Home

WEST VIRGINIA’S LATEST GUN RIGHTS INITIATIVE PULLS FROM LIBERAL PLAYBOOK

Leave a comment

H/T Keep And Bear.

This would be an interesting twist to protecting gun owners rights.

With American gun owners constantly under attack by the liberal left, it’s about time that one state started diversifying their tactics in the war on the 2nd Amendment.

For decades, democrats have worked both behind the scenes and in the open to nullify the rights of gun owners across our great nation.  By exploiting tragedy and segregating their voters into tiny, workable clans, the left has long been void of any dignity or shame when it comes to achieving their selfish goals.

Outside of constantly railing against the 2nd Amendment, the left has also been busy pushing the concept of “sanctuary cities”, or, places in which federal immigration officers will not be welcomed by or assisted by local law enforcement in the line of duty.  The idea here is that this will allow democrats to keep their precious undocumented immigrant vote numbers come 2018 and 2020, and the bleeding heart liberals of the party will be able to virtue signal their love of minorities at the same time.

Now, conservative lawmakers in West Virginia are taking a good, hard look at the untenable “sanctuary city” model for immigration, and wondering if the concept couldn’t be applied in the fight to protect the 2nd Amendment.

“House Bill 2138, introduced by Republican Del. Pat McGeehan, would effectively nullify all federal gun control within the state’s boundaries, according to a report from the Tenth Amendment Center. The bill would make any attempt to enforce such laws a felony.

“HB2138 reads:

“’All current and future federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances, laws, orders, rules, and any other actions which attempt to restrict, tax, or regulate the possession, use, discharge in lawful self-defense, transportation, purchase, acquisition, sale, transfer, ownership, carrying, manufacture, or repair of firearms, firearm accessories, ammunition and their accouterments contradict the true meaning and original intent of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section twenty-two, Article III of the Constitution of the State of West Virginia. Those statutes, ordinances, laws, orders and rules which violate the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of West Virginia are invalid, and therefore, are null and void.’”

There’s nothing quite like given the democrats a taste of their own medicine, is there?

Whether or not West Virginia can successfully pull off their “sanctuary” status for firearms has yet to be seen, but the concept will certainly reignite not only the battle for the 2nd Amendment in the Mountain State, but the battle for states’ rights as well.

PUNKS PULL GUN ON IL AG DURING PHOTOSHOOT TO CAPTURE “ESSENCE” OF CITY

1 Comment

H/T Keep And Bear.

This can not be as Chicago has such draconian gun control laws this could never happen.Snark

The state of Illinois, and specifically the city of Chicago, have long been rocked by an inexcusable democratic experiment on gun control.

From 1982 to 2010, the city of Chicago maintained an all out legal ban on handguns.  While the left’s hope was that this ban would deter criminals from acquiring firearms with which to commit their crimes, this farcical legislative joke only went on to prove the old adage “when you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns”.

Beginning in 1982, and extending well into the modern day, Chicago has been a lawless hellscape of illegally imported firearms as black market arms races blossomed while the law-abiding citizen of Chi-Town cowered helplessly in their homes.

Still, many politicians in Chicago will stand to defend the purely partisan nonsense, despite the obvious evidence that the entire experiment was a massive failure.

Now, the Illinois Attorney General has gotten a taste of the mess himself. 

“Illinois Attorney General candidate Aaron Goldstein (D) was robbed at gunpoint in broad daylight during a campaign stop in Chicago on Thursday.

“Four individuals with Goldstein were also robbed.

“According to the Chicago Tribune, there were a total of three robbery suspects. Those included a gunman and two accomplices, all ‘between 20 and 24 years old.’

“Goldstein was taking part in a photo shoot in Albany Park. The shoot was intended to capture him and the essence of the neighborhood. Campaign manager Robert Murphy said the campaign stop was part of an ‘in-the-neighborhood kind of’ theme.

“The robbery suspects got away with cameras and cell phones, and Goldstein’s crew was shaken up but not harmed.”

Goldstein was certainly given a unique look into the inner workings of the neighborhood surrounding Albany Park.

Now, as Chicago works its way back into modern civilization, the lawlessness will likely continue for some time.  It took criminals very, very little effort to bring these illegal and untraceable weapons into the city, but it will be extremely difficult to remove them.

CALIFORNIA’S BACKDOOR ATTEMPT AT BANNING GUN STORES SET TO BACKFIRE

Leave a comment

H/T Keep And Bear.

