There has been an enormous amount of discussion about yesterday's 9th Circuit of Appeals' ruling that concealed carry is not a Constitutional Right.

This Forbes article pretty much summarizes it: 

But I do have a few additional thoughts, I will be brief...

The 9th Circuit of Appeals has NEVER been friendly towards firearms. This ruling was clever at best. They didn't look whether "bearing" arms was possible they looked specifically (at the State's request) at "concealed carry."
And on "concealed carry" alone is how they made their ruling. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about "concealed carry" does it? In order to do that they wore their tunnel vision goggles.

The ruling makes no sense if you look at the fact that "open carry" is illegal or requires - you guessed it - a permit. So, essentially there is no way to actually "bear arms" in public in CA. However, they didn't look at that issue. They claimed that issue has to be litigated separately, full well knowing that is virtually impossible. A person would have to prove that they were directly impacted by the open carry laws in order to even have legal standing. Remember only one plaintiff in Heller ended up passing the legal standing test.

What no one seems to be saying is that this ruling is politically driven. In my opinion, it most surely is:
We have a major candidate that when asked about the 2nd Amendment, she answers "IF it is a Constitutional Right...."
We have DNC rule makers saying that "no one" should have a gun (
I am seeing more and more articles about Heller being attributed to Justice Scalia and how the Supreme Court can be reshaped by the next president...

Heller is done. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been settled by the Supreme Court. BUT...

DC residents still fight to obtain firearms and get a license to carry it, or even keep it assembled in their own homes.
And now the 9th Circuit defies SCOTUS in an election year? Coincidence?

Think about it.



As a side-note the ruling doesn't really impact states that are already 'shall issue.' It, however, really impacts discretionary (may issue) states where there is a fight to get a CCW.
At least one Sen. (WA) is already trying to capitalize on the media attention to restrict CCW licenses: 

I doubt this is the first time he has tried this. 


Just a reminder that SB6165 goes into effect in Washington State tomorrow and the ATF will be accepting Form 1 applications at midnight - remember it's down on Wednesdays for maintenance so no last minute edits today.
It will remain open until July 13 when the new rules go into effect and we will be requried to submit applications by paper, and of course, following the new rules.


Well, it appears that summertime is here in Seattle with temperatures actually up in the 90s (well, at least for a day anyway).
This is warm weather for us and I forgot that I had actually bought a Glock 43 a few months ago for the warm weather.

A Glock 43 you say? Well, that is pretty boring now. It was the hot new(est) slim 9 when it was first released but a lot of people have talked about it. 
Well, despite being a Glock fan my opinion may surprise you. 

Let me bore you for a moment. My EDC is a Glock and I have several different models and calibers. I was a Glock Certified Armorer (expired now).
The design is great. I got the 43 because of the size, and there it is excellent. It is significantly smaller and thinner than anything I own, but large enough
to still be functional. I like the stock grip size and thinness for concealment. A definite win for CCW.

But, I did not like shooting it. No, it wasn't the recoil but the pistol itself. My main EDC is a Glock 23 and in the summer-time I 
switch  to a 27. I have both guns in Gen3 and Gen4. I have no problem with the recoil, grip, trigger, etc.

 Quite simply I shoot to the left with it. The short frame to trigger distance I think puts it uncomfortably in my hand. The connector is 
steep, short, and rough. It is by far the worst trigger of any of my Glocks. The break is heavy and when it does it kind of goes "Sproing"!

I have talked to a couple of other people and they have similar opinions and coincidentally shoot to the left with it. Make no mistake there are
plenty of people (with bigger hands than me too) that have no issues with the little pistol. I know that it is me (along with a few others). 
I will probably end up getting a laser just to see what I am doing to master it, but in the meantime it is not going to be my summer carry. 

I have already replaced it with something a little more old school, but more on that shortly :)

The lesson? If you can, shoot it first! Even though its a Glock and they are famous for building pistols that look and function exactly the same, this  one is not the same (to me at least).



It is good to see a court strike down the NH Department of Safety's ad hoc requirement that a non-resident first obtain a home state CCW license before getting a NH non-resident CCW license.
This was not anywhere in the law. 

"[W]e cannot disregard the fact that residents of certain states, like New Jersey, may simply be unable to satisfy state requirements for a license that differ from New Hampshire’s statutory requirements. Because the rules at issue here effectively incorporate into New Hampshire’s requirements for concealed-carry licenses the requirements established by other states for the issuance of concealed-carry licenses, the rules change the requirements of [the state statute], and thus, “add to, detract from, or modify the statute which they are intended to implement.” Accordingly, we conclude that the challenged rules — requiring nonresidents to provide proof that they hold resident state licenses in order to obtain concealed-carry licenses in New Hampshire — are ultra vires [i.e., beyond the Department’s powers] and, therefore, invalid."


I keep seeing this quote thrown around. Most recently it was tweeted by the Clinton Campaign along with a confusing and incorrect Venn Diagram. 
I had to wonder where does this number come from? The NRA rightly counters that its membership is PRIVATE and the surveyors have no way of knowing that. 

I did some quick Googling to so-called "Political/fact Check" websites and confirmed that they confirm them as "true". Hmm...

This one:
eems the most honest. They actually admit that they had to search for a source to confirm it. Talk about pre-determining things. 

"In March 2013, Lee Leffingwell, then the mayor of Austin, Texas, made a two-part claim that includes the claim Taylor made. He said 90 percent of Americans and 74 percent of NRA members support background checks of gun purchasers. PolitiFact Texas rated his claim True.

The key evidence was an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine on a poll done in January 2013 by two entities at Johns Hopkins University -- the Department of Health Policy and Management and the Center for Gun Policy and Research.

The poll was conducted online among 2,703 adults -- including 169 NRA members -- through GfK Knowledge Networks, which specializes in working with academic and government researchers to do polling online. It recruits participants randomly via mail and telephone.

The poll found that 74 percent (to be precise, 73.7 percent) of NRA members supported requiring background checks for all gun sales. (The margin of error was seven points.)"

Ok, here are my problems that should be obvious to any reader (except apparently for the authors of the article):

1. It was an ONLINE survey
2. 2,703 participants
3. 169 self-identified NRA Members


This is the basis for making the claim that 74% of NRA members support "universal background checks"!


When the validity was questioned by the NRA the authors responded: 
 " is a common practice in polling to ask respondents to identify whether they are members of, for example, a political party or other group."


169 online responses is how they justify claims about what the NRA Membership believe. 

Unbelievable. Remember that next time you read a "fact check."


Page 5 of 58