Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Cops Sure But TSA? WTF?

A number of firearms companies have programs that offer those in law enforcement a substantial discount on their products. This would include FNH-USA which allows a once-a-year discounted purchase in each of three categories - pistols, rifles, and shotguns.

I think this is a worthwhile idea. It allows a company to show its support of police and first responders. It allows a company to get its product in the hand of law enforcement which in turn becomes a marketing and word-of-mouth referral tool. And while I can't speak for areas outside the South, many law enforcement officers in small communities have fairly low salaries.

FNH-USA's definition of eligibility for participation in their Individual Officer Discount Program is fairly broad compared to other companies. Perhaps, too broad when you look at their list.
  • All sworn local, county and state law enforcement officers
  • All federal law enforcement officers (i.e., officers with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Air Marshal Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, etc.)
  • All corrections officers, including parole and probation officers
  • All retired federal, state, county and local law enforcement officers with "retired" credentials
  • Employees of state licensed security companies
  • State/city-licensed security officers
  • Active duty military personnel, all branches
  • Reserve duty military personnel, all branches
  • Honorably retired military veterans with "retired" military I.D.
  • All Transportation Security Administration employees
  • Licensed paramedics and emergency medical technicians
  • Firefighters, including volunteer firefighters, with appropriate I.D.
  • Federal flight deck officers
  • Court judges
  • District attorneys and deputy district attorneys
 All Transportation Security Administration employees? TSA? Really? You mean people like Pythias Green who was convicted of stealing more than $800,000 from travelers should be allowed to buy firearms at a discount? You mean people like George Hristovski who was arrested by the FBI in Northern California on charges of attempted production of child pornography? You mean the people who grope us repeatedly, who share pictures of us going through the NudieScope, and who want us to respect "their authoriteh"?

I understand that FNH-USA was trying to have as broad a list as possible and to be inclusive but this is ridiculous. What the hell were they thinking? TSA employees no more deserve a discount than does the man in the moon.

Monday, August 25, 2014

A Big Win In California

US District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii just ruled today that 10-day waiting periods to pick up your firearm after purchase were unconstitutional as applied to certain individuals. The case, Silvester v. Harris, challenged the waiting periods for those who had passed a background check and who had either a California issued license to carry or hold a Cal-DOJ issued Certificate of Eligibility and possess at least one firearm known to the state.

Here is the release on the win from the CalGuns Foundation who was one of the plaintiffs in the case:
ROSEVILLE, CA (August 25, 2014) – California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge this morning in a significant victory for Second Amendment civil rights. The laws were challenged by California gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs, as well as two gun rights groups, The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation.

In the decision released this morning, Federal Eastern District of California Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, found that “the 10-day waiting periods of Penal Code [sections 26815(a) and 27540(a)] violate the Second Amendment” as applied to members of certain classifications, like Silvester and Combs, and “burdens the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.”

“This is a great win for Second Amendment civil rights and common sense,” said Jeff Silvester, the named individual plaintiff. “I couldn’t be happier with how this case turned out.”

Under the court order, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change its systems to accommodate the unobstructed release of guns to gun buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a “Certificate of Eligibility” issued by the DOJ and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.

“We are happy that Second Amendment rights are being acknowledged and protected by our courts,” said Donald Kilmer, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. “This case is one more example of how our judicial branch brings balance to government in order to insure our liberty. I am elated that we were able to successfully vindicate the rights of our clients.”

Attorneys Victor Otten of Torrance and Jason Davis of Mission Viejo were co-counsel for the plaintiffs.

“This ruling clearly addressed the issue we put before the court,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “We are naturally delighted with the outcome.”

“California gun owners are not second-class citizens and the Second Amendment doesn’t protect second class rights,” noted plaintiff Brandon Combs, also CGF’s executive director. “This decision is an important step towards restoring fundamental individual liberties in the Golden State.”

“This victory provides a strong foundation from which other irrational and unconstitutional gun control laws will be challenged,” concluded Combs. “We look forward to doing just that.”

The court’s decision can be read or downloaded at
This is great news for Californians. Brandon Combs, one of the plaintiffs, was just a guest on The Polite Society Podcast that aired yesterday.  We'll certainly have to have him back soon!

Sebastian has more on the win here.

