The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Removing “gun-free” zones on concealed weapons license holders, is, of course, such an obviously bad thing, that the media doesn’t even need to bother talking to supporters of the bill. And of course, it won’t pass, because it’s such a bad idea after all.
Watch the video. Â It’s been a while since I could stomach TV news.
There was a time when I thought that it might actually be nice if Pennsylvania passed a training requirement so that we could get expanded reciprocity with other states. I heard from people that our lack of training requirement was a real impediment to signing with states that had “substitutively similar” language in their reciprocity statues.
I don’t think that anymore.  Pennsylvania has done pretty well in signing reciprocity agreements in the past few years with other states. While we’re still lacking some key ones I’d like to see, like Colorado, West Virginia, and Delaware, it’s a much better state of affairs then it used to be.
Today we have reciprocity agreements with:
In addition, our LTC is recognized by:
This is quite an improvement over several years ago, and I hope it will keep improving.  Tom Corbett’s office deserves kudos for working hard on getting so many new agreements. Hopefully in a few years we’ll be pretty close to universal reciprocity among states, despite boneheaded actions like we saw from the politicians in Colorado earlier in the week.
If all you want are reasonable gun laws, then why are you trying to hard to preserve Washington D.C.’s total gun prohibition, and doing everything to discredit the notion that Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
You guys are so lucky to have a sympathetic media who is happy not to ask these questions.
The Democrats in Colorado just limited reciprocity to resident permits only.  That means my Florida permit is now worthless in Colorado.  Pennsylvania does not have reciprocity with Colorado. You can see the text of the bill here.
Clarifies that a person cannot use a permit to carry a concealed
handgun that is issued by another state if the person does not reside in the
issuing state.
I had plans to do a big hiking trip in Colorado.  I will now take my business to a state that will allow me to defend myself while on the trail. Especially considering it’s Colorado that’s had problems with cougar attacks.
The general assembly hereby finds determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate23 preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.24
Any bets on whether the Colorado General Assembly can find even a single case of an out of state permit holder causing a problem? I’ll bet they can’t. Folks in Colorado, you have some politicians that need to be thrown out on their asses next election.
Hat Tip: Jeff SoyerÂ
Since Bitter and I were invited on a squirrel hunt earlier, I thought maybe since I was headed the range tonight, I’d try at shooting some rodent targets. I didn’t have squirrel, but I did have groundhog targets handy:
Shooting my Ruger Mk.II, weaver stance, at 10 yards, rapid fire, I noticed my shots are pulling to the left a bit. I’m not sure if it’s me or the gun, but I wasn’t doing it when I was shooting the CZ-82. The Mk.II 50th Anniversary edition has fixed sights. Can fixed sights drift off center over time?
All the more reason, I suppose, to get myself another decent .22LR pistol for shooting target.
Today’s fool is Thomas S. Markham, writing in the Walker County Register:
NRA advocates: You are simply either uniformed or misinformed about militias in the United States. I fully understand your desire to have the Second Amendment to the Constitution verify that you have the right to bear any type of weapon, at any time you choose, and in any place that you may desire, but it simply does not.
The collective rights view has been, at this point, thoroughly discredited among constitutional scholars, and the latest court rulings are merely reflecting that. Check out the literature. I think you’ll find it’s not us who are misinformed.
As many of you, I’m an old retired hunter. I own several guns. I want my grandsons to hunt, and I want them have the right to protect their homes and families. I’m probably more “on your team†than on the side of those who would ban every form of gun ownership.
You know, I’m hearing this so often now, I’m really starting to not believe it. No, you’re not on my team. I don’t hunt, and you know what? There plenty of lawful and legitimate reason to own a firearm that don’t involve hunting.
Tell me honestly, all you NRA hunters out there: “Did you ever seriously hunt any game with a pistol? Or, did you even ever know anyone who did?†If you think about it, pistols are only made to kill people, not game. That’s a simple and tragic fact. And because of that fact, we must not stand by idle and let these lobbyists make the laws that keep these “Death Weapons†on the streets. The NRA lobbyists represent the “gun runners,†and the rich pistol distributors, not us.
No, I’ve never hunted with a pistol, but I shoot them recreationally, collect them, and carry for self-defense. All legitimate an lawful reasons to have one. I’m seriously starting to wonder if these aren’t astroturfing campaigns, because the message always seems to follow the same format, and it’s one we know our opponents are trying to push. The old “NRA doesn’t represent hunters”, “NRA are extremists”, “I’m a hunter, and I support gun control”.
I have no doubt there are hunters out there who think this way, but you’d think a lot of varying people wouldn’t all sound the same. You’d also think they wouldn’t all seem to mention the same tired issues. Do we all sound the same? I’d like to think not. But I read a lot of these editorials, and I have to say, they sound rather contrived. I would think you’d get a broader range of views and writing styles. What do you think?
SayUncle linked to a great piece on ammo prices. Seems mostly caused by what we’ve talked about before. High commodity prices, war demand, higher fuel prices, and shrinking surplus supply. One thing caught my attention, because I had never heard of this before:
I think the scariest part of all of the shortages are the role that our own government has had in the shortages, and this role is only going to get worse. As part of the 1994 Gun Control Act that gave us the assault rifle bans and high cap magazine bans, we also got a great many more things that people never heard about. Ever wonder why US made surplus for 223(5.56mm), 308(7.62mm), and 30-06 disappeared from the market? Loaded ammunition in government inventory cannot be sold to the public any longer as of 1994. If it was in private hands, controlled by another government, or was demilled with the original primer killed and removed then reassembled with a new non-milspec primer then it can still be sold. I’m not going into every deatil, but only the ban on assault style weapons and magazine capacity had a sunset in 2004, everything else was signed into law. If you think this isn’t real, look into this a bit further. You might be surprised! There is a lot more to gun control than banning guns, and I feel all shooters should broaden their horizons a bit when it comes to laws.