I hope the state of Commifornia gets taken to the proverbial woodshed.

In the liberal La La Land of California, there are few things more reviled than the idea of the 2nd Amendment and individual gun rights.

California is, however, in some ways a state divided. The northern half of the expansive territory does tend to find more conservative lanes of traffic, with hunting, fishing, and the outdoors playing a much more prominent role in the culture of the area.

In southern California, however, it’s all lattes and sexual assault.

And, much like fellow divided state New York, California’s political power tends to lie with the more heavily populated liberal locales, meaning that the state legislature leans heavily to the left.  This has led to California having some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

Now, as the Bear Republic attempts to create an even more stringent set of parameters for citizens hoping to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, the Supreme Court could be stepping in to put an end to the nonsense.

“Gun rights groups have filed a petition with the Supreme Court in the hopes that it would consider a controversial appeals court decision that limits where gun stores can open within one county in California.

Businessmen John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza joined the Calguns Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees in the lawsuit first filed in 2012 that challenged an ordinance in Alameda County that prohibits gun stores from being located within 500 feet of areas that include a residentially zoned district.

“Teixeria and his colleagues claim the law prevented them from opening a gun shop in San Lorenzo. The plaintiffs maintain in their appeal that this zoning law is a violation of Second Amendment rights.

“’You simply cannot allow local governments to ignore the Second Amendment because they don’t like how the Supreme Court has ruled on the amendment twice in the past ten years,’ Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb told Fox News. ‘You shouldn’t be able to zone the Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights.’”

The legislation was so bad, in fact, that not one available location in the county would have qualified for a firearms shop.

Perhaps, for once, common sense will prevail in the case of California, whose conservative dissonance with the rest of the nation has been so great that the state has considered secession as recently as 2017.

NEW IMBECILE, SAME IGNORANCE: VA’S NEXT GOV. HOPES TO LIMIT GUN SALES

Leave a comment

H/T Keep And Bear.

I hope the people of Virginia need to remember the state motto of Sic Semper Tryannis.

Does this DemocRat imbecile seriously think they will be able to enforce background checks for private sales?

 

While Virginians will certainly be thrilled to be out from under the thumb of Gov. Terry McAuliffe in 2018, his gun-limiting legacy looks to be here to stay for the time being.

McAuliffe, who was a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter so entrenched in the democratic party that he was once rumored to be a veep pick for the former candidate, made headlines in 2016 when he attempted to swing the entire state’s voting scheme to the left.  The shady governor worked to restore voting rights to hundreds of thousands of convicted felons, understanding that they they would overwhelmingly support Clinton in the general election.

Luckily, McAuliffe’s malfeasant maneuver was too little, too late in a nation whose conservative awakening was just getting started.

Unfortunately for Virginia, (and the nation at large), McAuliffe will be leaving the governor’s mansion in the coming weeks, with fellow democrat Ralph Northam taking his place.  Northam has an even more sinister plan set to be unleashed on his state in the form of a gun sales ban that would affect the ability of Americans to sell firearms to one another.

“NBC Washington reports that Northam will be pushing ‘universal background checks for gun buyers.’ This means private gun sales will be treated like retail sales, with a point-of-sale background checks required at time of purchase. Such a framework will require a law-abiding gun owner to seek out a government representative, a federal firearms license holder, and have a background check performed before he sells a gun to his neighbor, co-worker, lifelong friend, or acquaintance.

“Other states that have outlawed private gun sales charge a fee for the required background checks. That fee effectively serves as a new tax on the gun sale or transfer, thereby driving the price of firearms up.

Northam referred to the legislative package banning private gun sales as ‘nonpartisan’ and ‘commonsense,’ but he did not explain why punishing law-abiding, private gun sellers and average Americans is sensible in any way. After all, private gun sales have been the law of the land since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. Why would banning such sales suddenly be evidence of commonsense?”

Northam’s claim that the legislation is “nonpartisan” may be the most offensive bit of this dialogue, with Americans surely understanding that this is nothing more than a democratic deception.

Apparently, emblazoning your state flag with “sic temper tyrannis” wasn’t an effective reminder of what happens when you remove the rights of your citizens.

 

GEAR TALK: AR-15 .223 VS MIL-SPEC 5.56MM CHAMBERS

Leave a comment

H/T Keep And Bear.

In the past I had wonder what the difference between the two rounds.

