« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Guns and Civility in the United States

By: kowalski (Diary)  |  March 18th, 2012 at 03:55 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Hello everyone. 

I mean this post as a little bit of a poll and also because I’m willing to take a personal risk if enough people think it’s important that I do so.

I’d like to talk in a future post about my experiences owning guns in America, beginning with my early experiences shooting BB guns and pellet guns, my later experiences on a high school rifle team, traveling through my ‘interregnum’ as a Teenage Moonbat, and my current experiences as a licensed gun owner in Massachusetts. 

I think it’s an important issue, and it’s one that’s crucial to me when I consider our choices in the upcoming election.  If there’s enough support for it here, I’d like to write a comprehensive piece describing my experiences throughout my (mostly adult) life. 

Obviously, I disagree with Eric Holder and presumably the President – I think it’s crucially important that responsible citizens have the right to own firearms of virtually any type or kind; I also think people should have their concealed carry permits recognized everywhere in the country.  Here on Redstate there have only been a couple of reliable 2nd Amendment supporters, though  - I’d like to add my voice to theirs.  My hard-earned belief is that people who are responsible firearm owners are the least of our worries in this society. 

Do you think I should?  I’m willing to do so, but before I write the whole thing I’d like to ask if there’s any real interest in it here.  I can encapsulate my views very simply:  “The responsible people I’ve known who own guns in our country are the people we really want to encourage.”  Just the opposite of the “brainwashing” Eric Holder is talking about. 

For many years I had personally wrestled with the concept of owning firearms again but I can say that after I decided to purchase my handguns I never slept better.   In the past two and a half years I’ve not only slept with one of my guns (a Ruger SR9) under my pillow on a few rare occasions, I’ve also carried a Smith and Wesson 4040PD Airlite in my car and on my person hundreds of times – walking down the street, going to the grocery store and the gas station, walking the dogs at night, etc., etc.  Completely concealed.  These guns (and others) are kept where I can get to them safely every single day, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Knowing you have the ability to protect yourself and your family is enormously beneficial to your state of mind.  Everyone should be able to.   Liberals too, if they so choose.  I believe as much in their 2nd Amendment rights as I do in their 1st Amendment rights. 

By the way it will come as no surprise to anyone who has access to the NICS database that I own the firearms I do.  I was fingerprinted when I bought each of them.  I was instantly checked by the FBI at the moment of purchase, with my fingerprint and Social Security number as well as the model of gun(s) and the purchase price, time, date and location of purchase and a few other things.  Some people mind that, I haven’t:  I bought them from reputable dealers and I’m quite proud to own them and use, shoot and carry them.   

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Viet71

    Now am an NRA life member, although I don’t hunt, because I love animals.

    Right with you, K.

    • kowalski

      We rescue dogs and cats as a matter of fact. I try to escort mice out of my building and recently found one who had decided to make a burrow in one of the fan ducts of one of my Xerox machines and I captured the little bugger and set him outside. I would kill an animal to eat one if I had to. I know how to do it and I wouldn’t worry about it if I did. I’m not a hypocrite. I fish as well.

      But owning the guns and knowing how to shoot them well (early on) was one of the best experiences of my life – and frankly it’s been a matter of slurs and disparagement and basically prejudice that I had to deal with when I bought my pistols.

      It was one of those: “My God, what have I done to myself?” moments when I went to buy my first pistol. I realized I had completely propagandized myself.

      • Viet71

        You prove them wrong.

      • Flagstaff

        My wife and I both carry, as do some of our friends. Not anything big in our case, but enough for self defense.

        In AZ, open carry without a permit has always been allowed, but you seldom see it. Concealed carry is now also allowed without a permit or even training, but to get reciprocal treatment in other states you still have to have the permit, which requires the training.

        There is no registration of firearms required. And it shouldn’t be.

    • Dave_A

      I can relate…

      In my case, after the last tour, it was waking up every so often and wondering ‘Where is it’ – referring of course to my issue rifle, that was turned in when I got home…

      This time, we’ll see… My personal M4 sits on my dresser, not because I think I’ll need it – but so that if/when I wake up wondering where the Army’s rifle is like last time (I’ve been back for a week now, and so far so good), I’ll see mine, roll over & go back to sleep…

      • Viet71

        Maybe not. Dreams are highly personal. I keep my weapons close at hand at night but not on the nightstand as in the Nam. Night is my friend. Levels the playing ground. Love to dream. Thanks much for your comment.

  • stricia

    I’m surprised you only have a couple of supporters here when you wrote that “Redstate there have only been a couple of reliable 2nd Amendment supporters”

    I know that I am new to posting here (long-time reader). However, it seems like there would be at least a sub-group or something here at Redstate that agrees with you (as do I).

    p.s. Do you find it annoying to have your online moniker used like it is here at RS? Just wondering.

    • acat

      I do not currently own a firearm and have no plans to purchase one .. the weapons I was born with have been sufficient thus far.

      If my circumstances change, I want the option to acquire and carry one, concealed, if I so choose. I will, at that point, surrender a paw print and obtain a FOID card, and start discussing the merits of various manufacturers with my friends who do own firearms.

      I am a supporter, albeit perhaps quietly, of the 2nd amendment, and would like to hear more about your experiences.

      Mew

      • kowalski

        I learned about gun ownership from one of the best people in the world – my former rifle team coach in New Jersey.

        Not to spoil the final piece too much but we were the only gender-integrated varsity sports team at our high school, with more than 20 kids each year divided into two teams, and we shot several times a week in a rigorously safe and mutually-supportive environment at range, in of all places – NEW JERSEY. We were State Champions several years in a row and National Postal Match Champions in my Junior year. Men, women, boys and girls alike and the worse injury we had in my three years on the team was a sprained ankle when we decided to try out three position shooting.

        To this day they’re some of the best people in the world I’ve ever met – and their final professions as “adults” range from Vice Presidents at — *really* major banks — to engineers/intellectuals at big companies in New Jersey to the guys who replace *expensive* boat engines and work on major sports car teams, and a lot more. A couple of lawyers, too. High-earning real-estate agents, people who are involved in video production for big companies, even a couple of *models*. That was what the shooting sports did for our group of people in high school. Great people and we had wonderful times together.

        I lived in Chicago for a long time and when I moved to MA to my current home town I realized how much of a snot-nosed jerkoff I had been for the previous 10 years. It was a short, sharp shock. “What was I thinking?” All those people had been my friends and they were some of the best people I’d ever known!

    • kowalski

      Using my real last name was something I couldn’t avoid when it was adopted as a bit of a joke that just kept going until it became a permanence. My last name was enshrined as a permanent fixture here at Redstate several years ago and I completely support everyone using it under the terms I’ve described, which are basically to more fully flesh out comments you would have made, or to provide a different point of view than you would have originally, but not trivially. By God never trivially and as long as it’s an important contribution, it’s fine by me: Kowalski away.

      Besides, there’s no stopping that kind of thing anyway, and it’s a badge of honor.

      Most people here understand it very well and I’m proud to have my name used here by all my friends.

      • kowalski

        People think asynchronously and a lot of the time they don’t find their best words until after they’ve posted their original thought. Things they hadn’t thought of at first come back to them, etc., etc. Unfortunately the “POST” button is forever and Redstate doesn’t allow revisions on most comments. So I decided there is a space for saying: “Well, wait, I would have also added this.”

        We don’t want duplications – the purpose is to allow for the relatively normal thought process of actual people when they actually write things, as long as it doesn’t get out of hand.

        • Don T.

          Kowalski, I would love to hear your thoughts, as a fellow gun owner. I grew up around guns with my dad, who was a certified gun nut, got my first .22 rifle at 15, was captain of my high school rifle team, then at West Point, four years on the pistol team, followed by 20 years as an Army infantry officer, where I got to shoot most of the Army’s small arms. I own a couple .45 autos, three rifles, a couple of assorted other pistols, plus a .357 Taurus snubnose I keep tucked away in my car. I haven’t gotten around to getting a carry permit, but that is on my to do list. I would enjoy hearing about your experiences in Massachusetts, I’m sure quite different from gun ownership in Georgia.

          • kowalski

            The big difference in Massachusetts is the long and convoluted (and expensive) process people go through to receive their licenses. There is a multi-tiered licensing system in MA for long guns (FIC Card) and handguns + long guns (License To Carry Class B and/or Class A.)

            Receiving a Class A Unrestricted LTC is a fairly difficult thing to do and it takes a long time and comprehensive State and Federal background checks. Of course, every time you purchase a firearm you are also NICS checked. People who have *ever* been convicted of a misdemeanor that *might* have resulted in a 2 year jail term (even if they only got 90 days probation in the end) are forbidden from owning a firearm – forever. Don’t bother thinking about owning a gun if you’ve ever had an outstanding domestic abuse warrant. Got drunk one night ten years ago and got a DWI? You’re probably not going to get an LTC, either.

            Moreover the complication is compounded because it is not the State that finally issues the license – it is the local Chief of Police, and in many jurisdictions here the Chiefs of Police simply refuse to issue the license to anyone — and they do not have to explain why.

            Massachusetts is a very good place for an Equal Protection argument but so far nobody has done so. In reality here, even after you take the courses and get the certification and spend the money and the time, your final license status is in complete limbo.

            The courses are expensive and we don’t have as many instructors as we need. In fact, in MA it’s a good growth industry if you qualify to be an instructor.

            I shot .22 LR for several years in New Jersey in organized competition (Winchester and ANSCH?TZ rifles) and the record is basically above, we were State Champs several years in a row and National Postal Match champions one year. I was the Captain of the team in my Junior year and was State Champion in 3-position shooting.

            I never thought about owning a gun for more than 12 years after that (so much for the “gateway drug gun theory”) while attending very liberal universities, and when I moved back here I decided to get my license and was astonished by how much difficulty and expense there was involved in doing so. Really amazing. Much worse than I had imagined and I couldn’t understand why, given the people I was meeting.

            Most of it is political, of course, and it has very little to do with rationality or numbers or actual results in terms of fighting crime. In fact in most cases just the opposite since 1998 (see the second link in my signature line).

          • kowalski

            Is the only license that allows you to carry a loaded gun when you are not on your own property. All the other restrictions still apply, but without a Class A LTC UR you cannot leave your home/house legally with a loaded gun. If you do, it’s a felony, and you will never own a gun legally again in the Commonwealth.

          • tcgeol

            We have had a couple RKBA discussions in the past, although I haven’t been around much recently. From some comments recently here on Redstate, apparently there are a number of people who believe that our right to keep and bear arms is something we do not currently need to worry about – that mindset will let us lose it faster than anything else.

            Anything that will help raise consciousness of the issue would be wonderful.

          • Mr. Sandman

            I’m not a gun enthusiast, per se, but I know that Indiana doesn’t make you jump through so many flaming hoops to get any firearm permit. To my knowledge, there’s no licensing restrictions in my state for rifles…at least I hope not or I’m in big heap trouble. Thanks for the insight, I’d still like to see you write a post about it though.

          • Don T.

            And I guess, I’m appalled at all that. I suppose I could say, I’m happy to be living in GA, where it is not near as difficult to get a CCP. Getting a weapon is simple, as long as you pass the instant check when you go thru the BATFE/NICS federal purchase process. Still investigating, but there is really only one GA CCP license for civilians, and you either qualify for it or you don’t. Basically, the Georgia Weapons Carry License is a requirement for concealed carry of handguns; carrying long guns (open and unloaded) does not require it, as the law reads now. The big no gos are, convicted of a felony, or any drug convictions, or have any past convictions over weapons. But the law does allow me to carry a loaded weapon in the car, CCP or not, because GA law considers your car to be an extension of your home. Same thing, if you own your own business.

            I’m looking forward to reading your extended article. I need to get going on my own CCP process here, to compare notes with you.

    • Dave_A

      Especially since it’s the one part of the conservative agenda that has seen an almost unstoppable advance in the past few years….

  • westcoastpatriette

    Wasn’t raised in a family that owned firearms so it took me a while to understand why fighting against those who want to see us disarmed was a huge on-going political battle in America. Now that I am less naive about the topic, I am considering arming myself. Things are becoming more and more precarious and perilous as we look down the road to the future and there just may come a point where we can no longer rely upon local authorities to protect us from the worst of the worst. So, yes, write it. I will read it and learn some more.

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      and a member of GOA. In fact, my husband and I own several guns, not all of which are handguns.

      When my husband and I were dating, he bought my first gun (a .38) for me after a couple of women were attacked while walking to and from their cars and work in downtown Nashville. I felt much safer walking those several blocks to and from my car and work with a gun in my pocket. I’ve carried one in my car ever since. And when my husband goes out of town, I sleep pretty soundly with a gun on my nightstand.

      By the way, our local tea party has started meeting at a local firearms dealer (Hoover Tactical Firearms). They have a ladies night as well as birthday parties. (HTF)

      • kowalski

        Through the action of a concerned intimate and it’s almost always because those people really care very deeply about you and want you to be able to protect yourself, because they love you a lot.

        :)

        I’ll talk more about the “sleeping well” thing in my later post but I understand what you said implicitly and it’s valid. Knowing you’re secure in your home, in your bed and that you can defend yourself if you have to is a great thing to have on your side. I had to deal with a couple of people we were evicting who were in Superior Court on an Attempted Murder charge. In the middle of winter. In a relatively rural area.