If You Want To Donate, Here Are Some Better Groups

Jonathan Lowy of the Brady Center recently sent out the e-mail seen below crowing about going three for three in court cases involving certain semi-automatic rifles whose cosmetics horrify the gun prohibitionists. He is referring to cases that challenged new state laws that created a magazine ban, an "assault weapons" (sic) ban, or both. The states involved were Connecticut, Maryland, and New York.
After the Sandy Hook tragedy where a gunman fatally shot 20 children and 6 adults, state lawmakers finally said ‘ENOUGH IS ENOUGH’ and took action.

New York, Connecticut, and Maryland made it more difficult to buy military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, so these weapons of war would never again threaten lives in our homes, schools and communities.

Unfortunately, the corporate gun lobby saw a threat to their profits and went to court to challenge these laws.

At the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project, we didn’t let these attacks on our public safety go unchallenged. We filed amicus briefs and worked closely with state officials to help them defend these life-saving laws. Law firms with our national pro bono alliance, Lawyers for a Safer America, were critical to these efforts.

WE ARE 3-for-3 SO FAR. Federal trial judges in ALL 3 STATES have upheld the new laws. Your support helped us win these victories.

But our work continues — the gun lobby is appealing the rulings, which means we’re still working hard with states and filing amicus briefs to meet the challenge. On August 5, we filed a brief in the New York case. Next week we’re filing in Connecticut.

These federal appeals cases are critically important – the rulings will set far-reaching precedents on the power of states to protect their communities from gun violence.

We need your support to preserve the victories we’ve won so far and make sure the corporate gun lobby isn’t allowed to put profits over people’s lives.

Please support the Brady Center today to help us keep our winning streak going, and protect lives in our nation’s homes, schools and communities.

With gratitude,

Jonathan Lowy
Director, Brady Center Legal Action Project
I'm surprised that Mr. Lowy didn't include the nonsensical ruling out of Colorado which upheld the Hickenlooper mag ban.

The recent decision out of Maryland does show that certain judges who are ignorant about firearms and who have a bias against them will listen to what the Brady Center puts into their amicus briefs. Even though those of us in the gun culture consider their arguments to be "authentic frontier gibberish" we still need to counter them. Thus I donate to groups like the Second Amendment Foundation, the Mountain States Legal Foundation, and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund who will present the counter arguments to the Jonathan Lowy's of the world.

I would encourage you to do the same if you can.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

I Would Have Challenged Shannon Watts And Michael Bloomberg

You may remember that the NRA's Wayne LaPierre was challenged to take the Ice Bucket Challenge for ALS by the space cowboy himself, Mr. Gabby Giffords. And Wayne, who we often perceive as a button-downed, corporate type took him up on it.

Wayne then challenged Karl Malone, NASCAR driver Austin Dillon, and Ollie North to take the challenge. That's fine but I would have challenged Mr. Moneybags Mike Bloomberg to take the challenge. It might have resulted in a bigger check for ALS research. And we shouldn't forget his little minion, Shannon.

Friday, August 22, 2014

SB 53 - Just One Of A Number Of Anti-Gun Bills In California

Gun rights supporters in California have their hands full with all the misguided, stupid, and ineffective bills coming out the California Assembly and Senate that impact them. One of these bills is SB 53 from Sen. Kevin DeLeon (D-Los Angeles). The bill would ban on-line sales of ammo, create a registry of ammo sellers and purchasers, and require another license for gun owners.

Will it stop gangs from obtaining ammo for their guns? Of course not but that really wasn't the point anyway.

The Firearms Policy Coalition has created a very good infographic illustrating just what the bill would do if passed. Unfortunately, it is almost out of the legislature and heading for Gov. Jerry Brown's desk.

The FPC has created an easy way to state your opposition to this bill. You don't even need to live in California to send an email. Just go here and you can tell every legislator in California what you think of this bill.

If you want to see other bad bills from California, just go here. Another of Kevin DeLeon's bills would outlaw "ghost guns". In other words, any firearm without a serial number such as your collectible .22 LR rifle from before 1968 like my Remington 511 Scoremaster.

DC To Appeal Carry Case

Emily Miller of Fox 5 News (yes, that Emily Miller) is reporting that the District of Columbia City Council will vote to appeal their loss in Palmer v. District of Columbia. She spoke with Council Chair Phil Mendelson who said:
"The whole issue of the public carrying of a firearm is very complicated," Mendelson said. "And I believe the executive and the attorney general will continue with the appeal."

