This is a good article from the Christian Science Monitor:


This particular paragraph, I find significant because it is something that I have been saying but find it rarely in print.

"The sheer number of firearms in America today – an estimated 300 million – would also present practical and financial obstacles. If the US were to collect and destroy the same proportion of firearms as Australia did, it would require a buyback of 90 million weapons, according to one Australian researcher, as compared to only 640,000 firearms bought back by the Australian government. Paying full market value for the guns could cost the US billions of dollars. "



It seems like that a lot of people have no idea of what the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban entailed. I know that a lot of new shooters were simply not old enough to remember the 10 year ban.
For those of us who do we are quick to point out that the authors had no idea what they were talking about - like the legislator when asked what a "barrel shroud" is, she said she had no idea. She was a co-author of the bill in question! That's a good way to write and pass legislation.

This was a mainly cosmetic ban of offensive features because they couldn't get what they actually wanted - a ban on semi-autos. Baby steps, they thought. Remember Sen. Feinstein has said in the past that if she could get enough votes to pass, she would pass a bill going door-to-door to collect everyone's guns. 

Since there is a lot of ridiculous conjecture on social media about so-called "assault weapons" I thought I would make this post showing a couple of post-1994 rifles. They are the alleged "assault rifles" AK47 and AR15 that had been "sporterized" to meet the new requirements. A lot of people have been pointing to the AWB as if it was some sort of magical template fix but don't know, of have forgotten, what the original AWB actually did. Or perhaps, supporters just don't care (baby steps, right?)

The pictures are not mine, so of course, I will remove them if asked. Or, if anyone has any of their own pics that I could use - I would be most appreciative! I never had any post-1994 "compliant" rifles.
Big differences? Thumbhole stock, no flash hider (although muzzle breaks were ok), no bayonet lug. Apparently much less deadly. Feel safer?


MAK90 "Sporter" 



AR15 "Sporter"




Someone on Facebook asked me my thoughts on an article where the author surmised that militia, army, and National Guard are the same thing. It's long but I am trying to help people understand from a historical perspective of the 2nd Amendment and the pro-gun side. Here was my response, perhaps you will find it useful as I know social media is ablaze with gun control debates. I find that a lot of people don't know the history around the U.S. and the Bill of Rights and thought it might be useful:


He is actually right about it being against tyranny and not collecting or duck hunting. He is also correct that Scalia never claimed it to be an unlimited right or what is "reasonable." Like always they leave that to local government and lower courts. BUT SCOTUS did determine that handguns are common and could not be banned. Are AR15s the most common rifle, made, sold and shot in the U.S. "common"? Well, there the courts disagree with each other.

What the author gets wrong is that the Founding Fathers chose "militia" on purpose. Militia were controlled locally with no Fed intervention. As for calling it a synonym for "army" he is WAY off base. The standing army (yes there was one) was DISBANDED after the Revolutionary War. The Founding Fathers distrusted a professional standing army.

Let me ask this - Does any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights enumerate rights of the Govt? The Constitution already grants Federal Govt the authority to raise and fund an Army. Why on Earth would they write an Amendment that granted the right of [its own Army] to keep and bear arms? That makes no sense. The 10th Amendment drives home this fact - that these are not Govt rights by reserving any non-enumerated powers to the States.

The National Guard being the militia (remember "of the people") has no basis. The National Guard didn't come into existence until 1903 and under the Dick Act the militia was made up of *2* components - the ORGANIZED militia aka National Guard and the UNORGANIZED militia - THE PEOPLE. To further illustrate this we have the 1939 SCOTUS ruling United States vs Miller which specifically states that the National Guard UNLIKE the Militia can be required to serve overseas.

Now, I did read an article today that talked about the "well regulated" part and lamented the fact that the States (with perhaps the exception of Texas) don't really have programs to train people. Washington's is very bare ( but exists. The author was right, it was the intent that everyone participate who was willing and able. There the author surmised was a way to regulate firearms, require training that would still adhere to 2nd Amendment. However, the fact that the States have been lax in training (regulating) doesn't remove the Right. Just because no troops have been quartered lately doesn't mean that it's ok to do it now (3rd Amendment).

Besides the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "as long as the militia is well regulated" or "as long as some people think we need a militia."

Hamilton, Federalist 29: "This force will be further complemented by the "people at large," who can "stand ready with arms to defend their rights and those of their fellow-citizens."


George Mason in the debate on the ratification of the Constitution before the Virginia Assembly: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."



There is a lot of rhetoric going on regarding the Orlando Shooting that occurred yesterday.I don't think that I can add much to it, especially since it was just yesterday (didn't we used to take time to mourn prior to politicizing things?) and all of the facts aren't even in yet.

I don't often recommending anything posted by VOX but this is a (surprisingly) decent (honest) article from VOX titled:
Here's what Democrats want to do on gun control after the Orlando shooting

To me this is the most interesting line in the article:

"There aren't exactly policy proposals for Australian-style mandatory buybacks circulating among the progressive pundit class — largely because it's a nonstarter with the current Supreme Court, which has ruled that there is an individual right to own guns (a premise that many liberals still argue with). Instead it's more of an attitude: the sense that there is not actually any such thing as the "responsible gun owner" Trumble talks about, because it is irresponsible to own something so lethal." 

and confirms something that I have long believed about a certain element of the gun control movement - they don't trust anyone with a gun, and that everyone is a potential criminal.

Let that sink in.
Think about that in terms of appeasement on gun control.

Are they going to be happy with just universal background checks? (which the shooter went through)
Are they going to be happy with just mental health checks? (which the shooter went through - he was employed by the largest security company in the world)

And exactly who is on this "watch list" that President Obama has said can be triggered by things such as visiting certain websites? 
And how big is this "watch list" if there is "not actually such thing as the 'responsible gun owner"????

According to the VOX article above the watch list is already has over 700,000 people on it, and once included Senator Ted Kennedy! 

It is the elimination of due process, and the easy targeting and punishment of anyone (or group's) political enemies.
If people can be prevented from travel ad hoc, and Constitutionally protected rights removed - why not put them under gag order too, and silence them?


This post has not been sanctioned or authorized by the Department of Information.
Any questions should be directed to Mr. George Orwell.



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 3 of 17