        It’s not just imagining that you feel that way, it’s a tangible and incontrovertible reality, and having been there and back I, like I said, I wouldn’t have it any other way. Like anything else, along with it comes the responsibility to handle it well, just like getting in a car and driving your children to school does. When you teach people the rules you want them to be as safe as possible and to be in full command of what they’re doing. It’s a very positive thing in my view.

        • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

          I grew up in a rural area of middle Tennessee, the middle child of 3 girls. My dad liked to fox hunt and coon hunt, which meant he was out late at night when he went. We kept a loaded shotgun on the shelf of a bookcase at the other end of our house from the back door. He took it down periodically and showed us how to shoot it with the advice that if anyone was ever at the door and wouldn’t identify themselves, to yell that we had called the Sheriff and that we were getting ready to blow a hole through the door. I suppose he wanted to give them a chance, but he admonished us that if we ever picked up that shotgun and pointed it, we’d better be ready to use it.

          I’ve never had occasion to come close to using my gun, but I used to travel alone quite frequently between Atlanta and middle Tennessee. On one occasion, I hit a long stretch between gas stations thinking I had enough gas in the tank to get to the next one, but I ran out. This was before cell phones, and it was late at night. When a man stopped to help, I had no choice but to get in his car and head to the gas station, but I had my gun in my purse, pointed at him the entire time. He never knew it, and once we had bought the container, the gas and headed back to my car, I had relaxed a little and realized he was indeed a Good Samaritan. However, that could have been a situation gone bad very quickly.

    • kowalski

      Have a look at this from 2006. It’s just a small part of the story. Owning a gun responsibly is nothing to be ashamed of – at all. If you choose to do it, there are of course things you need to consider because it’s a serious responsibility, but it’s something every adult in this country can handle.

      http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2006/marapr/features/froman.html

      • westcoastpatriette

        That was a fantastic piece. Had no idea a woman was the head of the NRA. Love it.

        • funwithknives

          written by a friend of mine named Barb Goushaw in ‘Liberty’ magazine(Port Townsend, Wa.) in the mid-90′s.
          Title? : “Guns Are a Girl’s Best Friend”. Cheers!

          • westcoastpatriette

            I’ll check it out. This could get fun.

    • kowalski

      Regardless of where you live, if you decide to go through with the process of purchasing a firearm for self-defense, I can recommend a few things.

      First of all — practice! Buy the gun, practice the manual of arms of the firearm, and understand it completely. Think carefully about what you purchased it for and how you intend to use it, and don’t scrimp on the actual “TLC” time with the firearm.

      Second (this is really equivalent to First), get some extra reading under your belt, particularly where the use of lethal force is concerned. I recommend everyone read Massad Ayoob’s “In The Gravest Extreme” which you can see exerpts from on YouTube, not really a substitute for reading the book:

      http://www.amazon.com/Gravest-Extreme-Firearm-Personal-Protection/dp/0936279001

      But you can watch some of the videos on YouTube and Ayoob is doing a good thing by allowing them to stay there:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW_xaTf5oqI

      There are good firearm training courses available from Gunsite.com, Frontsight.com, and probably others who are more local to your area. Don’t cheap out on them.

      Expect to spend $750-$1000 in total, and expect to think differently about what exactly you are doing. It’s not a trivial matter. The first time you pick one up you’ll know it’s not.

      My favorite Internet gun reviewers are (not in any particular order): Jeff Quinn from Gunblast.com (well OK I put him first because I think he’s awesome) then TNOutdoors9, Hickok45 and Nutnfancy and the Nutnfancy Project on YouTube, and Gunreports.com. Of course the American Rifleman and all my local influences have a say as well.

      Spend some time looking those over and thinking carefully and I know you’ll be just fine, WCP. If you’d like any specific advice, I’m no expert, but I know a little and you can feel free to ask.

      • westcoastpatriette

        We shall see.

    • norris

      The fact that any old,small or meek person may be armed makes us all safer;

  • 10ab

    But I sleep a lot better knowing there are gun laws.

    • civil truth

      …until they were mugged by reality. Hopefully yours will not come at the end of a muzzle. Not much more I would say; the arguments haven’t changed.

    • Don T.

      reasonable gun laws. But what is “reasonable”, there is the rub, right? Yes, there are plenty of gun laws. It gets stupid, when the laws get so restrictive as to deter the average citizen from getting a gun to protect themselves. I am prejudiced in thinking that my state has it about right. I guess I’m numbed about the BATFE/NICS federal gun purchase check, but it’s not overly burdensome to me.

      I always liked this Robert Heinlein quote: “An armed society is a polite society.”

    • funwithknives

      if gun laws are such a panacea why so much abuse of the laws we have? Basically they are weakly enforced and often violations are plea-bargained away.

      But by all means, put this advisory in your front yard: “There Are No Guns,At This House”
      Maybe one of your law abiding neighbors will give you a hand…..when the non-law-observant come a-callin’.

      I sleep better knowing Michigan has castle doctrine and I reload each night & unload in the morning. The law according to ME.

    • kowalski

      What I mind are gun laws that don’t respect people’s intrinsic intelligence, their right to protect themselves, their right to defend themselves, and their right to use machines that are frankly less dangerous than the ones they often use in their jobs.

      A forklift is a more dangerous machine than handgun in a lot of cases. Used the wrong way, a forklift is a hugely dangerous machine. So is a blowtorch and a propane tank. An automobile under a person’s control is a horrendously dangerous weapon if it is used the wrong way and for most of us, driving down the highway, that decision is about 1/10th of a second away. So is a razor knife, a staple gun, and 100 feet of duct tape.

      The scenarios under which we describe people to be incipient criminals are stupid. In my experience people who have access and understanding and who are educated and instructed are the people we want in our society.

      Every day outside my door a few trucks drive by with contractors who are wielding crowbars, sledgehammers, chainsaws, jackhammers, propane tanks, nail guns, circular saws, high-powered pneumatic tools, a whole case full of nails and projectiles of various lengths (with the means to project them). Compare the energy of a gallon of gasoline with a stick of dynamite and you realize that all across the country people are driving around with hundreds of megajoules of energy in their gas tanks, parking at the local Chuck E. Cheese.

      It’s the propaganda, man. The propaganda works.

      • kowalski

        We let people operate cranes with hundred thousand pound (and more) loads attached to them. We give people access to high voltage electricity panels – in their own homes! We sell them generators that can supply not just electricity but are fueled by – gasp! Gasoline! Walk into a Home Depot and look at all the things that are not Safe according to Kindergarten Thinking. Then go to a farm somewhere (even a local, organic farm) and watch them drive a tractor around, or lay some irrigation pipes.

        The whole world we live in is dangerous – every single aspect of it. From the time you achieve the consciousness required to move around in it to the day you die, you’ll be surrounded with things that can punch your clock permanently.

        Ride a motorcycle once! Put your girlfriend on the back of a motorcycle and ride around with her one night and realize that if you were to hit something, or a bearing was to sieze or there was something in the road you didn’t see, you’d be scraping your entire bodies off the curb or prying them off a tree.

        We allow people to do these things because we don’t treat them like children, at least not yet. We have a basic respect for their intelligence and ability to understand danger and right vs. wrong. It’s a simple, basic level of understanding and it works very well among the millions of gun owners in this country every single day.

        • kowalski

          A few days ago I moved a Pitney Bowes Series 7 Inserting machine with 4 stations off the back of a Budget rental 16 foot truck. It weighs approximately 4,500 pounds. Two people and a come-along, and an aluminum ramp, three feet off the ground. If that machine had “gotten away” from us it would have flattened us instantly.

          It was a FAR MORE dangerous thing to do than my owning a firearm, by a couple of orders of magnitude.

          You should have seen it – we’re pushing the machine between two trucks on a thin aluminum ramp that we undergirded to support it, on a 10 degree incline, with a winch. If the winch had broken, an anchor had snapped off, or the comealong had come apart, there was nothing in the world that would have stopped that machine from falling backward along the incline and completely pulverizing whatever was in its path.

          I went back inside after the job was done, wiped the sweat off my brow and thought: “Jesus, this SR9 pistol is the safest thing I own right now.”

          People do this stuff every day and there’s absolutely no problem with it. Grow up.

          • kowalski

            I moved one of them a few days ago with my father and my brother.

            http://www.alliedmailingsolutions.com/EQ-200105-B_PB_7-Series.htm

            It’s a huge machine and it’s a dangerous machine to move. Don’t be afraid of the dark.

      • Don T.

        I could not agree with you more. Another way to look at it is, a gun is a tool. I look at my handgun that I keep in my house for self defense, and I consider it a household need, just like I consider a fire extinguisher, or a smoke alarm, or a basic set of wrenches and screw drivers. I carry a firearm in my car, as a part of my basic set of car supplies, along with the jack, the warning triangle, and the jumper cables.

        I consider a firearm to be essential to defending myself or my loved ones, in a dire emergency that I hope will never happen.

        • kowalski

          A good enough reason is: “I’d just like to learn how to shoot and then make up my mind about whether to own a gun in the fullness of time.”

          That’s what I did. Nobody in my immediate family owned a firearm.

          However, I was supposed to recieve a couple of dozen of them from my maternal Grandfather’s estate and they were basically stolen from me. There is a member of my family who knows where they went, but we have never been able to prove culpability. It was a relatively large collection, which was liquidated and the proceeds were pocketed.

          Super-ultra-liberal, former State Department employee, and a big Bill Maher fan. They know who they are.

          • kowalski

            Who have historic firearm collections: do not leave any part of the status of those firearms, either in terms of their physical location or their status in your Will and Testament, to chance. Make absolutely sure that your Will is carried out precisely according to your wishes and do not take chances with your firearms.

            Family members are not reliable.

            Third parties are better.

            Words to the wise.

          • acat

            Family members, especially during a time of hardship, can “decide that they know better”… seen it happen.

            Mew

          • Don T.

            Shooting is certainly a lot of fun, and also necessary to maintain proficiency. Some play golf. I go shoot on the weekends!

  • David Carter

    You’ve expressed many of my sentiments.

    I’m beginning to consider gun ownership a responsibility as I learn more of the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad and the expansion of communists such that Bill Ayers becomes more prevalent.

  • Jensington7

    Manners are good and crime is low when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

    • acat

      ‘s possibly my favorite Heinlein quote.

      Mew

      • Jensington7

        I don’t really know who he is, but he must have had a good head on his shoulders.

        • acat

          Former Navy officer, credited with inventing the waterbed, and a rather quotable writer.

          Mew

  • aesthete

    I hope you don’t mind, but have you seen Eric Holder’s latest? Apparently, he thinks it’s his duty to… well, see here.

    Breitbart.com has uncovered video from 1995 of then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder announcing a public campaign to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

    Holder was addressing the Woman’s National Democratic Club. In his remarks, broadcast by CSPAN 2, he explained that he intended to use anti-smoking campaigns as his model to “change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC” about guns.

    “What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.”

    From the United States’ Attorney General, a statement that it’s “not acceptable” to engage in one’s fundamental rights as an American, and that we need to “brainwash” people into right-thinking. Without hyperbole, this is the mindset of a tyrant.

    • kowalski

      I knew it as well, and I didn’t need to see the video, I lived the video, much to my shame.

      But yes, the video was one of the things that prompted the post. See the fifth paragraph after the “Hello everyone.” :)

      • kowalski

        And say that I have the feeling Eric Holder is talking about the problems for law enforcement in large metropolitan areas. The problem is that “brainwashing” people doesn’t work when they have all kinds of information technology available to them at their fingertips and no good guidance and role models available to them, and there’s no amount of “brainwashing” that’s going to change that. What you need are role models and — honestly — more father figures around for these young men (and increasingly women).

        But paternalism if forbidden among the Liberals so you need “brainwashing” and “programs.”

        • kowalski

          We had a wise and wonderful and very forthright male Coach, and most of the people on the Team were from 2-parent families that weren’t fissile.

          I’ve often thought that what you really want to provide some of these kids is an chance at organized competition where they can be part of a responsible team. Unfortunately that too is such a radical sounding idea to most people who live in large cities that it’s almost unspeakable.

          But I can tell you that every year we had a couple of kids on the team who were looking for structure, who wanted to be part of a team environment, who had perhaps been around guns at home or thought about them on their own and wanted to do the right thing and do it safely. Why more high schools don’t have organized shooting sports competition is kind of silly to me, given my experiences.

          Our coach, by the way, was an Industrial Arts/Shop teacher at the school and he held several national shooting competition records. It’s hard to describe his presence in a short blog post, but I can say that he had that kind of super-deep preternatural calmness about him that would have made him a good astronaut candidate during the early days of the Space program. If I was into labeling people with colors he’d be a deep, supremely calm blue-green. Just an extremely levelheaded, deeply thoughtful and decisive but fair person and the perfect coach for a rifle team in high school. Raised his voice I think twice in my entire time on the team. Otherwise he didn’t have to, he just commanded respect from everyone. What you need in a lot of cases are more people like that in high school to help some of these kids out before they get ground up and sent away or do horrible things to themselves and others.

          • kowalski

            “OK the plan is to bring guns INTO the schools, so that kids have a chance to compete in structured, organized competition.”

            Needless to say there probably isn’t a big-city Mayor in this country who has the cognitive flexibility to understand why that could actually be a very good idea.