Also this week, the city asked the court for six more months to rewrite its gun laws. Right now, the city has until October 22. That's why Mendelson said gun carry will be at the top of the agenda when the city council returns from recess.

"What the court said very clearly was that a complete 100-percent ban on anybody being able to get a license to carry a handgun was unconstitutional. But there's a gray area between 100-percent ban and everybody can carry. And that's what we're working through."
This is not an unexpected turn of events. The local political establishment in DC is profoundly anti-gun and to have let Judge Frederick Scullin's decision go unchallenged would be unthinkable.

Miller also spoke to George Lyon, one of the plaintiffs, about the potential appeal. He was disappointed as you can see in the video below:


H/T Bitter

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

The Most Absurd Letter To The Editor That I've Read In A Long Time

Letters to the editor can vary in quality and substance. In general, people do try to have a well reasoned argument for their position. I might not agree with it but I will defend their right to say or write it.

Then there is this very short letter to the editor that appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch a couple of days after Michael Brown was shot in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson.
Why? In 2014 and the age of the Taser, why should any police officer on routine patrol need to carry a deadly weapon?
Anthony Wippold  •  Clayton
Clayton, for those not familiar with St. Louis, is one of the wealthiest places in the state of Missouri. It has a household income of over $87,000, the 3rd highest home value in the state ($607,800), and one of the highest education attainment rates.

I don't know what sort of bubble Mr. Wippold lives in but the world outside is dangerous. Even the most ardent pacifist should understand that.

No One Should Be Surprised By This Remington Move

In the wake of both softening sales for firearms and the move of much of their operations to Huntsville, Alabama, Remington announced another round of layoffs at their Ilion, New York plant. 105 jobs will be cut at the New York plant starting Monday. This is in addition to 80 jobs that had previously been moved to Alabama.

As the later news report below makes clear, these workers will have the opportunity to relocate to Alabama and apply for jobs down there. If I heard it correctly, Remington has agreed to give a preference to the pool of laid-off workers for new jobs in Alabama.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

More Time, Please...Because We Are Sensitive

The District of Columbia is arguing that they need more time beyond the original 90 day stay granted by Judge Frederick Scullin in the DC carry case, Palmer v. DC. First, they are arguing that if they decide to appeal the decision, they want the decision stayed throughout the appeal process. Second, if they forego the appeal, they want an additional 90 days in which to craft a carry law.

The District of Columbia in their brief (available here) argues that the judge erred in stating that the core right of the Second Amendment extends outside the home. Further, they argue that a good part of DC could be considered a sensitive area.

I found what they had to say interesting.
Thus, even assuming some form of public carrying of handguns is protected by the Second Amendment, it is not at the core of the right, and, accordingly, a court must examine the strength of the government’s justifications for its regulation, pursuant to intermediate scrutiny. See Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1252. The Court here did not do so, ignoring the many, important public safety and other reasons put forth for the District’s longstanding prohibition, many of which are unique to the District of Columbia, a state-level jurisdiction with an almost completely urban makeup that as the seat of the national government is home to the White House, the U.S. Capitol, dozens of federal agencies, and hundreds of international diplomats and has, over the years, experienced attempted as well as successful assassinations of Presidents and other officials of national importance using firearms. These and the other important public safety concerns will need to be considered by the D.C. Circuit in any appeal, and will present a serious question (even assuming the Circuit concludes a balancing test is necessary), one that is of first impression in this Circuit.
Of the two Presidents assassinated within the District of Columbia, Abraham Lincoln and James Garfield, neither had any sort of bodyguards or other security with them when they were murdered. Contrast that with the security cordon erected around modern presidents such as Barack Obama. I guess you could argue that Ford's Theater is a "sensitive site" given it is a National Historic Site run by the National Park Service.

That said, there are significant portions of the District that can in no way be considered sensitive.

For example, this corner at the intersection of Atlantic St and 14th St SE is considered one of the most dangerous spots in the US. You have a 1 in 14 change of being a crime victim here.

I fail to see how this "abandominium" as they are called by local DC housing activists could be considered sensitive even if it is owned by the DC government.

The argument that the majority of the District of Columbia is a sensitive place fails when you examine what's on the ground. I would have no disagreement with the argument that many DC neighborhoods have improved with gentrification. However, just because a neighborhood has gentrified, it doesn't make it a sensitive place. In my opinion, it may have made it a target for which the residents might need a firearm for protection both inside and outside their home.

