is set to make sweeping changes to gun regulation – all with the sweep of a hand through ATF. Who needs Congress to change the USC when you can do it all on your own?

 

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will propose sweeping regulations on gun ownership aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of those convicted of domestic violence and the mentally ill. It’s a move that is likely to set off a firestorm of criticism and opposition from gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners Of America (GOA) who argue such regulations would keep guns from people who are not dangerous and pose no risk of violence.

The Justice Department released a new list of rules that would address some of the increased regulations President Barack Obama called for after the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, the Hill newspaper reported. At the time, Obama called for changes in the law to curb access to guns by those who are dangerous.

“These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change,” Obama said after the shooting that killed 26, including 20 children. “We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law — no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this.”

But Obama’s attempt to change the laws through Congress failed. A compromise bill in the Senate that would have imposed stricter rules about background checks was defeated after intense opposition lobbying from groups like the NRA and GOA.

The latest attempt by Obama will surely cause a rise in outrage among his opponents. The recent conspiracy theory surrounding the Jade Helm 15 training exercise was fueled by fears Obama was going to send the military to invade the state of Texas to confiscate guns. But in more than six years in office, Obama has to yet to win any changes to curb gun ownership.

The new regulations will surely send the same groups into a frenzy. “It’s clear President Obama is beginning his final assault on our Second Amendment rights by forcing his anti-gun agenda on honest law-abiding citizens through executive force,” Luke O’Dell, vice president of political affairs at the National Association for Gun Rights, told The Hill.

The proposed rules would prohibit ownership of a gun by someone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence crime. The rules would also prohibit the mentally ill from owning guns. Another regulation would impose requirements about gun storage. And the Department of Justice through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would regulate high-powered pistols, a controversial move since attempts to place restrictions on handguns have drawn intense opposition.

Groups pushing for changes to the nation’s gun laws have long called for stricter rules about the ability of domestic violence convicts to obtain and keep guns. Curbing access to guns, they argue, will result in a decrease of homicides in domestic violence cases.

The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control advocacy group based in California, detailed the potential for harm posed by domestic violence convicts being able to access firearms. Among other statistics, the group cited a 2003 study that found abused women were five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.

The group found that existing federal prohibitions against domestic violence convicts being able to hold guns have significant limitations — which would be addressed in the new federal law — that have prompted states to implement their own rules. For example, the existing federal rule doesn’t prohibit someone from owning a gun who committed acts of violence against someone they were dating instead of married to or someone who is the subject of a protective order.

“The risk of domestic violence being committed by a dating partner is well-documented,” the group said in a statement on its website. “In 2008, individuals killed by current dating partners made up almost half of all spouse and current dating partner homicides.”

A 2006 study by University of Washington professor Elizabeth R. Vigdor found that when states adopted laws that imposed gun restrictions on those who were under a restraining order, there was a 7 percent drop in homicides for female intimate partners. But she also found there was no change in homicide rates when states imposed confiscation laws for violent misdemeanors.

Earlier this year, the NRA successfully worked to kill a bill in Louisiana that would have prohibited those who were convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from owning guns. The group fought the proposed law that would have applied the gun prohibition to “dating partners,” not just those living together.

Like the Louisiana fight, gun rights groups argued the proposed federal rules would be too broad. “[The bill] is so overly broad that it could make a felon out of a girlfriend who pulls a cell phone from her boyfriend’s hand against his will,” NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker told the New Orleans newspaper the Times-Picayune.

Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for the GOA, had a similar warning. He told the Hill, “That could be a person who spanked his kid, or yelled at his wife or slapped her husband.”

 

Here is the “pistol” definition change: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-04-07/pdf/05-6932.pdf#page=1
Here is the mental health change: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-01-07/pdf/2014-00039.pdf#page=1

 

 

Form 1’s for SBRs getting rejected in WA

It looks like the approval of Form 1’s to manufacture SBRs in WA was very short-lived. It appears that the ATF is using a loophole in the RCW because the RCW doesn’t explicitly say “manufacture” although “acquire” and “possession” are ok. No word if an FFL can build it and transfer it. 

Rcw 9.41.190

(2) It is not unlawful for a person to possess, transport, acquire, or transfer a short-barreled rifle that is legally registered and possessed, transported, acquired, or transferred in accordance with federal law.

Does no one wear a good leather ‘gun belt’ any more?

When a first got my CCW license I quickly learned the value of a good belt that can sustain the weight of a pistol. After destroying several cheap belts a broke down and bought a Galco SB5 1.5″ belt. That was 25 years ago or so, if my waist hadn’t um increased over the years I would still have it. The one I currently wear is over 10 years old. 

I have tried other belts like the Wilderness 5-stitch and BladeTech/Looper leather belt with kydex insert but it is not the same. 

And why do I bring this up? I recently bought two kydex IWB holsters and neither had clips that can accommodate such a thick belt. Only one (BladeTech) had a solution (rubber clips instead of kydex loops) which they provided for free! I was surprised that they had not encountered this before – the clips were a legacy style. NOTE: I am talking about the thickness of the leather and not the belt size and not width like 1.25″ vs 1.5″. 

It is interesting to note that I have not had this problem with any hybrid holster. I will do reviews of the holsters shortly. 

I like the minimalist size and thinness of the all kydex. So I am wondering what kind of belt are you wearing?

Smith 2015 price list is not available yet

People keep asking about the 2015 Smith Instructor Program. I just received an email from them today that said to check back in 30-60 days. 

If you haven’t written regarding the M855 ammo ban yet, consider this…

I know that you have been probably been flooded with prompts to write and let your comments be known about the proposed ban and even been supplied with templates. If you haven’t already I would urge you to do so. I have included what I sent to the ATFE via email. Perhaps you will find it useful or informational, feel free to use it however you like –  a few people have asked me “what’s the deal with green tip?”

To: APAComments@atf.gov

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to make it known that I am against the proposed ban. I will be brief.
1. M855 makes up ~ 30% of the civilian sporting market for 223.
2. M855 is not mostly made made up of an offending “piercing” metal
3. M855 has always been exempt from the 1986 requirements
4. Handguns firing rifle rounds (including M855) have long been available and are prohibitively expensive
5. ATFE makes no claim nor presents any statistics that there are actually instances of M855 being used in crime, especially from a handgun
6. The round, ironically, is actually ballistically less of a threat when fired from a handgun
7. The “framework” is too loosely defined, it appears as if the goal is to be able to restrict all .223 based ammunition with the exception of rimfire. The accelerated timeframe for adoption does not help this perception
8. The 223 round is probably the most popular sporting round currently in use by the public, surpassing even 22 rimfire since 223 (up until this proposal) it has been more available

Thank you for your time, and I hope that you reconsider this proposal.

And I urge to please comment on the proposal if you have not already!