When you measure up and total the overall damage that was done to the shooting community during the Clinton Administration, it’s staggering. Recall also that it was during Clinton we saw the Civilian Marksmanship Program get de-funded.
It seems to me this restriction would be easy to remove as a rider on another bill, like maybe the NICS improvement?  Too much to ask maybe? I suppose we could always tack it on to a bill protecting children or something.
According to Dave Hardy, there has been a sea change in world-view among the populace in regards to gun control over the past decade, and he thinks 9/11 might have something to do with it:
Perhaps on 9/11, we learned to fight back? Or perhaps, as my friend Gale Norton (formerly my boss, and then Sec. of Interior) pointed out, in the Cold War we knew that a gun was no defense against the menace of a nuclear attack, but in 9/11 had to reflect that if one person or pilot on each plane had had a pistol in their pocket, the only deaths would have been those of the terrorists?
I think there’s always been an strong undercurrent in American culture that personal security is the responsibility of the person, rather than the state. Certainly there is much debate on the specifics, but one can point out that Bernhard Goetz was acquitted in the most anti-gun jurisdiction in the country after shooting four would be robbers on the New York Subway, with what Mayor Bloomberg today would be happy to call an “illegal gun”.
On a personal level, I can tell you I never had much interest in carrying a firearm until 9/11. I knew it was possible, and not difficult to get a license. I knew how to shoot. But I lived in a low crime area, and didn’t really think it was worth the hassle of getting the permit, and having to deal with carrying a pistol on my person.
Post 9/11, my attitude changed. I couldn’t exactly say why at the time. I mean, I knew that the odds of being a victim of a terrorist attack are slim, and I knew that terrorists often use methods where a firearm would be of no use, but thinking about the folks on Flight 93, who were expecting an uneventful flight to San Francisco, and certainly didn’t expect to become soldiers in defense of their country, much less give their lives in the process, I had to ask myself if I was up to that. I suspect a lot of Americans asked themselves the same question.
I decided shortly thereafter to become more proficient on pistol, and apply for a License to Carry. Once the awkward phase was over with, I discovered carrying wasn’t really the burden I had once thought it was. In fact, it’s not a burden at all. Any more than carrying a cell phone and a wallet is a burden.
Why did American attitudes towards guns change after 9/11? Because on 9/11, everything the government put in place to protect us failed. The only thing, only thing, that worked on that day was thirty three ordinary citizens who decided to take it upon themselves to defend their country. The only thing that worked was the citizen militia. And I suspect that fact was not lost on the American people, even if it wasn’t entirely conscious. 9/11 was a message, a loud message, that the government can’t protect us, and that when the shit hits the fan, it is up to us to stand up and do something.
As much as some Americans prefer to bury their heads in sand and pretend that the world is a happy place where there aren’t people who desperately want to kill us, most know better, and at least on some level that’s made them change their attitudes on guns, among other things. Firearms are, in our culture, a symbol of self-reliance and liberty, which is why we all get so passionate about them. The gun control debate has never really been about the guns themselves. It’s been about whether or not we trust the government to be the only entity with the means to look after our wellbeing, security and liberty. Our founding fathers thought that was a fool’s errand, and wanted to ensure the population was able to remain armed, as a check against the government. The fringes of the political spectrum hate that idea, but I’m glad to see more Americans returning to it. It’s just a shame that it had to take a national calamity to bring it about.
I’ve been largely ignoring editorials calling for more gun control in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, because, quite frankly, I can’t believe a month later they are still using this tragedy as a springboard to try to convince the public that all we need is more gun control. This one comes from Peter Durantine in the Philadelphia Daily News.
Do we fear doing something to change? Has the NRA convinced us more guns are the answer? Do we really value a firearm over life? Is a gun really essential to our freedom and way of life?
Regardless of what anyone says, this nation was not forged by firearms and blood – it was formed on ideas. And ideas and ideals are what make great nations.
How can you even take this stuff seriously? Let alone seriously enough to print it. How about this little exercise. Some street urchin decides to put a gun to your head and demand your wallet. Now, start thinking up the idea in your head that if you don’t turn over your wallet, even if the robber pulled the trigger, it won’t splatter your brains all over the sidewalk. Feel comfortable with the idea of risking him pulling the trigger? No? Congratulations, you’ve just learned how power works.
Our country is what is is not just because of ideas, but because men believed in those ideas so much that they were willing to fight and die for them. Ideas themselves mean nothing if people aren’t willing to fight for them. Whether that idea is that we want to live in a free constitutional republic, or that our lives and the lives of those around us are worth defending, those ideas have no meaning without men with guns willing to do violence to preserve them.
… on firearms, says Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco. After he lost in court over his first set of common sense restrictions, total gun prohibition on the sale of guns in the city, and a total prohibition entirely of handguns, he’s at it again:
Mayor Gavin Newsom quietly introduced a package of gun control measures on Tuesday that would make it illegal to possess guns on city-owned property and require residents to store handguns in locked containers.
But, even some of the legislation’s co-sponsors conceded the proposals will have little effect on the proliferation of illegal guns on San Francisco streets.
When even the supports admit it won’t really do anything, why pass it? Can someone explain to me how I’m suppose to have reasonable dialog with someone who has this kind of mentality?