Among AR-15 enthusiasts, there is a long-standing debate over whether someone should choose the .223 chambering or the Mil-Spec 5.56mm chambering for their AR-15 rifle platform. Aren’t these two different names for the same round, or is there a real difference? If so, which chambering should you go with? Let’s take a closer look at the issue.

A Brief History

The .223 and 5.56mm rounds have a long and complicated history. For now, we can simply say that the famous M16 assault rifle began its life in the U.S. military as the AR-15, which initially used a .223 Remington round. Because the U.S. military decided to switch to metric designations, the 5.56×45 mm NATO became the standard round used in the AR-15. Through the course of various field tests and experiments, the AR-15 evolved into the M16 to reflect the military’s needs and expectations.

After this, Remington continued to sell the .223 Remington round commercially. Today we see both round types and chambering configurations available to AR-15 enthusiasts. How significant is the difference between the two types? And what are their differences?

Differences in Chambering

As a serious ammunition expert will tell you, the .223 and 5.56mm seem like the same bullet, but the differences between the two are significant enough that you should pay attention to them. First of all, the 5.56mm round produces a higher chamber pressure than the .223 round, due to its hotter load.

Combine this with the fact that Mil-Spec 5.56mm chambers are slightly larger and have longer throats to account for the increased pressure of the 5.56mm round. What all of this means is that it is safe to fire .223 rounds with Mil-Spec 5.56mm chambering, but it is not a good idea to fire 5.56mm rounds with .223 chambering.

Mil-Spec 5.56mm chambers are built for high pressure and can take lower pressure rounds like the .223, but .223 chambers are not built for the higher pressure that 5.56mm rounds produce. Pressure build-up from firing 5.56mm rounds in .223 chambers can eventually cause damage to your AR-15, and it can even pose a danger to the shooter and those around the shooter. 

What Should You Do?

The chambering dimensions that are most right for you should depend on what you want out of your AR-15 rifle. Since the Mil-Spec 5.56mm chambers can accommodate the 5.56mm round and the .223 round, they are a great choice for shooters looking for versatility, and the ability to use different types of ammo in their rifles.

However many shooters prefer specific .223 chambering and are only looking to use .223 rounds for their lower recoil, affordability and availability, and competition-friendly characteristics.

The right AR-15 components for you should depend on your shooting preferences, ammunition shopping needs, and loading preferences. However, remember that weapons experts don’t recommend shooting 5.56mm rounds with .223 chambering, and that doing so can be unsafe.

Author Bio: Kurt Darrell is a contributor for several websites dealing on different kinds of topics. When he is not working, he can be found gardening, windsurfing, hiking, or working on his upcoming blog that he will be publishing soon.

 

WHY DO MOST GUN OWNERS SUPPORT THE 2ND AMENDMENT?

2 Comments

H/T Keep And Bear.

I am among the 5% that has a firearm for protection against government everything else is a plus.

CBS recently conducted a survey on the topic of why 2nd Amendment supporting Americans believed that they needed to carry firearms.

Surprisingly, and more than a bit sadly, the vast majority of 2nd Amendment supporters don’t support gun rights for the reasons our founders intended.

Just 5% of gun rights supporters list “as protection against government” as their main reason for supporting the 2nd Amendment.

The vast majority of Americans are supportive primarily as a self-defense mechanism against a much more commonplace problem – everyday crime.

CBS asked the 5% who list “protection against government” as their big fear, what exactly drives their concern and most agreed that all of the major reasons played a role.

As I mentioned before, the most common reason for owning a gun, from just about 51% of gun owners, was protection from crime.

Of that 51%, 87% were worried about everyday crimes, but about 60% were also quite concerned with terrorism.

So, why do you care about gun ownership and defending the 2nd Amendment? Are you like the cynical majority, mostly concerned with crime? Or are you a purist, and like the Founders you worry about the rise of tyranny and the weak character of our leaders?

Why do you defend the 2nd Amendment?

GOOD GUY TAKES GUN FROM BAD GUY, SHOOTS HIM AND SAVES FAMILY

2 Comments

H/T Keep And Bear.

I will say Ayman Baker has a big brass pair.

 

A man in Chicago is earning praise after he turned the tables on an armed home invader, wrestling the criminals gun away and shooting him in the process.

Ayman Baker and his family were celebrating his younger brother’s birthday when three men broke into their apartment and demanded their money and valuables.

From Fox 6 Now:

The men pistol-whipped Baker and his brother, but Baker told WGN his first instinct was to fight back and he struggled against one of the intruders.