Monday, August 18, 2014

"You’re not supposed to shoot so many times"

Dr. Michael M. Baden is the former Chief Medical Examiner for the City of New York. He was hired by the family of Michael Brown, the teen shot by police in Ferguson, Missouri, to provide a private autopsy.  I'm not going to get into the whole sordid mess surrounding the shooting and subsequent unrest in that St. Louis suburb.

The majority of the private autopsy results were released to the New York Times. It appears that Mr. Brown was shot in the front of his body by the Ferguson officer six times. What caught my eye was this statement by Dr. Baden:
“In my capacity as the forensic examiner for the New York State Police, I would say, ‘You’re not supposed to shoot so many times,’ ” said Dr. Baden, who retired from the state police in 2011. “Right now there is too little information to forensically reconstruct the shooting.”
I have always been taught as well as read in reliable sources that you shoot until the threat has been stopped. There is no magic number. Bear in mind that Mr. Brown was reported to be 6'4" tall and weighed 292 pounds. According to the autopsy, it also appears the first four shots hit Mr. Brown in the arm and not center mass. While that would have hurt like hell, they were not sufficient to stop the threat. (This, of course, presumes that the officer involved perceived Mr. Brown as a deadly threat.)

I think the good doctor needs to reevaluate his statement and remember that there is no magic number when it comes to stopping the threat.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

It's Deja Vu All Over Again

I have lost count of the number of Mayor Bloomberg's Illegal Mayors that have been indicted for some violation of the public trust. So when it comes to adding another one to the list, it just seems like deja vu all over again (with apologies to Yogi Berra).

On Friday, Monticello (NY) Village Mayor Gordon Jenkins was arrested and placed in the Sullivan County Jail along with the village's building inspector.

His crimes?
Both men were charged with bribe receiving, criminal mischief, two counts of conspiracy, both felonies, as well as misdemeanors of three counts of official misconduct, criminal nuisance, and under the Department of Environmental Conservation law, endangering public health or safety.

Jenkins was also charged with intimidating a witness as a felony in connection with an incident in Fallsburg.
Bribery, conspiracy, witness intimidation.

What is with this group of mayors? Do they think that they can get away with a slew of felonies just so long as they didn't use a firearm in the commission of their crimes?

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Somebody's Got To Win

Aaron at The Weapon Blog has put up his list of monthly gun contests.

Checking the list of pistols, it is an interesting mix. I see the new Sig P320, the Walther PPQM2, and the Colt Mustang XSP among a number of others.

The long arm list is dominated by ARs. You know, those dangerous and unusual weapons according to a deluded Federal judge in Maryland. Throw in a couple of IWI Tavors and you have an anti-Semite gun controller's nightmare. Good!

The way I look at these contests is the same way I look at putting the occasional dollar down on a PowerBall ticket: somebody's got to win and why not me?

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

The Seven Deadly Sins Of Shooting - Infographic

The Center Mass Group was started in 2011 by former Navy SEAL instructor Chris Sajnog to provide tactical and firearms training. Sajnog is the author of the well received book How to Shoot Like a Navy SEAL (Combat Marksmanship Fundamentals Book 1)

They created and sent out this infographic recently. I'm a sucker for a good infographic and this is one of them.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

The Most Common Rifle In America Not Protected By The Second Amendment

In a ruling today, US District Court Judge Catherine C. Blake, a Clinton appointee, said that AR-15s and semi-automatic AK-47s were not protected by the Second Amendment. Her opinion came in a Maryland case, Kolbe et al v. O'Malley et al, in which the plaintiffs were challenging the state's Firearm Safety Act of 2013.
Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.

First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.

The court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used.

As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs proffer no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose.

Finally, despite the plaintiffs’ claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions.
Plaintiffs in the case included the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Maryland Shall Issue, the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, the Maryland Licensed Firearm Dealers Association, a number of businesses, and individuals Stephen Kolbe and Andrew Turner. The defendants included Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-MD), Attorney General Douglas Gansler (D-MD), and the Maryland State Police.

In reaching her conclusions, Judge Blake relied extensively on the testimony of such anti-gun stalwarts as Prof. Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Christoper Koper of George Mason University, the Violence Policy Center, and Lucy Allen of NERA. She even accepted as valid a database maintained by Mother Jones Magazine. She refused the plaintiffs' motion to exclude their testimony as flawed.

Judge Blake clearly indicates by her footnote on page 24 that she does not understand the difference between a M-16 and an AR-15. Indeed, she considers the AR-15 to be more dangerous.
The Supreme Court indicated in Heller I that M-16 rifles could be banned as dangerous and unusual. 554 U.S. at 627. Given that assault rifles like the AR-15 are essentially the functional equivalent of M-16s—and arguably more effective—the same reasoning would seem to apply here.
Applying intermediate scrutiny to the case, Judge Blake concludes:
In summary, the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, which represents the considered judgment of this State’s legislature and its governor, seeks to address a serious risk of harm to law enforcement officers and the public from the greater power to injure and kill presented by assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The Act substantially serves the government’s interest in protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of “law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Accordingly, the law is constitutional and will be upheld.
In looking at this ruling, it is time to call a spade a spade. This is a bullshit ruling by an extremely biased, anti-gun judge. It should and must be appealed.

Monday, August 11, 2014

A Sheriff That Gets It

This is a story that we discussed on The Polite Society Podcast a few days ago. It involves Harnett County, NC Sheriff Larry Rollins (R) who is forthright in his advice to residents to arm themselves.

For those not familiar with North Carolina geography, Harnett County is located between Wake and Cumberland Counties or, in other words, Raleigh and Fayetteville. Its two "major" towns are Lillington (the county seat) and Dunn. I put major in quotes because the population of both of these towns is less than 10,000 residents. The county is undergoing a growth spurt due to its location along Interstate 95 and its proximity to Raleigh and Fayetteville. Along with the growth has come crime.

Last Monday, residents held a community meeting at the Spring Hill United Methodist Church to discuss the rising crime in the western part of the county. Among the speakers was Sheriff Rollins who blamed the rise of crime on drugs and gangs. Sheriff Rollins was also blunt about what he thought residents should do - arm themselves.

"When I am out with my family, even though I am a cop, I don't go anywhere without a gun," Rollins told the crowd. "I mean it's sad we have to have that attitude, but I am going to protect myself and my family. I want my deputies at your house just as fast as they can when you got a problem, but you better be able to take care of business until we get there if you have to protect your family."
Sheriff Rollins gets it - the real first responders are you and me and not his deputies as good as they may be.

Who In The VA Has The Vets' Back?

I brought my Honda in for service this morning. The car in line ahead of me had the following bumper sticker which I understand is given to donors to the Democratic National Committee.

The car was driven by a middle-aged woman who also had a VA employee parking decal for the Charles George VA Medical Center in Asheville.

As long-time readers may know, my father was a career US Army non-com. When he was medically retired in 1972, he depended upon the VA health care system for his medical care. From what I remember, he received good care from VA hospitals in both North Carolina and Maine. I don't remember him ever speaking of having to wait to receive care.

Looking at the most current VA wait time statistics for the Charles George VA Medical Center, one sees some significant wait times especially for new patients. It takes over 31 days for a new patient to see a primary care physician/FNP/PA, 43.57 days to see a specialist, and almost 32 days to see a mental health professional. The stats are better for existing patients in that they average a week or less across the board. It could be worse as the wait times at the VA medical centers in both Durham and Fayetteville are significantly longer.

After looking at these numbers, I still am moved to ask - who has the vet's back?

Friday, August 8, 2014

Headline Of The Day

The Washington Post had a fawning story on Ernst Mauch and his Armatrix iP1 on Wednesday. Pretty much it said if it wasn't for those damn Second Amendment types we'd have "safer" (sic) guns.

In his post about this story, Mike Vanderboegh. never one to mince words, had this wonderful headline:

From the land of great ideas and engineering (You know, the folks who brought us Zyklon B). When some German starts talking about how Americans "must" do something, I get nervous.
To refresh your memory, Zyklon B. was a cyanide-based pesticide developed by German chemical conglomerate IG Farben in the 1920s. It was used with ruthless efficiency in the 1940s to kill about 1.2 million "enemies of the Reich" at  the Auschwitz and Majdanek death camps.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Help Stop New Jersey's War On Women

When a prosecutor seeks a minimum five year sentence on an otherwise law-abiding mother who makes an innocent mistake yet allows a NFL star who brutally knocked his then fiance' unconscious off with deferred prosecution, that is a war on women.

And it disgusts me and many others.

I spoke with Frank Fiamingo of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society yesterday and he is equally disgusted. He, however, has a plan to start bringing pressure to bear on the politicians who are responsible. As Frank said last night, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) is responsible for what happens to Shaneen Allen and he needs to hear from you. Given his presidential aspirations, it doesn't matter a bit if you don't live in the Garden State.

Details of the NJ2AS plan is below along with contact information for the politicians involved.

The New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS) is launching a Nationwide effort to save Ms. Allen from a minimum 5-year prison sentence - NOT for committing a crime with a gun, but merely for crossing the border from Pennsylvania into New Jersey with her legally owned gun. She mistakenly thought her PA carry permit was valid in NJ (as it SHOULD be). She made a mistake. She didn't commit a "gun crime".

We are contacting Americans all across the country, as well as Second Amendment and Liberty oriented groups and asking them to contact the following individuals to express their objection to her mistreatment:

James P. McLain
Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office
4997 Unami Boulevard
Mays Landing, New Jersey 08330
(609) 909-7800

Governor Christopher Christie
Office of the Governor
PO Box 001
Trenton, NJ 08625

New Jersey Attorney General
John Hoffman
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
25 Market Street
P.O. Box 080
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-8740

You may also send email to:

This is extremely URGENT! This young mother is being railroaded into prison by an ambitious prosecutor without a conscience.

Here is your chance to help a young mother and save her family from a grave injustice. PLEASE HELP!

For more information:
Please make the calls and emails. One reminder - be polite.

Something To Start Your Day With A Smile

I got this yesterday from Brandon Combs of the Firearms Policy Coalition. You can use it any time you are listening to the news or reading a news release from the gun prohibitionists.  I know I heard at least one or two of these watching the 11 pm news last night when WLOS was describing the raffle being held by the local Tea Party organization.

Share it with your friends and make up your own prizes.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Gun Rights Amendment Passes In Missouri

Amendment Five which would make the right to keep and bear arms "unalienable" in the state of Missouri was adopted by a two to one margin yesterday. It was one of a handful of constitutional amendments on the ballot in Missouri during yesterday's primary election. Other amendments considered dealt with a transportation tax, a guaranteed right to farming, electronic privacy, and a veterans lottery ticket to fund veterans' services.

Amendment Five which will become Section 23, Article I of the Missouri Constitution does a number of things. First, it extended the right to keep and bear arms to include ammunition and accessories. Second, and in my opinion the most important part of this amendment, it subjects any restriction on the right to keep and bear arms to strict scrutiny. Third, it obligates the government of the state of Missouri to uphold these rights and not to decline to protect them from infringement. Finally, it makes clear that this amendment does not prevent the legislature from restricting the rights of convicted violent felons and those adjudicated mentally ill.

Amendment Five also removed that portion of the previous Section 23 that said the right to keep and bear arms "shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

If one listened to the opponents of Amendment Five, it was going to lead to blood in the streets and a bankrupt government. Particularly amusing were the cost figures submitted by former state budget official Mark Reading whose work was funded by Everytown for Gun Safety.
Reading projected the proposal could cost state and local governments $244 million, including $115 million for additional security at state-owned buildings and $54 million for school police officers to protect people from an assumed increase in gun violence. He also projected a $71 million loss in state and local tax revenues if tourists boycott Missouri because of its pro-gun constitution.
These numbers were rightly deemed "ridiculous" by Deputy State Auditor Harry Otto. I just don't imagine a lot of residents of the Bay Area or New York City are traveling to St. Louis to see the Arch and partake in riverboat gambling.

The final vote in favor of Amendment Five was 602,076 (61%) with 385,422 (31%) opposed.

Monday, August 4, 2014

Some Good Advice For Women Who Carry

Let's face it - men have it easier when it comes to concealed carry. Our clothing is usually made of heavier fabrics which print less, we can wear sturdier belts even when "dressed up", and our shoes rarely (never) have 3 inch or higher heels. Women, by contrast, have it harder especially when it comes to on-body carry which is the preferred way to do it.

That's why I found this tips and tricks video from the NRA so good. It addresses the difficulties that women have with on-body carry and suggests some good solutions. Tatiana Whitlock makes a lot of sensible suggestions with regard to practice. I don't have to think about shooting in heels in a confrontation but some women might.