          • kowalski

            If you look at the gang violence in places like Chicago this past weekend, the first thing you realize is that you have a few dozen people committing all the horrible crimes in a city of millions.

            The problem is how to identify those few dozen people in a city with dozens of high schools before they fall off the plank/through the cracks/drop out and become members of the Maniac Latin Disciples. My sincere belief is that it wouldn’t be anywhere near as difficult if you had a few organized shooting sports teams in the schools. And it’s not that expensive.

            If it doesn’t work, you can always say you tried. I’m willing to bet it would have a very positive effect, though.

            Again, impossible to say in a city like Chicago and be taken seriously, and that’s part of the ongoing problem.

          • hobarticus

            One of the shootings you mention took place about 3 blocks from my apartment, though thankfully I was out of town. Brings to mind the phrase “when guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns.”

            Being a conservative Chicagoan I get in arguments with liberals about gun control fairly often. The logic in the argument, “guns are involved in lots of crimes, therefore outlawing guns will reduce crime” is so easy to take apart that I’ve converted at least a few of them to the pro-2nd Amendment side. Shame none of them are in positions of power.

          • kowalski

            I lived there for 7+ years and in terms of the *City* itself, the places to go, the people to see, the culture, the opportunities, and all the other things that came along with that I enjoyed it immensely.

            I was deeply personally offended by its ridiculous bans on personal ownership of weapons. I had friends in the suburbs and wanted to shoot with them, I wanted to own my own handgun there for self-protection and it was such a crazy and banana-split process that I couldn’t believe it!

            I worked for a law school for Pete’s sake! The same law school the Mayor graduated from. I spent every day living around intellectuals and helping them perform their tasks. I was an absolutely zero-problem person while I lived there, but to own a handgun for personal protection was completely out of the question. I made money for the City, I helped make money for the law school I used to work for, I supported the City in every way I could think of and left a lot of money behind there. And yet I was a second-class person in terms of my 2nd Amendment rights.

            It’s stupid and it’s crazy. And it’s one of the (purely political) reasons why Chicago has the problems it does.

          • kowalski

            That the Dean of Students at the law school I used to work for was a former Police Officer who owned a shotgun herself in the suburbs, and probably other firearms. Yes, a female Dean with a shotgun and other weapons. I never crossed her, believe me. :)

            But it was ridiculous that there wasn’t a place or a method or a way I could find to comport myself in a really nice area of the City and still exercise my 2nd Amendment rights in a way that weren’t so unbelievably prohibitive it was silly. I only realized that in the latter couple of years I lived there.

            Are they really afraid of people getting gun licenses? Are they really afraid of people owning pistols in their homes and getting concealed carry permits? I absolutely don’t understand why. If you’ve ever been on the El late at night you’d love to have a CCW permit and be armed. And you should be able to without jumping through all kinds of hooooooooops and being one of the 10 people who are celebrities who can own one.

            They are not better people than you are.

          • norris

            Many more children are killed by swimming pools than guns.Let’s ban all private ownership of swimming pools ,for the children.

          • kowalski

            And I’ve lived in several of them. I rode the el almost every day. I worked in several of the most important places in the City. North, south, east and west sides. I’ve ridden the El from Hyde Park at midnight and beyond. I lived in Boystown and Lakeview and other places, from Addison and Belmont to Wolcott and other places. I’ve eaten in the best restaurants downtown, shopped along the Magnificent Mile, and spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in Chicago.

            I’ve known everyone from theatre producers and I’ve been to a couple of dozen theatre productions there, including “Too Much Light Makes the Baby Go Blind.” I was there when Blue Man Group *got* to Chicago. I’ve shopped at The Alley, I’ve had my hair cut at Milio’s. I’ve been to Exit Chicago on many occasions for the smell of the piss and the beer. I’ve been with my parents to Navy Pier, and I’ve hand-delivered paperwork to Robert Clifford’s offices in the Sears Tower.

            There are very few places I haven’t been in Chicago. I’ve jogged down Lake Shore Drive and I even crashed a motorcycle there and survived it thanks to the great work of the doctors at Illinois Masonic Medical Center. I worked for them, too!

            And I remain astounded that after all that, after everything I was in that City, the idea of my owning a firearm for personal protection was something I couldn’t even realistically countenance. They need to rethink what they’re doing.

          • kowalski

            I’ve been to all the biggest schools there, in a professional capacity. I’ve eaten in the suburbs at one of the coolest vegetarian restaurants in the city, having breakfast visting law professor from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

            http://www.blindfaithcafe.com/

            I was never a threat to anyone and owning a firearm for my own self defense wouldn’t have ever changed that. What *did* help to change my decision about staying there was that the City had arrogated to itself the power to say that I wasn’t good enough to own one. That offended me deeply, more deeply than anything I’d ever seen while I was there, and believe me I’d seen a lot.

          • kowalski

            I will say that I have no particular beef (badump bump) with the Blind Faith Caf? , where the food is really excellent, even in its own limited definition, and even if you’re a part-time carnivore gun owner like myself. You won’t go wrong there if you want to have a good meal, and there are a lot more expensive places you could have breakfast. Just keep the gun concealed or better yet check the jurisdictional laws again and make sure you’re OK to eat at a place like this. It’s an airy, somewhat ethereal and pleasantly high-minded, scrupulously secularly religious environment — and lots of smart people will be discussing presumably important things sitting right next to you.

            After you go there for breakfast, visit the Vienna Beef Factory Cafeteria on North Damen for lunch, which is just as excellent in its way but so completely different it’s hard to imagine these people can live on the same planet, much less the same city. And yet, there it is. Definitely do not bring a gun there until the laws in Chicago change. You’ve been warned.

            Good fences make good neighbors and all that.

            http://www.jeffeatschicago.com/2010/08/vienna-beef-factory.html

          • aesthete

            I sympathize a lot with your view. Military brat, and while neither of my parents owned guns, lots of my friends and friends’ dads did. When it came time, I got my own pea-shooter (I have 2 guns ATM). Fortunately, I’ve only ever lived on-base or in gun-friendly states. However, most of my family lives in the East Coast…

            It’s too much of a hassle to bring my guns there, and I’ve heard too many horror stories. More likely than not, I’m going to move to the East Coast after grad studies, and I’m going to have to untangle that web. In any event, I find the view that a constitutional right should be discouraged, absolutely amazing coming from a top legal official in the administration.

  • Viet71

    They tend not to be NRA members and to be OK with some gun laws (e.g., no machine guns sales to public).

    I mention this because many on both the Left and Right believe there is no middle ground between the two camps. It’s very clear to me there is such a patch. The evildoers want well-meaning individuals of both political stripes to STAY OUT of that patch of ground.

    That’s a reality conservatives need to grasp.

    • kowalski

      The real problem is that they have almost nobody to vote for. They’re the smallest of minorities and they really think, for one reason or another, that their otherwise liberal views will protect their 2nd Amendment rights despite the fact that they vote for almost everone who would take them away in a heartbeat.

      Usually those people are called “delusional” but I won’t say that of them. I just think they’re not being honest with themselves.

      • kowalski

        .

    • kowalski

      And as entertaining as they can be they actually live in a fantasy world. I’ve found in my experience exactly two legislators who are nominally Liberals or Democrats who support 2nd Amendment rights and the rest of them want them to die off or retire as quickly as possible so they can proceed with the banning and get those people out of state legislatures and basically neutralize them.

      They’re nice people, they’re entertaining enough but in the universe of Quixotists they pretty much take the cake. They are really more Voltaire Candide – in the early parts of the book. All the people in the higher echelons of the Party they belong to have very little respect for them in practice. I’ve known a couple of them in person and the Dean vs. Professor relationship is cruel: the people in charge don’t think much of what they consider to be the aberrant pecadillos of their underlings. Moreover they don’t think it matters.

      All those people need to wake up and at least switch to being Independents.

      • kowalski

        And frankly some people on this side of the aisle shoud reread it as well.

        http://www.literature.org/authors/voltaire/candide/

        • kowalski

          On the front page. I myself am a humble accompanist. Veritas Pococurante! Or something like that. ;)

  • rhampton

    If, as a country, we can avoid a technological dark age, then we can expect the destructive power of (fire)arms to increase as its physical frame decreases. Eventually there will be a threshold beyond which you will agree that X power in a rifle-sized form (or smaller) is too much for any non-military application. The question is, how can we reasonably define that threshold?

    • Viet71

      Firearm power hasn’t increased appreciably for at least 50 years.

      The .223 round (M4 and M16 rifles) has always had a muzzle velocity of about 3,000 fps.

      The .50 cal round: same, same. And so on.

      Don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • rhampton

        Traditional bullet firing weapons will not be the only offerings – for example, 20mm grenade launchers like the Neopup PAW-20 (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu87AxzBf3Y) – and further out, exotic weapons like compact electromagnetic rail guns can be expected.

        • Viet71

          In the McDonald case, the Supreme Court acknowledged that REASONABLE restrictions on weapon ownership are OK constitutionally.

          Flamethrowers and grenade launchers and rail guns: maybe OK as DIY backyard projects. No problem if Illinois, for example, wants to ban their sale to the retail public.

          You’ve created a strawman.

          • rhampton

            As I said, technological advances WILL happen.

            Weapons will become more powerful and smaller. For example, the AA-12 is a fully automatic shotgun with a 300 round per minute rate of fire that can also fire special Frag-12 19 mm fin-stabilized HE, HEAP, and sensor fused HEAB “air-burst” fragmentation shells that can detonate in mid-air.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iowms1P92sU

            So, are all shotguns acceptable? If not, what is the threshold?

            Back to the 20mm grenade launcher – the grenades are manufactured in the same format as rifled bullets, although a bit larger in size. The crucial factor is not that it is a grenade per se, but its destructive capabilities. Would a hypothetical 10mm grenade that had one 1/4 of the explosives of the 20mm grenade be acceptable? How about a 5mm grenade?

          • kowalski

            Are designed for a specific purpose and it’s a really great thing that we have a better selection of them than ever before. We have jacketed bullets, nonjacketed bullets, hollowpoint bullets, bonded bullets, semi-bonded bullets, fully-cast, soft, hard, plastic tipped, high ballistic coefficient and high velocity and all kinds of other rounds here in the Great USA. We have slugs and birdshot and 3-ought shot and all kinds of other shot and many others in a wide range of shotgun gauges.

            People make custom rounds for their .50 caliber rifles for long range target shooting and more power to them.

            We’re doing pretty well with bullets right now, the only problem is that some of them are a little too expensive. I personally carry jacketed hollowpoint rounds in my carry guns but they cost a lot to practice with, so I use cheaper FMJ rounds for target practice. Also a 9mm is a deep penetrating weapon with an FMJ round so I don’t keep those rounds in the gun for anything other than target practice. I switch to the more expensive stuff that will expand and deliver a big wound channel and put all of its energy inside the Bad Guy.

            If you want me to weigh in on grenade launchers and guided projectiles, I think that goes well beyond the scope of the discussion for most people using commonly available handguns, shotguns and rifles – which for the most part they are very happy with. You’re talking at the extremes of what most people are doing, but if someone develops a round that is proven to be safe to fire there is no reason a citizen shouldn’t own one and we’ll deal with it. They will be expensively priced, they also won’t be something people are shooting at their local turkey shoot or going hunting with or using in a CCW weapon.

            You’re not going to load a 9mm cartridge to much higher pressure than NATO specs without having severe reliabaility and shootability problems in most of the guns intended to fire them. Moreover you don’t need it. The big problem is that people who have never owned a gun like to talk a lot about what people who have owned them should have the option to buy and use, and that’s been going on for a long time now.

            In other words you pick the cartridge for the job at hand. It’s a very specific thing, and skylarking about what “might” be available at some point is a fun academic exercise but it doesn’t have much impact on what people buy bullets for, or reload cartridges for, in the real world.

            Personally a Remington 870 is all the shotgun most people will ever need or want, a KelTec KSG is a neat gun and I’d like to own one, or at least shoot one. Mossberg makes some nice guns, Bianchi and so forth, you know, if you get into this you start thinking about all the guns you want to buy! :)

            What always determines a lot in terms of what a “good caliber” or kind of ammunition to use is how well it works in the firearm.

            I wouldn’t worry about the 300RPM automatic shotguns being wielded by your local turkey shoot guys any time soon, or ever, for that matter. They might be wielded by Hollywood, though! Don’t panic. :) I also don’t think most people would want to try to buy and fire a 10mm grenade out of their Glocks. Maybe at a demonstration day or something, but let’s not get too far out here.

            Technology advancements will happen and when they do, the shooting community is well equipped to deal with them, judge them, price them, and decide what should be done with them. Don’t worry about that.

          • kowalski

            I have a friend who used to build race cars and still builds race cars. He built an early ’70s Chevy Nova, but he “technologically advanced” it with a 350CI Corvette engine that had a big ‘ol Weiand intake and an 1150 CFM Holley Dominator carbeurator, plus a 300 horsepower nitrous oxide injection system and – to simplify matters when everything is tilting way off the horizon – a 2 speed Powerglide automatic transmission. It was KILLER. It was the ugliest car you’ve ever seen. There was a roll cage and a set of drag tires and that car would stand on its back bumper if you got into the nitrous too early. Made the car Mad Max drove in the orignal movie look like a fairydust dream. I remember when he showed up at my house just after he got it all running…

            “You have to come for a ride….”

            “Oh, Jesus. Brothers in Arms, right?”

            “Right.”

            He mostly spent some time down at running it around on drag strips after demonstrating its capability to me, which absolutely helped the hairs grow on my legs. It was a very rarely seen car. Not only is he still alive today, he’s just fine and has a wife and two kids and a very successful, reputable and respectable business.

            So don’t worry about it. We’re on top of the advancements in the projectile business.

          • rhampton

            It’s not skylarking.

            There is a implicit principle behind the right to bear arms, which is that a personal firearm will never possess so much destructive power that it should be regulated.

            This assumption was perfectly reasonable when the 2nd Amendment was written, but as we are all well aware, a colonial rifle pales in comparison to the modern variants. For this reason, semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are/were regulated (during the period 1994?2004 variants with certain features such as collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs were prohibited for sales to civilians by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the included Assault Weapons Ban – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15)

            In the near future (10-20 years from now), I expect to see steerable bullets become available to law enforcement and then the civilian market (Steerable bullet aims for mass army deployment -http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/31/sandia_steerable_bullet/). Further out, I expect to see hybrid firearms that use limited rail gun tech to augment the velocity of the old-fashioned chemical propellents – thereby permitting even more massive slugs to be fired at lethal velocities from short barrels and/or traditional slugs to be fired at supersonic/hypersonic speeds. After that, true rail guns.

            So as advances continue, I fully expect to see the boundaries of the implicit principle tested more and more frequently. Eventually, if nothing else is done, it will wind up in the hands of the Supreme Court to determine what is “reasonable regulation.”

            Rather then wait, I’d like to see a rational attempt made to define the threshold, and thus preempt the Supreme Court from ultimately deciding for us.

          • kowalski

            Or defining any arbitrary threshholds. The advancements in bullet design – as they occur, and if they occur, will not go unrecognized and competent people all across the country will know very well when they’re introduced and what to use them for. I’m quite sure a number of Attorneys General as well as gun owners and people who design weapons are aware of your links.

            It could very well be that hunters should have access to “steerable bullets” if they become practical for most hunting rifles. It would be legitimate use of those bullets to hunt game, particularly at longer ranges to allow more one-shot, clean kills.

            There are probably going to be cases where the State or Federal authorities step in and say: “You can’t sell these rounds to civilians” but again, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who are experts in this subject area who are already watching what’s available.

            It betrays a shocking lack of trust in the people who are really involved in these things that you can even suggest that.

          • kowalski

            Idea that in America, we don’t preempt. What we do, for the most part – and it’s been one of the major drivers of innovation in our economy – is allow advances to occur, we allow innovation to occur, and then we make decisions about how best to use those innovations and advancements.

            We’re not and never have been a country where everything is illegal unless it is permitted. But you’re also underestimating the ability of people to understand what they’re doing.

          • rhampton

            I understand that, but that leads to laws built by ad hoc exceptions and grandfather clauses because no underlying principle was established.

            If we accept that there ought to be “reasonable regulation” on firearms, then it begs the question of defining what is reasonable. Why discriminate against one weapon but not another?

            This is not conjecture – it’s already happened with the passage (1994), and later its expiration (2004) with the federal assault weapons ban. It can – and likely will – happen again.

            So, on what grounds is it reasonable that the federal government has the power to regulate what is available for civilian use? What is the logic that determines the threshold between legal and illegal?

          • kowalski

            They’re the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968. It’s up to you to decide whether the GCA is “reasonable” or not. In my view the FFL/GCA system is working very well in the United States. People can and probably will tweak it, but it’s certainly not broken.

            As you well know, the constitutional principle of the GCA is the power to regulate interstate commerce and restrict commerce in certain items to federally licensed producers and distributors. There are some people who are absolutely hard-line and incontrovertibly against any such regulations but I take a more balanced stance on them. I do believe there is a role for the Federal Government to play here, but it should be a well-advised and limited role.

            The NRA has opposed some of the GCA’s restrictions and supported others, and I expect them to continue to do so, depending on what the proposed regulations are. I can say that any additions and/or emendations to the NFA/GCA should be a subject of vigorous public debate.

            The GCA can be, and I expect it will be, amended and revised as new technological advancements are realized or if the wholesale destructive power of commonly-available weapons increases dramatically. It’s very silly to think it won’t be, because so many people will be aware of those advancements. We do live in a society where information travels very fast. :)

            In other words, as you know very well, this has been a federal “process” question for more than 40 years now, and the process is being continually revised and amended as situations emerge. I am always on the side of restricting the federal government’s power to what is absolutely necessary.

            Having said that, I live in a state with a 10-round magazine restriction for new handguns and long guns, and it’s the ongoing legacy of the federal AWB and I argue against it here. It was enacted here not under Federal jurisdiction but rather under State law. I can’t see any data that has shown me that restricting the magazine capacity of people in Massachusetts has saved anyone’s life or served an important public health objective – in fact just the opposite.

          • kowalski

            Here in Massachusetts, handguns are restricted on a number of levels and there are many that are not available for purchase as a result of the two-tiered restriction system in this State.

            I can own a Ruger LC9 9mm subcompact pistol or a Kahr PM9, each of which can generate approximately 350-450 foot pounds of muzzle energy depending on the cartridges I’m firing. They both meet all the State Police restrictions and the Attorney General’s consumer safety restrictions. The LC9 sells at one of my local dealers for about $400 new, with an integrated laser which is a good price that a lot of people can afford for a compact, self defense pistol. And they are very good sellers here. It generates, as I said, around 350-450 foot pounds of energy.

            It holds 7 rounds in the magazine and 1 in the chamber for a total capacity of 8 rounds, and is a comfortable pistol to conceal and popular among CCW people, women and smaller-framed shooters as well.

            http://www.ruger.com/products/lc9/models.html

            I can also buy, if I so chose, a Smith and Wesson 500 or 500ES Revolver, which is a *very* powerful handgun. In fact it is, at this point, the most powerful regular production handgun in the world, with a muzzle energy approximately 10 times that of an LC9:

            http://tinyurl.com/32f43q4

            It holds fewer rounds, it’s a *very* large and heavy gun, not to mention expensive to own and to shoot, and frankly I’d love to have one if I had the disposable income, but I doubt I’d ever carry it. It’s as powerful as a rifle and it’s so large that the best use for it (or the shorter barrel versions) are as an emergency gun, or a serious “outback” gun or a hunting gun. S&W probably sells a tiny fraction of the numbers Ruger does with its LC9.

            Do I want it to be illegal despite the fact that it’s 10 times as powerful as a 9mm pocket gun? Absolutely not. It’s a beautiful pistol and a great piece of revolver craftsmanship and if I decided to take two weeks to go to on a trip to Alaska, you’d better believe I’d want to be able to buy one.

            Now, if there was some technological advancement that made that gun shrink to the size and price of an LC9 and quadrupled the capacity would we have to think hard about regulating it more strictly? Maybe. If it became a problem. So far nothing about it has been, even here in the Commonwealth.

          • kowalski

            For the .500 but there are people I’ve heard of with handloads on that gun who push well over 3000 foot pounds out of it with no trouble at all, except for the recoil. It’s a very strongly-made pistol.

          • kowalski

            My S&W4040PD (linked in the original post) was formerly owned by a police officer as a backup gun, carried in addition to their normal duty pistol and also when they were off-duty. The history was told to me when I purchased it, and it’s one of the reasons I bought it. It was a good enough and reliable enough self-defense weapon for a LEO and even with a little holster wear it’s still a great-shooting gun (and also rare).

            So I was glad, in this case, to have one of the “hand-me-downs” of a police officer. I chose it specifically for its size, weight, finish, reliability and relative power.

          • rhampton

            “Now, if there was some technological advancement that made that gun shrink to the size and price of an LC9 and quadrupled the capacity would we have to think hard about regulating it more strictly? Maybe. If it became a problem. So far nothing about it has been, even here in the Commonwealth.”

            Now you’re getting it!

            Could you explain why you believe size and price matters?

            Furthermore, is there any reason to suspect that a live weapon like the Russian RPG-7 would be a problem, given the price of the unit and ammo (a deactivated model for comparison – http://www.dicksarmysurplus.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=000-1008)?

            How many people really want one, and more importantly, could afford one anyway? Perhaps a few thousand backyard hobbyists? Is that sufficient grounds to warrant “reasonable” regulation?

          • kowalski

            And I think for the purposes of this thread I’m done answering them for the time being. Let me ask you: What do you think about the answers to your own questions?

          • kowalski

            But conversation is really a two way street. Do you have concrete views on any of the things you’re discussing, or are they all hypothetical questions?

          • kowalski

            I think it’s in everyone’s best interest that they have as wide a range as possible to choose from when they select which weapons to purchase. There are people who cannot afford a Sig P226 and for them an LC9 is a better choice. Similarly there are people who just *like* a Kahr PM9 better because of its perceived build quality (just like there are people who enjoy shopping at Banana Republic instead of Sears) – even though a PM9 is more than twice as expensive.

            Say, for example, you want to buy a .22 rifle. There are lots of choices and they fall along a wide spectrum of different price points. If you want something that replicates the feel of an AR platform rifle, you lean toward something like a Ruger SR-22. If you are going for something relatively inexpensive and ubiquitous, you’re going to buy a 10/22. If you want to customize your 10/22, you might buy some Volquartsen components. Or you might ditch Ruger and instead buy a really nice Savage bolt action gun, or a Remington, if you like it better and it happens to be on sale where you live.

            I can tell you that you’re not going to pin me down specifically on any caliber/power/price/size/accessory/purpose of use restriction, so let’s get that out of the way now, after all this talk.

            I’d appreciate hearing from you which guns you’d ban.

          • rhampton

            If someone were to ask you, “Kowalski, what is the basis for the Conservative position on the federal regulation of certain weapons?” How would you respond? Conservatives ought to be prepared to defend their ideology on principle, be it the limits of taxation, public welfare, etc.

            From a conservative view-point, was the federal assault weapons ban Constitutional? And what of the National Firearms Act of 1934 that allows the federal government to regulate: Machine guns, Short-barreled rifles, Short barreled shotguns, Silencers and Destructive Devices (including grenades and explosive missiles, as well as firearm with a bore over 0.50″) – on what grounds is it reasonable to regulate these weapons? What makes some categorically different then typical handguns or rifles?

            Specifically, why should a semi-automatic AK-47 be legal (by federal law) but not a fully automatic AK-47? The ammo is the same, is it not?

            The principle at work in all of these cases is an implicit assumption that there exists a limit to the destructive capability allowed by the Second Amendment. The difficult, but necessary task, is to define this limit based on a coherent principle that can be consistently applied to any weapon now, or in the future. But when the scope of a law is ill-defined, or not at all, we are bound to run into trouble.

            If you read the various existing gun laws, there’s an awful lot of specification about what is and is not legal – the length of the barrel, the rate of fire, the design of the stock and receiver, the type of bore and grip, etc. And that’s a really dumb way to determine the legal status of weapon.

            It’s the kind of damage that primarily the ammo, and secondarily the weapon, produces that ought to be determine it’s legal status, not the weapon’s shape, size, or cost. Muzzle energy, range, accuracy, etc. are the measures that ought to be used

            And this is my aim of my argument – the need for Conservatives to first understand, and second determine, a Constitutionally acceptable principle that will regulate firearms.

            What follows is by no means a final product of my thinking, but rather a starting point for discussion:

            The combination of firearm and ammunition legally permissible for personal use shall not exceed a muzzle energy of 2000 joules, a lethal range of 1/4 mile, the ability to penetrate more than 1 inch of steel, or a circular area of damage greater than 1 yard in radius at 100 feet.

            There should also be some mention of the number of rounds that can be fired, but I’m less confident on providing a definition for “reasonable” – 60 rounds per minute/1 per second? More, less?

            The advantage to this kind of definition is that removes the federal government from dictating how weapons ought to be manufactured – leave the engineering details to the engineers.

          • kowalski

            And I appreciate your telling me that you’re a gun banner on a very wide scale. Which is what you were when you came here.

            Have a nice afternoon.

          • rhampton

            Okay, lets try a broader limit

            Firearm . . . Caliber . . . . Muzzle energy (joules)
            —————————————————
            pistol . . . . .22LR . . . . . . . . . . . 159
            pistol . . . . . 9 mm . . . . . . . . . . . 519
            pistol . . . . .45 ACP . . . . . . . . . 564
            rifle . . . . . 5.56 ? 45 mm . . . . . 1,796
            rifle . . . . . 7.62 ? 39 mm . . . . . 2,070
            rifle . . . . . 7.62 ? 51 mm . . . . . 3,799
            heavy . . . . .50 BMG . . . . . . . 15,037
            heavy . . . 14.5 ? 114 mm . . . 32,000

            The combination of firearm and ammunition legally permissible for personal use shall not exceed a muzzle energy of 20,000 joules, a lethal range of 1 mile, the ability to penetrate more than 3 inch of steel, or a circular area of damage greater than 10 yards in diameter at a distance of 100 feet.

            Would this be more acceptable? I haven’t worked out the specifics to see if different types of grenade launchers would be legal within this broader definition, but again, it’s a starting point for discussion.

          • kowalski

            Why put a limit on any caliber or power? Aside from your assertion that there’s an “implicit assumption” that is?

            Do you really think we need to place these kinds of limits on cartridges and ammunition? At what level would you apply the cutoff for each caliber?

          • kowalski

            They tend to take care of themselves. As I’ve said, it’s really a lot less complex and difficult than you’re making it. You want to predefine things so they cannot be done in the future. I know that they might be done and then people will decide whether they want them, or not. It’s a very basic, fundamental difference in philosophy. You insist on predefinitions and I say that even asking that question preemptively is morally and philosophically and legally wrong. That’s about as far as I can take this argument with you.

            Einstein was a Socialist but the combined effect of his thinking was to show the world how to construct the most powerful weapons imaginable. In your view, someone should have told him not to write about Relativity, lest it result in an atomic weapon. Someone should have predefined the energy levels at which the E=MC^2 equation would have been forbidden to read, and only to a few special people. Actually, come to think of it, that’s what happened to a fair approximation.

            Any preternatural worry about technological advancement in the technology of projectiles fired from weapons people can own ignores the fact that it’s actual people who are going to be shooting them. You want to establish some kind of rule at the front end that says: “You shall not cross these lines.” Frankly, people don’t need that kind of restriction. If we get to the point that someone can fire a 10,000 foot-pound round from a .22 caliber barrel, believe me – it will be intensely self-limiting. In the meantime I don’t intend to start trying to put arbitrary limits on the power of cartridges people can buy.

            You need to calm down a little and realize that people are capable of actually crossing bridges when they come to them. Just as they have for centuries.

          • rhampton

            Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Self-Defense
            Eugene Volokh, 2009

            II. APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK TO VARIOUS GUN-CONTROL LAWS

            This framework, I hope, can help us analyze a wide range of gun control laws?and the analyses can help us reflect on whether the framework is helpful.

            A. ?What? Bans: Bans on Weapon Categories

            1. Scope

            Let me begin with bans on categories of weapons, weapons parts, or ammunition: machine guns, .50 caliber weapons, handguns, semiautomatic ?assault weapons,? cheap and supposedly low-quality ?Saturday Night Specials,? magazines with room for more than 10 rounds, nonfirearms such as knives and billy clubs, or nonlethal defensive devices such as stun guns (e.g., Tasers) or irritant sprays (e.g., pepper spray).

            Such bans naturally raise a scope question: What sorts of ?arms? are protected by the right to keep and bear arms?

            …My main point in this Article is to identify questions and possible answers, not to propose any definitive solutions. Nonetheless, I?d like to offer a possible interpretation of ?arms? that might be relatively consistent with the concerns expressed in Heller, with the bottom-line conclusion that Heller endorsed (no protection for sawed-off shotguns and machine guns), and with many aspects of Heller?s language.

            As I noted above, whether a weapon is in common use depends a lot on how generally one defines the weapon: for instance, as a handgun generally, or as a Glock 17 in particular. At the same time, if one says that a form of arms is protected if weapons of this general level of practical dangerousness are in common use, the answer is more definite. This is especially so if one further refines this (though at the expense of moving a little further beyond Heller?s language) to whether this weapon is no more practically dangerous than what is in common use among law-abiding citizens.

            Machine guns are more dangerous in their likely effects than are those guns that are in common use among law-abiding citizens. They not only fire very quickly, but they are harder to shoot in a discriminating way, at least in their fully automatic mode.

            Likewise, short-barreled shotguns are practically more dangerous than the kinds of guns that are in common use among law-abiding citizens, because they combine a lethality close to that of a shotgun?at least at the short distances characteristic of the typical criminal attack?with a concealability close to that of a handgun.

            On the other hand, if we?re talking about a particular sort of handgun that is not materially more dangerous than a typical handgun would be, then it would qualify as a type of arm covered by the constitutional provisions. This is so even if this particular variety happened to be rare (for instance, because it came from a small or new manufacturer). And this decision wouldn?t require speculation?and speculation is all that it could be?about whether the typical owner of the handgun is a criminal or a law-abiding citizen.

            This test (is the weapon not more materially dangerous than what is in common use among law-abiding citizens?) would thus be consistent with Heller?s examples, and would use the elements Heller pointed to?common use, unusualness, dangerousness, and use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes?though in a somewhat different mixture from the one Heller set forth. Not a perfect way of reading a case, but, for the reasons given above, there might not be a perfect way of reading Heller on this point.

          • rhampton

            Indeed, why? Why does the National Firearms Act of 1934 regulate guns with a bore larger that .50″? Is that not a limit on the caliber or power available to citizens?

          • kowalski

            As this:

            “The principle at work in all of these cases is an implicit assumption that there exists a limit to the destructive capability allowed by the Second Amendment.”

            That is an assumption that exists implicitly for your sake of argument and in your imagination, implicitly.

            What you really should be saying is:

            “I, rhampton, posting here on a blog, think that the Second Amendment implies this, because it seems to me that it implies it.”

            I realize after losing in Heller and in so many other places, people from Brady and elsewhere are looking for clawback definitions and doing their best to have them enshrined in law. Bloomberg is looking for clawback definitions so he can continue his campaigns. I’m not going to provide them for you, or validate them. If you think that’s implicitly what the 2nd Amendment means, by all means bring the lawsuits.

            You’re talking about arbitrary and hypothetical definitions that you just made up and want me to validate them or debate them with you. I’m sorry, rhampton, but it’s not going to happen here.

          • kowalski

            What kind of legally defensible principle is an “implicit assumption” that someone posits on a blog with no evidence except to say that one exists.

            You’ve been saying this for a while now. Where is the “implicit assumption” as a matter of law?

          • kowalski

            “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

            That’s the Jeffersonian version. There’s a *right* of the people and a *bear arms* and a *shall not* in there.

            There is nothing “implicit” or “explicit” in there concerning the destructive power of the arms they’re bearing — not a single word. All of that is pure imaginative confabulation.

            I do have a nice quote from Jefferson, though:

            “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” – 1785 Aug. 19 to Peter Carr

            He didn’t mention anything about relative or implications of destructive power there, either. You are inventing that. On the other hand, Jefferson might have banned profesional football, professional basketball, and certainly would have thought twice about racquetball and tennis. Golf is still open to Jeffersonian interpretation. He also talks very disparagingly about horses and the use of horses.

            So invent it if you want to – that’s your prerogative.

            http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/exercise

          • rhampton

            California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban on .50-Caliber Rifles Against Second Amendment Challenge:

            As the court?s discussion makes clear, the Second Amendment right does not protect possession of a military M-16 rifle. Likewise, it does not protect the right to possess assault weapons or .50 caliber BMG rifles. As we have already indicated, in enacting the Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 and the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004, the Legislature was specifically concerned with the unusual and dangerous nature of these weapons. An assault weapon ?has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings.? (? 12275.5, subd. (a).) The .50 caliber BMG rifle has the capacity to destroy or seriously damage ?vital public and private buildings, civilian, police and military vehicles, power generation and transmission facilities, petrochemical production and storage facilities, and transportation infrastructure.? (? 12275.5, subd. (b).) These are not the types of weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as sport hunting or self-defense; rather, these are weapons of war.

            http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_31-2009_06_06.shtml#1244002752

          • kowalski

            You’ll have a hard time finding anyone who is engaged in a war at .50 caliber long distance match. That’s California Appeals for you.

          • kowalski

            He should go to a .50 caliber match sometime and shoot one.

          • rhampton

            There lacks a clear conservative principle that establishes what kinds of weapons/ammo are not protected by the Second Amendment.

            Now a Libertarian might say there are no reasonable restrictions. If you have the money and the desire, then you ought to be able to own a SMAW-D(CS) [a shoulder launched multipurpose assault weapon-disposable (confined space) - a single shoulder-fired disposable launcher weapon that can be fired from an enclosed space, able to take out earthen, timber bunkers and light armored vehicles and to breech masonry walls]

            Now my working premise is that Conservatives will (and do) argue for some kind of restriction based not on size or cost but on destructive power.

          • kowalski

            I’ve had enough of you for one day.

            I’m not interested in what you’re thinking about or talking about any longer, OK?

          • kowalski

            I’ve given you the best answers I can. I’m no longer interested in your metaphysical theoretics about this issue.

          • rhampton

            Do you think he’s engaged in pointless metaphysical theoretics in his article “Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Self-Defense”? Because he and I, while we make use of different tests, both argue that there ought to be a logical principle that determines what types of ammo and weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment — a very practical and timely issue in light of ongoing attempts to re-introduce a federal ban on assault rifles.

          • kowalski

            And stop asking me to make it up for you. You are a person with an endless number of questions and no answers. Your working premise is a theoretical question based on a hypothesis based on an implication. You haven’t stated your own views anwhere here. You seem to think that my views would be conclusive, but in reality they’d just be answers to a theoretical question based on a hypothesis an an implication.

            If you want to vote or lobby for legislation draft it and then lobby for it and I’ll tell you whether I support it or not. I don’t think Libertarians would say people should shoot at earthen, timber bunkers with multipurpose assault weapons either. You continue to push the discussion to the edges of the envelope and I guess you’re hoping someone will do what you want but I’m asking you to please give it a rest. At least for tonight.

          • rhampton

            I provided to different proposals, of my own design, on the limits to civilian firearms based on physics.

            ALSO: Given a fair reading of their policy (see below) it seems to me that the Libertarian Party would not regulate nor restrict the sale of a SMAW-D(CS), or an RPG or a .50 BMG for personal use.

            National Platform of the Libertarian Party
            Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia

            …We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We support repeal of all gun control laws. We demand the immediate abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

            We oppose any government efforts to ban or restrict the use of tear gas, “mace” or other self-protection devices. We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe. We favor the repeal of laws banning the concealment of weapons or prohibiting pocket weapons. We also oppose the banning of inexpensive handguns (“Saturday night specials”) and semi-automatic or so-called assault weapons and their magazines or feeding devices.

            http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/platform.html#righkeep

          • kowalski

            And from what I see, there is very little “Conservative” basis for the federal regulation of weapons. There are some things we can and should talk about in terms of Federalism.

            The real “Conservative” basis is that the federal government has a set of very limited and constrained powers under the Constitution and that the signing of the NFA and later legislation was, in a strict sense, unconstitutional. Well it might have been. We sure don’t need any more Federal laws being promulgated across the land on that basis.

            I think we’ve accepted some of the NFA and the Johnson Administration’s legislation as a de facto way of living, but I’m not a revolutionary. I’m not the guy standing in Zuccotti park, I am the 99%. I shoot firearms and own them and want to have the continued right to own them – in all their wonderful variations. I don’t think forcing people to undergo really large and abrupt changes in the way their society is constituted is good for them. So in that sense I support the legislation and I think: “OK, if this is what we’ve got, we’ll work with it. I didn’t make this bed, I’m laying in it.”

            Now someone is going to call me Romanesque or a squish or worse. Watch!

            Basically rhampton, it all comes back to the fact that you started this entire discussion with a hypothesis built on an implication. The hypothesis is a relatively drastic increase in the destructive power of firearms combined with the implication that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t really allow that. I disagree with both premises. And that’s all I have to say to you.

          • westcoastpatriette

            Just read this in my email. Sounds good to me but I am far from an expert. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50360

          • kowalski

            I haven’t read the differences between it and the earlier proposal.

            Really, honestly, I haven’t. I’ve been here debating rhampton and maintaining this post instead of reading it, to be totally candid.

            I’m worried about changing the legislation, because I think the initial version should have and would have passed the Senate. In general terms I’m very much in favor of states recognizing each other’s CCW permits. Reciprocity on this matter has been a long time in coming – too long.

          • kowalski

            If right to carry reciprocity is enacted by this Congress I have one of the toughest CCW permits to get. I think it’s a travesty that I can’t carry in Connecticut and New Jersey and New York with it. It’s a deliberate travesty, though.

          • westcoastpatriette

            guns

          • Stricia

            there is no telling if Obama would sign it. It would be best for this to wait until a Republican like Romney in in the WH. By then, we will also control the Senate and the House.
            Like Kowalski, I would want to read the final bill more carefully. Problem these days is that not even “members” read the dang bills before they’re passed anyway.

          • kowalski

            I actually want to see the reciprocity legislation emerge in this session of Congress and either have Obama veto it or sign it.

            I think it’s important to know where he stands on the matter, finally.

          • kowalski

            The original legislation passed the House overwhelmingly. There should be a version of that legislation that’s reconcilable that can pass the Senate. I think it’s a very good opportunity to have the House *and* the Senate go on the record about CCW reciprocity and what the parameters of that are, that they’d be willing to accept.

            I also think it’s important that the President weigh in on the matter before the election.

            Right to carry reciprocity is a relatively small issue in the scheme of things. It’s something that should have been done a long time ago, just as the federal laws currently protect people who lawfully own firearms who transport them in their cars from state to state. As long as you’re legal, you can drive through states where you don’t have a permit as long as the gun is locked up. You should also be allowed to keep the gun on your person if you are legal when you travel from state to state.

            It’s a minor reconciliation problem at best and it’s something all the states that allow concealed carry should agree on.

            I have the strong feeling that if it passes it will actually be *bad* for me, or at least more difficult: because there will be an instant commensurate move in the MA legislsture to deny CCW permits to everyone, meaning that I might lose mine under the terms of my Class A LTC even though the rest of the country will benefit.

            Scott Brown has said he would vote against it. I really don’t know exactly why. I have the feeling that what he’s worried about is the Massachusetts Backlash, which will entail an effort here in the Commonwealth to redefine a Class A LTC so that NOBODY can carry, therefore stepping away from the reciprocity.

          • Stricia

            We already know how the admin feels about firearms (i.e., Attorney General). I’m not sure forcing a veto would gain any votes for our side, though.

          • kowalski

            And you have to realize that he’d not be defying just Republicans. The House Reciprocity bill (HR 822) passed by a really good, superpluralistic number of 272-154, so it wasn’t just the R’s here last November.

            I think a lot of Senators want to pass this bill or a version of it. They know their constitutents want it. They know it’s the right thing to do, and I think the legislation is going to be reconcilable and broadly acceptable there.

            If it goes to Obama and he decides he’s going to veto it, I think that’s unfortunate but it’s one of those things that’s important to get him on the record about. He’ll be voting against a lot of people in his own party, not just the people he usually votes against.

          • kowalski

            Which was the (D) sponsored version of reciprocity and the one endorsed by the NRA.

            I have not read the differences between this and the Thune bill.

            I think this is boiling down to a “who gets credit for it” kind of argument and I really hate that. Human Events has not been very good at predicting winners recently and I’m frankly reticent to believe them. Sorry, Erick.

          • kowalski

            We should jump ship to support the Thune bill, by all means I hope he has it on his radar and talks about it on the front page.

            But frankly, I don’t know who “Jarrett Stepman” is and I know I’ve never read much else he’s written.

          • kowalski

            A horrible accident took place. A child killed himself with an automatic weapon at a gathering of gun enthusiasts organized by a local police chief in Westfield, MA.

            http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-14/justice/massachusetts.gun.show.verdict_1_christopher-bizilj-westfield-sportsman-s-club-gun-show?_s=PM:CRIME

            Christopher Bizilj died tragically because he should never have been handed a fully-automatic Uzi submachine pistol. But he was, and it happened that he lost control of the weapon and shot himself to death. The police chief was eventually adjudicated not guilty for the child’s death and that was the right decision. It was an accident. A tragic accident, and one that I’m sure will be avoided scrupulously in the future.

            The response to that accident, though, was an effort by the Governor to enact an entire new class of draconian restrictions on *every* gun owner in the Commonwealth. The law he tried to promulgate was vast and enormously punitive, created an entire new class of felony, and he was frankly trying to ride the public “outrage” to maximum effect to bolster his sagging popularity ratings.

            What happened in Westfield was a terrible tragedy and all of the people involved will live with the consequences of it for the rest of their adult lives. The child’s father was a loving Dad. The Police Chief was a good man. The Governor of this state, on the other hand, sought immediately to “capitalize” on the incident to enact a statewide law that would have punished everyone here.

            There werent any new laws needed. Police Chiefs in MA don’t make a practice of handing Uzi submachine guns to children. The only thing that was needed, and not followed tragically in this case, was the basic common sense that most people usually have. It was terrible exception in this case that it didn’t happen that way, but there shouldn’t have been any new call for sweeping new definitions and legislation.

          • kowalski

            I don’t see what the problem is. What do you think?

          • kowalski

            Except that people purchase the guns they do because they have options, and they should have as wide a range of options as possible. The principle is freedom!

            What you’ll find is that very often people buy guns for a purpose and then re-sell them from the same dealer they bought them from. Someone buys a S&W 3rd Generation gun and they keep it for a few years and don’t shoot it much, and in the fullness of time they decide to sell it back to the dealer and someone else buys it. In the meantime they’re there and buy a new Glock because they just want something new, or because they’ve changed their minds about caliber or capacity or what have you.

            The principle, so far as I can tell, is to always encourge the greatest leeway and the largest choice of options when they decide what they want to do. At least, that’s what I believe in.

          • kowalski

            If someone wants to pay $1700 for an ATF-certified deactivated and obsolete Russian RPG launcher, why should I stop them? Depending on who it is, they could either be very foolish with their money (I think that’s more likely) or perhaps they really want a unique looking piece for a store or a restaurant or a display – or any other reason. Just recently someone paid $8000 for a three year old chicken McNugget that looked like George Washington on eBay recently. Did I think that was foolish? Yeah. Did I say they couldn’t buy/sell it? No.

            Lots of people are into old war memorabilia. People go through the forests in France and Germany with metal detectors hoping to unearth old war materiel to sell it on eBay or elsewhere. If it’s a deactivated system and it’s legally sold as such, who really cares what someone pays for it?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPlSWLEG7nk

            http://gizmodo.com/5892000/woman-tries-to-sell-three+year+old-chicken-mcnugget-for-8000-on-ebay

          • kowalski

            I think this is a matter of conjecture and metareasoning, not to say whole cloth adventurism:

            “There is a implicit principle behind the right to bear arms, which is that a personal firearm will never possess so much destructive power that it should be regulated.”

          • kowalski

            Use a much more stringent benchmark in practice if not in statute: That any level of destructivene power in a weapon owned by a person should be forbidden.

            In Britain, for example, you cannot own any handgun at all, regardless of whether it delivers 120 foot pounds of energy (typical of a .22) or a Smith and Wesson 50 caliber revolver, which delivers somewhere around 3,500-4000. Here in the US we have a range of firearms and other projectile weapons available to civilians that span more than two orders of magnitude in terms of their energetics.

            And at the far reaches of that, I don’t see many people even wanting them. Nobody is going to shoot a squirrel with an RPG. We regulate these things pretty well already.

          • Viet71

            The five-man majority of the Supreme Court in the D.C. and Chicago Second Amendment cases were clearly focused on weapons for defensive use. Not for penetrating armored trucks. The “reasonableness” test already exists.

            I doubt the Supreme Court would even review a lower court’s opinion upholding a state law ban on retail sale of grenade launchers.

  • cbartlett

    I am a life-long Texan and guns are second nature around here. Even though my father did a 6-year stint in the Army beginning before I was born, and my mother grew up hunting/fishing with her father and brother as a teenager, we never had guns in our house when I was growing up – not even really sure why….

    But I married a gun-totin’ guy who has always hunted (almost missed birth of child #2 for opening weekend of deer season) and two out of three kids (one daughter and one son) own several guns and hunt regularly. Both my husband and my son took the CHL (Concealed Handgun License) class about the time my son turned 21 and became eligible. Both son-in-laws now have CHL’s too. They are all avid supporters of the way Texas has done this process – the course teaches responsible use of guns and makes sure the CHL holder knows how to shoot (at least the one gun you have to qualify with) and what the consequences are of using one against another human being. One of the best “perks” is that since CHL holders have to go through a fairly in-depth government (state & federal) checking process, it is immensely easier to actually purchase guns (and ammo) than it is for people who don’t have one. And we have several – hunting rifles, handguns upstairs, downstairs and in the truck, and, most recently, an assault rifle.

    My husband’s family now lives in Arkansas and they are extremely distrustful of all of the registration involved when purchasing guns – the fact that “Big Brother” is looking over their shoulder and the “government” knows who owns guns and what kind they are. My husband, OTOH, sees the registration process as a “necessary evil” to keep at least some of the riff-raff out of the process. We really don’t want convicted felons and mentally insane people to have easy access to guns. This, of course, obviously does not keep them from obtaining one on the street, but we at least shouldn’t let them walk out of Cabela’s with one in an hour. I agree with the poster above – there are bumper stickers all over this state that say “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

    I have never desired to “kill things”, as in hunting, so I have never really spent much time messing with any of our guns (even though I do write the check for my husband’s yearly NRA dues). In the last year, however, some of the things this administration is doing have made me very fearful of outside circumstances and I have begun the process of learning about loading and practice shooting several of our guns. (Read the book “One Second After” about how marshall law could be implemented and I challenge any non-NRA supporting liberal to remain an anti-gun supporter.) Guns still scare me a little, but being shot by crazy/desperate people scares me more. I WILL learn this.

    Something you might find interesting to look into was the very recent battle inTexas about allowing CHL holders to carry on state university campuses (private schools could choose to also, but not required under the proposed law). We happen to live in a smaller community that has a state university and this issue was debated extensively here. I know people that I have a lot of respect for, who own guns and are absolutely not anti-gun types, that were adamantly against this law passing. Many of them work in or with the University and thought that guns would end up in the hands of “drunk college kids with no brains”. I can honestly say that while I understand that thought process because I put three kids through that crazy college time, I very much disagree with the premise after watching my son go through the process of obtaining his CHL. He is extremely proud to have it and will do anything to protect the right to keep it. Knowing that the state could take it away for any minor law violation makes him very responsible and very careful about what he does and who he associates with. (He refuses to have even one drink and drive for fear of getting a DWI. His friends all know that he has no problem being the designated driver at a party!) I also know that if it had been legal to carry on that campus in Colorado a few years ago, and had my son had been a student in one of those classes, there would have been a significantly lower death rate. The reason the crazy guy could keep shooting is that no one else had a gun to stop him!

    Many well-meaning people that were against this law proposed in the Texas legislature last year, did not fully understand what was proposed. It did NOT allow any “crazy, drunk, college kid” to carry a gun, which was the starting party-line of any argument against it. First – to carry on campus they had to have a CHL, which means they have to be 21 (probably a junior or senior, or a faculty member) AND have passed a class that teaches responsible gun-ownership and use AND not have any kind of previous record (one DWI will disqualify). Second – to KEEP that CHL (and consequently carry a gun on campus) they have to follow the rules about when & where they can carry, and stay law-abiding citizens. I daresay that the pride in getting and keeping the CHL would go a long way in improving the character and the quality of some of our college students. Unfortunately, this law did not pass in the last session by a very close margin, despite Governor Perry’s strong support. A lot of people feel like it will come up again next year. Just an interesting “gun-issue” that few outside the state of Texas know about.

    I’d be interested in reading and passing along anything you decide write about in this area. I have decided that continuing to learn about all sorts of things in this world is the only way to keep your mind young and I’m going to fight that “old” thing just as long as I possibly can!

    • kowalski

      That is – RIGHT THERE – the best and most positive comment I’ve received in the entire time I’ve been here at Redstate. I’m not going to bother with the triteness of saying 5 or 5^5 or whatever. It’s just a wonderfully supportive post and right back at you.

      My objective is to explain and to expatiate and to talk in plain terms about what I’ve done and why I see things the way I do. This post has been saved and printed out and it’s going to help me compose the final piece I want to write. For that one I intend to do a little better than my usual of talking off the top of my head.

      Thanks again. People who understand what it means to be free wouldn’t have it any other way, even though it’s not always an easy thing to do.

      • kowalski

        Is a matter of mutual responsibility. More to the point it’s a matter of making sure that you treat what you’re doing with respect and require everyone else around you to treat it with respect.

        It sounds too simple to be true but really that’s almost all of it.

      • cbartlett

        I always enjoy your posts. And I think it’s pretty cool that the “kowalski” was actually named for you. :-)

  • davenj1

    But I will defend to the death anyone’s RIGHT to own a gun. The Second Amendment is not some colonial era relic like the quartering of soldiers amendment. It is a vital part of the Constitution and the Supreme Court got it right in the Heller decision. Of course, nut cases and felons should be barred, but not law-abiding citizens. I actually was thinking of writing an entry on the 2nd Amendment myself. Incidentally, isn’t it strange that some of the states with the most stringent gun laws also have some of the highest violent crime rates? Just another one of those things that make you say, “Hmmmm…” I read once where South Dakota I think, which has “lax” gun laws had three homicides one year- two by knife and one by baseball bat bludgeoning.

    • norris

      The second amendment is not about sport, offence or defends it is about keeping our freedom.

  • kowalski

    People are slowly and haltingly beginning to understand the truth.

    More guns, owned responsibly in a civilized society, means less crime.

    http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-21/opinion/31215570_1_gun-ban-ban-handguns-heller-decision

    We’re doing a lot of things differently than we did twenty or thirty or forty years ago. We’re much more concerned about educating people and instructing them, which is what most of my contributions in this thread have been about, ultimately. People need and deserve to have freedom but ultimately all of that comes with the responsibility to handle it, in a civilized (and broad and deep minded) society that you really want to live in. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

    Veritas vos Liberabit

    • Don T.

      Required reading: More Guns, Less Crime, by John Lott

      http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

  • Viet71

    Any firearm featured in “American Rifleman” (NRA) automatically meets the reasonableness test. Any military weapon meant primarily to kill and destroy (e.g., grenade launcher, tank main gun, SAW, flamethrower, drone, etc.) does not automatically meet the the test and therefore shifts the burden of proof as to reasonableness to the weapon owner.

    • Don T.

      I agree with that, Viet71. And anything else that falls into a grey area, we’ll figure out, ie, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.

    • kowalski

      The important thing to realize is that these developments aren’t going to happen in a vacuum. It’s not as though people who are involved in creating them (if it’s even possible) are not going to talk about them quite candidly. There isn’t any need to set arbitrary, preemptive limits on anything.

      I disagree with the technocratic aspect of government when it becomes preemptively prohibitive. You could talk about it in a number of ways: genetic engineering, in terms of what sorts of tools people might be able to use, what kinds of new information technology they might or might not be able to possess. The guiding principle (and it infuriates some people) is that you allow the advancement to occur and try to decide what to do with it.

      And I’m not worried about most people’s definition of what constitutes an “overly destructive” weapon. When and if they happen, people will decide accordingly. I have a lot of faith in their balanced judgment.

      • Don T.

        As Viet71 has suggested, there really has not been that much in terms of revolutionary advances in small arms design in the last 10 or even 20 years. There have been slow and evolutionary advances, for example with new 10mm and .40 caliber bores in handguns, some new rifle calibers, and advances in accessories, like new optical and laser and night sights and thermal imaging devices, too. Many of the recent experiments have been for specific military applications, such as the U.S. Army’s OICW exploration of 20mm and 25mm “smart” ammunition, but ending in no new production arms so far. So, by and large, rifle and handgun ammunition lethality or accuracy have not progressed that much in the last 40 or 50 years. Our WW2 fathers and grandfathers would not be very astonished at today’s small arms or the ammunition that goes with them. Small arms developments so far seem stuck with the limits on the size of casings, the power of modern chemicals, and other limits imposed by metallurgy and physics.

        And in all the progress made in the last century and in this one, it has usually been fairly easy to separate out purely military and highly specialized, highly lethal arms, from civilian-owned defensive arms. I suspect we’ll continue to do the same for future weapons.

        • rhampton

          “fairly easy to separate out purely military and highly specialized, highly lethal arms, from civilian-owned defensive arms”

          This implies that there is an operational principle that can make this determination – that there are properties inherent to military firearms that do not exist in the firearms, would you agree? Well then, what are those properties? I suggest that the common element is the destructive power is greater in the military versions. In turn, this implies a limit exists (although one that has never been explained) on the destructive power available to citizens, beyond which the Second Amendment affords no protection.

          The Supreme Court has already ruled that, for the purposes of the right to bear arms, said arms do not have to be firearms – in fact, all manner on weaponry is covered. Therefore, on what grounds can the federal government restrict the right to of citizens to own military-grade weaponry?

          There are two basic ways to answer this:

          One, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate firearms in any measure. There ought to be no discriminate against the private ownership of military weaponry by private citizens.

          Two, it is constitutional for the federal government to reasonably regulate firearms. If so, then some logical rule must exist can determine if it is reasonable to regulate a given weapon. This begs the question – by what measure is this determination made? It’s not price, nor color nor weight but… destructive capability.

          Now I’m not trying to convince you that #2 is the correct answer. Instead I’m asking if #2 is TRUE, then what is – or should be – the logical rule, the principle, that we use to determine the legal status of firearms?

          • kowalski

            If you’d like to come up to speed on the NFA and the GCA, here’s a good law review article you can read. I think it answers some of your questions but (heh) probably not all of them.

            http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/zimring68.htm

          • kowalski

            Because (DD) Destructive Devices are already restricted. What you are seeking is an amendment to the definition of a Destructive Device that the BATFE can use to regulate devices *in the future* based on your assertion that certain kinds of weapons are going to become vastly more destructive. Currently it is possible for people to own hand grenades, if I’m not mistaken.

            Moreover, amendments to the GCA/NFA occur all the time, either to restrict the classes of people who are allowed to own weapons or to restrict the types of weapons can own, based on various premises. At this point, people are not allowed to own machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. Reviews are also conducted on the demilitarization of defense surplus weapons from time to time, and hearings are held.

            Interstate commerce in switchblades is also prohibited, except in the case of people with one arm.

            In other words, we already have a regulatory apparatus in place that is subject to amendment and revision on a relatively regular basis. I expect that amendments will continue to be proposed on an as-needed basis. You’re asking someone here to create a “destructiveness test” based on a hypothesis, presumably to use as the basis for future legislation.

            Finally, you’re asking for something that cannot, should not and will never be done: to have one single, overarching “logical” rule that will apply to everything. Again, I think you should consult the BATFE and ask them why they regulate certain things the way they do, including explosives. You’re acting as though these restrictions don’t already exist.

          • Don T.

            than mine! I agree, the DD type weapons are already heavily restricted.

          • kowalski

            Because you’re asking a couple of good questions and a few that I think are silly questions based on what already exists and a lot of hypotheticals – but I’ll wager that a “single logical rule” will ever survive our legislative process ;) .

            One good “single logical rule” is that the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to regulate them at all. I think that train has already left the station, so to speak.

            What we do, in practice – and it’s a pretty good practice – not ideal, we can’t achieve the ideal – is to handle these questions, amendements, new proposals, etc., on a case-by-case basis. If it turns out that technology advances to the point that a .50 caliber guided projectile with a built-in computerized grenade is feasible to manufacture in volume and can be fired from a .50 caliber handgun, I have every reason to believe Frank Lautenberg or Charles Schumer will try to pass an Act or an amendment to existing federal law that regulates it. I’m positive they’ve got people looking at hypothetical questions right now. And I’m sure the BATFE will be interested in controlling it, so they will have someone sponsor a bill that gives them the regulatory authority to do so, and then we will all go through the legislative process to see whether it passes or not.

          • kowalski

            Even though I’m a very staunch 2nd Amendement supporter, I used to go to College with a guy who was a lot smarter than I was in the area of quantum physics. He was a math/physics double major taking graduate classes in his first year as an undergraduate at a *very* good university.

            We had a conversation one night about weapons and over a dozen beers or so we got pretty far out there. We were talking about the relative destructive power of various classes of thermonuclear weapons, both the ones currently in the arsenal and hypothetical weapons in the future.

            I was pretty buzzed but I remember arguing: “Well, if you really wanted to scare people you’d develop a doomsday weapon that sets the atmosphere on fire, just like they were worried about with the first hydrogen bombs, except it really works.”

            And he said: “That’s nothing. What you really want is a missile you launch that makes the sun go nova and destroys the entire solar system.”

            He’s a lawyer now, believe it or not. ;)

          • Don T.

            would be the criteria I would start with, and that I think is already used to a great extent. As Viet71 suggested, “Any firearm featured in ?American Rifleman? (NRA) automatically meets the reasonableness test. Any military weapon meant primarily to kill and destroy (e.g., grenade launcher, tank main gun, SAW, flamethrower, drone, etc.) does not automatically meet the the test and therefore shifts the burden of proof as to reasonableness to the weapon owner.” That matches pretty well with your #2.

            I don’t see how it is difficult to craft logical legislation that massively regulates the sale and use by civilians of 1) fully automatic weapons, and 2) weapons that fire the .50 caliber machine gun round or larger similar rounds. I would not “ban” these items, just have a high bar for licensing, such as now exists for fully automatic weapons, as an example. I would “ban” the civilian ownership of highly lethal military weapons that are not small arms, such as any weapon or cannon or rocket weapon that fires high explosive rounds, rocket ammunition, and flame, etc. You can also define this by defining “small arms” adequately, which almost all states do now in their laws.

          • kowalski

            It’s saying: “You only legislate when you need to.”

  • Mr. Sandman

    I would be fascinated to hear what it’s like to be a gun owner in a region of the country where there is a less than healthy respect for the 2nd Amendmant. Being from the midwest, especially a deep-red state like Indiana, isolates one somewhat to the travails of others in bluer states.

    • kowalski

      The short answer is that there is a healthy respect for it among the vast majority of people who support it and there are a lot of people who don’t support it at all, and there are a fairly large cohort who know nothing about it. My guiding principles living here have always been:

      1) First and foremost, obey existing laws scrupulously.
      2) Support as much education and outreach as I can to the uneducated and miseducated
      3) Work to amend and shape legislation so that it makes sense and reduces unnecessary burdens and prohibitions
      4) Remain vigilant about those who have utterly draconian ideas
      5) Be safe and responsible in all my actions, words and deeds.

      I have a good relationship with my local police and my local gun owners. I support people at the State level who share my interests and my concerns, regardless of their political party. And I try not to cast blame on people who have been propagandized or who are simply ignorant. I’m proud to be an armed citizen, I recognize the responsibility and level of trust it entails, and I do my best to make sure everyone understands that.

      • Don T.

        is going to be a big issue for CCW opponents and advocates alike. I would imagine that you and me and anyone else who advocates for CCW licensing, will be confronted in a hostile way with this case, and with the facts, such as they are, twisted to put our position in as harsh a light as possible. All of us need to be prepared to address those questions and those attacks.

        I believe the correct position is: something criminal seems to have occurred, based on all we know from news reports. It is too early to say whether or not Florida law is deficient in terms of CCW licensing, or in the “stand your ground” law of self defense in that state. We should wait and let the state investigate, and prosecute the case in a court of law, not in the media. Then, state lawmakers can make judgments as to the applicable laws.

        Your points are powerful to consider. No laws can take the place of responsible gun ownership, and the burden that gun owners bear, when carrying a concealed weapon on the street.

        • kowalski

          All the facts have not come out in the Trayvon Martin case.

          I will say that this blog entry, the entire thread was *not* prompted by my reading about it. In fact I didn’t really know about the case until after I had posted the entry.

          There are a lot of questions to be answered and there is a lot of policital maneuvering going on and what I recommend is for everyone to wait until more facts emerge about what actually occured that night.

          As an LTC person here in MA I consider the shooting “suspicious” based on what I know right now. I refuse to engage in hypotheticals based on various news reports and snippets of information. There are a lot of things I *don’t* know, and beyond saying that it’s a suspicious thing – on a number of levels – I haven’t made a judgment.

          Speaking completely for myself, I know that one of my overarching concerns when I carry either of my guns is to think about deescalation first and foremost. The best practice is never to have to fire the weapon at a person. I don’t need a law to tell me that – it’s a matter of basic humanity. I feel terribly for his family’s loss. I also am worried about the Zimmerman family. I don’t know enough of the real, factual details to give my opinion on what happened that night. And once again, I was largely ignorant of the case until well after I had posted this blog entry. People can believe that or not but it’s true. I posted it because I had thought about posting it for a long time, and in response to the “brainwashing” Eric Holder video highlighted by Drudge.

          • Don T.

            completely with all of your comments. I only brought this up, because this incident WILL be brought up to any of us who are gun rights advocates. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

          • kowalski

            “Suspicious on a number of levels.”

            I generally agree with Jeb Bush on this: the legal process has to work itself out and of course the grieving process needs to work itself out also. Until I know more, I’m not interested in speculating at what happened during the moments it happened. I actually that respects everyone a lot more than what is happening right now.

          • kowalski

            I will tell you that the case has not changed my view about the need for national right-to-carry reciprocity nor has it changed my view about Castle Doctrine or “Stand Your Ground” laws. I think all of them are still essential.

            What does give me pause is the “dead zone” of factual details regarding the specifics of this encounter, and how it has been turned into a gigantic political circus that I think is really putting a lot more lives at risk. Hopefully not.

            Once again, I think everyone should see some of my references above to Massad Ayoob’s books and videos. When you carry a gun lawfully there is a lot more to consider than the kind of holster you’re putting it in and the kind of bullets you’re loading into it.

          • kowalski

            Here’s Ayoob enacting a “traffic stop” situation with one of the editors of G&A. These are the kinds of things you need to consider if you decide to carry a weapon on your person, in your car, etc. Again, this is an advisory not a treatise.

            http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/05/27/tips-when-stopped-by-police/

            http://bcove.me/1deb58up

          • Don T.

            where the driver does not have a carry permit, but does have a weapon in the car, it’s important for that driver to know what to do. As I understand it, for example in my state of Georgia where you CAN carry a weapon in your car as an extension of your home, but without having to have a CCW permit, the driver should follow all directions by the officer, as in the video, and the driver MUST truthfully answer the officer if he asks about potential contraband and weapons in the car. If it comes to a search of the vehicle by the officer, the driver has to reveal the presence of any weapons.

          • rightland1111

            nt

          • kipling

            Newt appeared on Peirs Morgan and the three people watching the show heard Morgan attack the right to self-defense. I have no ideas as to the truth of the case in Florida but the left will use it to attack the Second Amendment and all that goes with it.

          • kowalski

            The Left has used it to attack everyone and everything so far. They’ve attacked Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, the 2nd Amendment, Castle Doctrine laws, CCW reciprocity, the right to own a gun, and probably next, the right to have your mind intact.

            In the end it’s a single event in a nation of 300 million people. Not discounting the fact that our adversaries are very good and have been waiting for the chance, the important thing is not to let anyone provoke you or deter you. Piers Morgan is going to ask provocative questions because he’s a center-left journalist and it’s his prerogative to do so. It’s an unavoidable subject for him. I’m not concerned with ratings here, and it’s par for the course. Keep your powder dry and your head screwed on tight. In the end the facts of these things come out and the bluster and blustery politics work themselves out.

            If I was Piers Morgan I would have asked Newt Gingrich the same question. There’s no way he couldn’t! So that’s not a surprise and knowing that is not a strategy. Steady as she goes, kipling.

          • kowalski

            And he’d like to ask an actual citizen who is capable of an articulate response what they think, I’d like to invite him to invite me to appear on his program. I’m a very civil and thoughtful person and I’ll probably have better answers than Newt Gingrich does – because he is constrained by the politican suit he wears. I’m not a politician and I’m every bit as charismatic and articulate as Newt Gingrich and moreover I don’t have to live in the straitjacket of being a politician running for President.

            So if he’s interested in the truth instead of more metatruth, he should ask me to appear on his program.

          • kowalski

            To his studio, to demonstrate them for him and talk about why I own them. I don’t know whether that’s legal, though, which is sad. I’d be happy to bring them there unloaded and discuss them, and my rationale for owning them. So would millions of other people in the United States. I don’t have anything against Piers Morgan as a person.

          • Viet71

            The cynics on the Left don’t give a damn about Trayvon and don’t really care about the Second Amendment. They simply want to stir up the vote for Obama.

          • kowalski

            It’s a vehicle. But the most important thing is to realize that what matters is not the bread and circuses and not to respond to flip-outs with flip-outs.

          • Viet71

            n/t

          • Don T.

            Jeb Bush is hanging tough on current law.

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/24/republican-leaders-express-sympathy-support-stand-your-ground/

          • kowalski

            Since I’ve said that. What will happen is that you’ll see a rash of “interviews” in the media with gun owners who look and sound and represent themselves as dangerously stupid people.

            There is always another shoe to drop. And it’s going to in this case.

          • kowalski

            Has yet to occur. The next step is to start interviewing “stupid sounding” gun owners in the media and broadcasting them the news channels. The full court press has only just begun. If I was David Axelrod, what I’d be doing right now is compiling a list of toothless rubes who will go in front of a camera for $250 and show people how stupid they are.

          • kowalski

            Whenever anything happens, their impulses are the worst possible impulses they can have: they lash out at EVERYTHING. And they bring in heavy breathers to help them lash out at EVERYTHING. It’s part of who they are.

          • westcoastpatriette

            They love the drama and constant attention-seeking of portraying everyone as victims of evil conservatives such as ourselves. And Obama is a master at it. It is all so demoralizing and feeds into the basest nature of man encouraging them to blame anyone and everyone except themselves for their station in life. Personally, I find it all quite repulsive and make it a point to avoid association with these kinds of people. They are chronic takers and whiners and seldom contribute anything of value to culture generally or to their immediate circles of influence. In short, they are losers.

          • kowalski

            In reality we’re dealing with ideologues dressed up as pragmatists, wrapped inside a protective media coating.

          • kowalski

            Instead think about understanding what happened. The details are coming out, the more of them that come out the better.

          • kowalski

            When you’re stopped by a police officer the overriding principle is to be honest. If you’re a law abiding person, you might be upset that you were pulled over for speeding. Maybe you didn’t realize you were speeding. Maybe you thought it was OK to speed there. Maybe you don’t agree with speed laws in that area. But having the gun in the car brings the situation to a completely different echelon. The cop might be pulling you over for speeding, she might be pulling you over for a broken taillight lens, but they absolutely do not want to be surprised by that firearm, nor do they want you to inadvertently “frighten” them with it. They want to go home at night too.

            In other words, even if you think you’re going to talk to the officer about other things associated with the stop, you should never argue about whether you have a gun in the car. Be intellgent, upfront and deferential about that. Get that out first in a manner similar to this video, go through the “civility check” and then talk about the rest of the stuff. When you are pulled over the last thing on your mind should be trying to hide the fact that you have a gun from the officer, but neither should you BROADCAST IT THROUGH A MEGAPHONE. They’re separate issues and you don’t want them to be combined. You really don’t.

            Like he says: “They’re still not teaching telepathy at the academies.” The officer stopping you does not really know who you are, even though they can read the data about your car, they don’t know who YOU are.

          • Don T.

            I have run into a lot of license holders who advocate against giving out the weapons license (in GA, the GA Weapons Carry License or GWCL) up front to an LEO at a traffic stop. The reasoning is that some LEOs do in fact overreact and then want to “request” the license holder get out of the car and then “request” the weapon. If the matter at hand, speeding or a traffic infraction, does not require firearms in the car to come up, ie, volunteering the GWCL with the drivers license, then don’t give the GWCL out, and certainly do not mention that you have a firearm in the car.

            Now, if the LEO asks, “do you have a weapon”, the situation has changed, and the license holder should answer truthfully. Many license holders here advocate at that point answering, yes, I have a weapon, and then, if asked, saying they have the GWCL. I am in that corner, too. Some more hardcore license holders use the answer, “I have nothing illegal in my car” and keep to that answer. In some places, that will then cause the encounter to elevate, the LEO will command the operator to get out of the car, and it becomes a much more hostile encounter. Some license holders even advocate saying nothing at all to an LEO, and they will ask “am I being detained?” and “am I free to go?”

            My position is, be respectful and polite, and comply with LEO directives. If it is a request, I may decline, but if it is an order, I then comply. If ordered to produce my weapon or to submit to a person search or vehicle search, I will make clear that I do not consent to these searches but that I will comply. The side of the road is not the place to argue. If I think the officer overstepped bounds, I will bring it up later with his supervisor and the agency involved.

  • Don T.

    It’s a big responsibility for any citizen to take on. I’ve decided to go forward with it in my state. I am interested to get an update from you, Kowalski, as to another more extensive diary on gun ownership and your thoughts on this.

    I just recently applied for my Georgia Weapons Carry License, and I am awaiting the license now. The process in Georgia is pretty simple, with application given at the county probate court for your county. An extensive questionnaire is completed, that focuses on your citizenship status, prior arrests and convictions for drugs, weapons violations, and domestic violence, and whether you’ve been a mental patient, that sort of thing. You also have to get fingerprinted by the county sheriff, with an extensive criminal background then done by GBI and other agencies. Once the license is received, I will be allowed to carry a handgun, either concealed carry or openly carried, in all but a few restricted areas. Restricted areas include polling locations, schools, government buildings, bars, churches, and private businesses who do not want firearms carried on their property. Georgia has been fortunate with recent legislation having opened up the ability for licensed citizens to carry weapons in more places, including at the Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, as well as removing the restriction on “public gatherings”, which caused much confusion among license holders. Right now, I have two guns I will use for carrying: a Taurus .357 Magnum snubnose for concealed carry, and a 1911 Springfield .45 auto for open carry purposes. It is very important for license holders to know the law for carry and the rules of deadly force, to know the locations that are restricted from carry, and also to know what to do when encountering law enforcement. A number of law enforcement officers here are still learning what is and is not permitted for licensed civilians.

    I’m going to be easing into this, as I will choose concealed carry for most expeditions from home, and then going to open carry at selected venues. There is more open carry among civilians than one would think, but most Georgia civilians with licenses go the concealed route. There is a healthy debate among license holders about open carry versus concealed. A number of open carry advocates are strong unrestricted 2d Amendment boosters, and many of them also believe that normalizing open carry will promote public acceptance and also add to deterrence of crime.

    If anyone is interested, I’ll report back on my experiences.

  • Pingback: Ezra Sliman

  • Pingback: Herb Beetley

  • Pingback: electronic cigarette

  • Pingback: office cleaning company

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: redirected here

  • Pingback: zakopane noclegi

  • Pingback: Investment Opportunities

  • Pingback: skype pobierz

  • Pingback: wedding magician

  • Pingback: Portal randkowy

  • Pingback: HGH Advanced reviews

  • Pingback: cv wzór

  • Pingback: Wedding fashion

  • Pingback: landscaping

  • Pingback: click website

  • Pingback: แทงบอลออนไลน์

  • Pingback: แทงบอลออนไลน์

  • Pingback: βελτιστοποίηση ιστοσελίδων

  • Pingback: γυαλινες ντουζιερες

  • Pingback: distilled definition

  • Pingback: คอนโดเอแบคบางนา

  • Pingback: musica cristiana para niños 6 años

  • Pingback: BBCAT

  • Pingback: helpful reference

  • Pingback: ps3

  • Pingback: Koi

  • Pingback: foreclosure

  • Pingback: kozmetika

  • Pingback: payday loans online

  • Pingback: Aquaristik Bücher

  • Pingback: Fusevision.com.sg

  • Pingback: finish touchup

  • Pingback: super fast respond

  • Pingback: Pool Shop

  • Pingback: informe oficial

  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: chair reglue

  • Pingback: portal randkowy

  • Pingback: swtor credits bargain

  • Pingback: the woman's explanation

  • Pingback: home addition plus garage workbench winter park

  • Pingback: Aquariumfilter

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: darmowy serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: mobile advertising

  • Pingback: randki za darmo

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: odszukaj milosc swego zycia

  • Pingback: strona z randkami

  • Pingback: dark chocolate gift baskets

  • Pingback: http://tastemakerz.com/2012/01/rick-ross-on-meeting-with-dr-dre/

  • Pingback: commercial property rental

  • Pingback: izap toothbrush sanitizer

  • Pingback: Explore Talent Worth

  • Pingback: search engine optimization analysis

  • Pingback: bernina sewing machine repair school

  • Pingback: 4 day cleanse diet

  • Pingback: retirement homes in toronto

  • Pingback: houston vending machines in schools

  • Pingback: strona z randkami

  • Pingback: fix my pc

  • Pingback: randka przez internet

  • Pingback: Arkadaslik

  • Pingback: randka

  • Pingback: University

  • Pingback: milosc w rzeszowie

  • Pingback: Dredge parts

  • Pingback: island county wedding photographer

  • Pingback: discount online pharmacy

  • Pingback: look what I came across

  • Pingback: payday loans no faxing required

  • Pingback: casino gaming

  • Pingback: please

  • Pingback: real payday loans online

  • Pingback: Lucille McKenzie

  • Pingback: i need a payday loan now

  • Pingback: please

  • Pingback: youtube to mov

  • Pingback: RankFlippr

  • Pingback: Sheriff slot demo games

  • Pingback: dry cleaner

  • Pingback: ways to earn extra money online

  • Pingback: gold

  • Pingback: Signo editores

  • Pingback: Editorial signo

  • Pingback: scooter camp

  • Pingback: EuroMillions

  • Pingback: wedding planner toscana

  • Pingback: discount tickets

  • Pingback: sushi catering boston ma

  • Pingback: profits noob

  • Pingback: ipl laser hair removal mascot

  • Pingback: Harlow

  • Pingback: sterling silver necklaces

  • Pingback: jailbreak ios 6

  • Pingback: Debt Management Programs

  • Pingback: relating to Yahoo

  • Pingback: Brier

  • Pingback: Destry

  • Pingback: Genevieve

  • Pingback: tartamudez tratamiento

  • Pingback: peralatan sablon

  • Pingback: Ultrasonic flow meter

  • Pingback: china jewelry supplier

  • Pingback: Custom made dresses online

  • Pingback: how to articles

  • Pingback: Bullying Prevention

  • Pingback: http://oao-amgu.ru/wiki/index.php5?title=Holiday_break_Weight_Loss_Tips.

  • Pingback: salsa

  • Pingback: free bets offers

  • Pingback: online casino uk

  • Pingback: Dallas Cowboys

  • Pingback: job search

  • Pingback: Odometer Correction

  • Pingback: viaggi per single

  • Pingback: Home Made energy download

  • Pingback: cheap Abercrombie & Fitch clothing

  • Pingback: hair extensions

  • Pingback: Kaylee Chaidez

  • Pingback: sexy bikinis

  • Pingback: Julie Leiendecker

  • Pingback: affordable seo company

  • Pingback: alfileres de boda

  • Pingback: Apple Iphone 5 Giveaway 2012

  • Pingback: op ed submission

  • Pingback: loans and bad credit

  • Pingback: קידום אתרים

  • Pingback: phone no. information

  • Pingback: Hiring

  • Pingback: Chase Schriber

  • Pingback: Carman Parillo

  • Pingback: Trina Hartranft

  • Pingback: upmc insurance rates

  • Pingback: aloe vera side effects

  • Pingback: click this

  • Pingback: przepisy

  • Pingback: backlinks kaufen

  • Pingback: Dressesonlinesales

  • Pingback: wholesale anime

  • Pingback: fashion jeans

  • Pingback: Comprar Tablet Android

  • Pingback: Berenger

  • Pingback: Rosamaria Froebe

  • Pingback: samsung chromebook

  • Pingback: cafe in blaine

  • Pingback: work from home

  • Pingback: buy african mango

  • Pingback: Invest In Bali Land Property

  • Pingback: hot local sex dates

  • Pingback: Zella Asher

  • Pingback: increases energy

  • Pingback: john thomas financial

  • Pingback: View

  • Pingback: john thomas financial

  • Pingback: home business

  • Pingback: chinese new year slots

  • Pingback: free poker bets

  • Pingback: slots uk

  • Pingback: horoscopes

  • Pingback: what do you reckon

  • Pingback: vakantiehuizen oostenrijk

  • Pingback: janitor service

  • Pingback: apo janitorial service

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: good read

  • Pingback: Height Adjustable Desk

  • Pingback: 2013 Formal Dress

  • Pingback: las vegas bankruptcy law firm

  • Pingback: lego review

  • Pingback: Kush Los Angeles

  • Pingback: Joe Francis

  • Pingback: Marijuana Hollywood

  • Pingback: pool prices

  • Pingback: nigGer

  • Pingback: I Need to Make Money Fast

  • Pingback: forex online trading

  • Pingback: free play slot demo games

  • Pingback: Paslode Im350

  • Pingback: Sail Croatia

  • Pingback: john thomas financial

  • Pingback: Website

  • Pingback: negocios

  • Pingback: capitol heights locksmith

  • Pingback: Veteran flag display cases

  • Pingback: data logger temperature humidity