“All I could think about during the whole moment was protecting my family,” Baker said. “I kept wrestling with him to the point where he closed the door and he kicked it down and I threw it back at him.”

The attackers moved to another room and threatened his mother, Baker said, forcing her to the ground, putting a gun to her head, and pulling the trigger – but the gun jammed.

With five of his siblings and his parents in danger, Baker says he chased after the attackers as they fled, jumping from a bedroom window and chasing them as they headed towards a waiting van until he caught up with one of them.

“That’s when I ran up to him, took the gun and I shot him twice,” Baker said. “When all of this was happening I was being shot at and didn’t realize it.”

<iframe width=’640′ height=’480′ frameborder=’0′ allowfullscreen src=’//cdn2.trb.tv/iframe.html?ec=pncGJwZDE6hpUW2kFg8KTaPHjVsJaFMK&pbid=5d88305d0c6c47eabc12e43063a41c69&pcode=trOTQyOtBWYGl88XLal1pDam4Q-4′>

As the trio fled the scene, Baker chased them down shooting at their vehicle.

“I started shooting in the vehicle, I shot out all the windows, all I remember is that the gun jammed. I unjammed it – and I guess it just continued, and I chased them down the alley,” Baker said. He added that he would have been happy to give his life, if it meant keep the rest of his family safe. “My life is definitely worth sacrificing for my family. I didn’t hesitate, never hesitate – I would do the same thing for family and friends, neighbors we have to come together as a community and protect each other,” Baker said.

Thankfully, Baker escaped the situation unscathed and so did the rest of his family. Meanwhile, police believe that they have the man Baker shot in custody at a local hospital and they are on the hunt for his accomplices.

Once again, a good guy with a gun saves the day… though it would have been easier if he had had his own gun to use instead of being forced to take the criminals gun away first.

 

WHAT IF AN NRA MEMBER HAD KILLED KATE STEINLE?

1 Comment

H/T Keep And Bear.

If Jose Inez Garcia Zarate was a member of the N.R.A. and was freed by a jury the left would have lynched him and the jury.

On July 1, 2015, Kathryn Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco.

Kate was walking with her father and friend when a bullet struck her in the back of the head. The 32-year-old was rushed to the hospital, where she died about two hours later.

Jose Inez Garcia Zarate fired a .40-caliber handgun three times, and one of the shots he fired is what killed Kate. He first claimed he was shooting at a sea lion and then said he fired the shots accidentally after finding the gun.

On November 30, 2017, our justice system completely failed Kate, her family, and the rest of the nation when they acquitted the animal. He was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter.

Zarate had no business being in the United States to begin with, and he certainly did not deserve to skate free of a murder charge after he killed an American woman.

This is where I raise the question: What if Kate’s killer had been an NRA member? Would the Democrats have finally given a dang?

Would the pathetic animal have been slapped with numerous charges, with murder and manslaughter included? Was it not enough that the killer was here illegally, had been deported five times already, and convicted of multiple felonies?

If Zarate had been a gun-toting member of the NRA, he would have been strung up and skinned alive by Democrats!

Reasons like this are exactly why Trump and millions of Americans want a border wall and travel bans. We can’t rely on the court system to rightfully punish criminals and murderers.

Now, more than ever, it is important to practice your 2nd amendment rights and conceal carry a firearm. While being armed would now have saved Kate, it could save many others.

 

POLICE CHIEF LOSES GUN, BUT POLITICIANS WANT TO RESTRICT YOUR GUN RIGHTS?

1 Comment

H/T Keep And Bear.

The Prescott Valley Arizonan, Chief of Police Bryan Jarrell loses his Glock yet does not report it for four days yet nothing happens to him.

Following the Las Vegas shooting at the beginning of October and the Texas church massacre in November, gun grabbing politicians across the country and in DC sought to violate the Second Amendment with more than 21 pieces of legislation.  However, when it comes to policemen losing their guns, which puts a lot of citizens in danger, and in this case most definitely children, they are deafeningly silent.

Prescott Valley, Arizona Chief of Police Bryan Jarrell apparently lost his weapon in a library when he went to the bathroom during a city council meeting.

AZ Family reports:

According to a news release from the agency, Chief Bryan Jarrell left his gun in a bathroom stall at the Prescott Valley Library at about 6 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 9. He had gone into the bathroom to change clothes after the Town Council meeting.

The missing gun is a black 9 mm Glock 19 with the serial number YHC 944.

“On Monday, November 13th, 2017, when the Chief discovered the weapon was missing, he reported it immediately,” according to PVPD. “The lost firearm was entered into the National Crime Information Computer (NCIC).”

Arizona’s Family

That’s four days!  It was four days before the chief of police reported that he lost his weapon!  How does a police chief not know he is missing his gun for four days?

So far, there’s not answer.

The gun is a Glock 19, 9mm and black. The serial number is YHC 944.

The department says anyone with information about the missing handgun should contact Yavapai County’s Silent Witness program at 1-800-932-3232.

Incidentally, this is one of the very weapons that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and the rest of her gun grabbing buddies want to unlawfully ban you and I from using, but I haven’t heard her mention dealing with a cop who loses his weapon and fails to report it for four days.  Have you?

And no, it didn’t just slip out of the holster either.  I don’t know if Police Chief Jarrell used a holster similar to LAPD, but take a look at this video demonstrating the absurdity of a homeless man reaching for a gun from an LAPD officer and being shot.

Law enforcement weapons, not so surprisingly get lost all the time.

Jack Burns reports:

The phenomena of guns going missing while supposedly in safe hands (the police) is quite difficult to explain. First, there are those police officers who simply steal them, such as in the recent case of Simpsonville, Kentucky, police officer Terry Putnam. As The Free Thought Project reported, Putnam allegedly stole over $30,000 worth of guns, drugs, and cash from the police department where he worked.

There are other officers who simply allow their department-issued firearms to be stolen by others. Since 2010, nearly 1,000 guns have been stolen, were lost, or went missing in the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as across California. Mercury News’ Thomas Peele investigated the phenomena. He described how, through negligence by offices, the guns are stolen:

“Their guns have been stolen from behind car seats and glove boxes, swiped from gym bags, dresser drawers and under beds. They have been left on tailgates, car roofs and even atop a toilet paper dispenser in a car dealership’s bathroom. One officer forgot a high-powered assault rifle in the trunk of a taxi.”

In the same way that few officers actually face charges for the serious crimes they commit, and rarely see the inside of a jail cell, few officers ever face serious consequences for failing to keep their guns safe. What constitutes a felony for the general public, when citizens improperly store their firearms, is barely a slap on the wrist for most police officers. Thus, Prescott Valley’s Chief Jarrell will almost certainly not face any criminal charges for bringing a firearm into a public library, and allegedly losing it when he went to the restroom—something police would have taken seriously if it had been the actions of the average citizen.

Interestingly, in the recent case that has upset many people, the illegal alien, Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez shot and killed Kathryn Steinle in front of her father in San Francisco with… a federal agent’s gun. Sanchez, whose criminal history, according to federal record, dates back to 1991, mostly for drugs, including heroin, and sneaking into the United States, sometimes fewer than 30 days after he was deported Mexico, was found not guilty, even though he admitted firing the gun.

federal database has logged Sanchez’s past convictions and deportations, with at least 40 entries in its system over the last two decades. In jailhouse interviews, Sanchez said that if he killed her, he didn’t remember much because he was high on marijuana and sleeping pills.

ROBBERY VICTIM TURNS TABLES, DISARMS THUG AND STARTS SHOOTING AT HIM

1 Comment

H/T Keep and Bear.

This story has a happy ending for the intended victim but not one of the robbers.

There is only one thing I enjoy more than happy ending, and that’s a happy ending involving a gun!

An Ohio man did the nearly unthinkable and flipped the script on an armed robber! A criminal broke into the man’s Columbus home when he disarmed the crook and fired back with the very gun he took from the robber!

Someone get this man a drink! He deserves one after that!

A local news station reported;

According to a press release, a 29-year-old man was in a home in the 1500 block of Granville Street when two people broke into his home. The suspects sprayed the man with pepper spray and demanded property.

A struggle ensued and one of the suspects dropped a loaded handgun. The victim picked up the gun and fired at the suspects, shooting one of them several times.

The suspect was able to get away without being shot (although I am sure he soiled his pants while he ran), with the help of a getaway car that was waiting for him. However, the robber’s buddy didn’t fare so well, and is now in critical condition at the hospital.

It is unknown as to whether or not the victim had his own firearm in his home or not. However, just the fact that he was able to overcome a stressful, risky situation and turn it around for his own good is simply amazing!

A gun in the hands of a good guy will always be better than a gun in the hands of a bad guy.

The identity of the suspect is still unknown at the moment.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: