CA State Lt Gov preparing initiative on BAN on "tactical" firearms and magazines & Federal HR4269
Written by reg mathuszDespite the fact that recent polls show that support for an "assault weapons" ban is at an all-time low
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/assault-weapons-ban-poll_56715c23e4b0dfd4bcbff62e
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/now-oppose-assault-weapons-ban-doubts-stopping-lone/story?id=35778846
the anti-gun supporters have been pushing new bans on what they either don't understand (or don't care). We know that in the end that the target is ALL semi-autos. The anti-gunners are not shy about listing Australia as one of their models.
Here's is what is going on --
HR4269 was filed in the U.S. House:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/titles
Details are sketchy since there is no summary or text of the bill yet, but rumors say that it is targets any semi-auto that can take a >10rd mag and has one "tactical" feature.
No word if wearing cargo pants counts as a tactical feature.
More frighteningly the California Lt. Governor is finishing up work on a State-wide initiative that does even worse - a total outright ban without any grand fathering. No due process? How progressive.
http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/its-time-to-ban-assault-style-weapons-high-capacity-magazines/
I can only think of all the people who have been calling gun owners "paranoid" and saying that "nobody wants to take your guns away."
Yeah, right.
We know what they mean by "assault weapons"...semi-autos of course, and some pants
Written by reg mathuszA surprising number of people (mostly non-gun owners) have been rallying around the term "assault weapon." I have seen numerous articles and social media posts/memes saying "Nobody needs an assault weapon! That's not for hunting! Ban assault weapons now!" etc. They seem to have missed the big problem that they can't even define what an "assault weapon" is! Ah, but they do know, at least some of them...read on.
The anti-gun crowd like to describe "assault weapons" with broad vague strokes saying that they are "designed for killing," they have "mass capacity feeding devices," "they use too powerful bullets" etc.
However, try to write legislation based on that! Well, the U.S. Congress did in 1994 and passed a 10 year "assault weapons ban" (AWB). How did that go?
Well, manufacturers and people looked at the definitions and modified the firearms so that they met the requirements. Even after 2004, when the AWB expired 10 years later, CA continued with its own restrictions. People cried afoul that the firearms were still available with a few cosmetic changes - which is because that is the way that the bill's authors wrote it- based on cosmetic features that had little to do with a firearm's lethality. They said that it violated the "spirit of the law." Ah, but what is that? (keep reading)
And as for CA, people are crying afoul because the firearms recently used were ILLEGALLY modified. These changes didn't violate the spirit of the law. They outright violated the law.
So, with so many articles, editorials and comments about "assault weapons," what are they exactly again?
I don't know, but will know when I see one.
Yep, that's the comment that I am seeing more and more. What the hell does that mean???? And less importantly we have seen the rise of a new term: "assault-style" as in "assault-style clothes." I see a pocket capacity limitation coming for cargo pants, but I digress.
It is not very hard to boil down the what anti-gunners view as the "spirit of the law" and the firearm features that they object to:
- semi-automatic
- magazine fed (not even necessarily a detachable magazine, as I believe that they object to clips, tubes, etc. as "mass feeding")
Yes, I seriously believe when they say "assault weapons" they mean semi-auto. Sounds more menacing doesn't it? Especially when you consider that the most prevalent rifle in the U.S. for ownership and new purchases is the AR-15 and that the majority of hand gun purchases are semi-auto (I would be surprised if it wasn't 90%).
Basically, almost every gun owner in the United States owns what could be considered an "assault weapon."
Think about that the next time you read an article or meme calling for the ban and/or confiscation of "assault weapons." Instant criminalization of gun owners.
And the anti-gun crowd is at least being honest about it now.
What a change it has been though. Just in Oct. prevalent thinking was like this article in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/05/forget-about-changing-the-second-amendment-and-stop-focusing-on-mass-killings/) that said:
Few gun control advocates promote the idea of ending individual gun ownership. All of the major gun control organizations have come out in favor of individual gun ownership. All of them are fighting for more effective laws to prevent criminals or the mentally ill from getting their hands on guns.
Remember, it was only a couple of weeks ago that anti-gun people were calling gun owners "paranoid" and saying that "nobody wants to take your guns away?"
While today (Dec 4, 2015) we have this from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?_r=0):
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency...
and more directly to the point:
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
And despite the fact that the author admits that it will not stop the mass killings:
They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.
He justifies it because at least they (other countries) did something:
But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.
There you have it!! In black and white for the entire Nation to read. This is something that I believe that the NYT has ALWAYS believed as I believe the ultimate goal of many (if not all) anti-gun control supporters. This is not the only editorial that has this sentiment. After the recent shooting there was an editorial from UK Guardian calling for the assassination (!) of NRA Members (which I unsurprisingly can't find now) or this article from Vox (which has been out a while) saying that gun owners should be shot as a requirement of owning a gun: http://www.salon.com/2015/10/16/want_a_gun_take_a_bullet_new_rule_before_you_pack_heat_you_will_know_what_it_feels_like_to_be_shot/
"Reasonable regulation" or "common sense"? Hardly.
Random Facts:
# of gun confiscated in Australia? There are conflicting reports but estimates are between 700K and 1 milliion.
# of guns in gun restrictive California? Over 10 million.
CA incidentally has a program to confiscate firearms from felons. Read about its high cost here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/05/05/california-discovers-its-really-expensive-to-confiscate-peoples-guns/
Be sure to check out the Discounts section as a few late year ones have been added that you might not have known about!
Thanks
I haven't done a surprising celebrity with firearms post in a long time. Mainly because it is a forbidden subject in Hollywood but this one surprised me...Lizzie McGuire? The girl who sang the Laguna Beach theme song?
From TMZ (I know lol): http://m.tmz.com/#article/2015/11/09/hilary-duff-buys-gun/
Someone asked if I would be returning to SHOT next year (Jan). I am pleased to announce that I am!
I do not have an Industry Day (range day) invite so I will not be able to test anything but it still promises to be a great Show!
I will be selectively stopping at booths again this year. If you have a vendor that you would like me to stop at please let me know.
I like to stop at lesser travelled spots or ask that oddball question.
If you are going too - let me know if you want to have a beer!
More...
"The Australia Gun Control Fallacy" (linked article)
Written by reg mathuszThis article was very good about Australia and how they were able to confiscate guns and how something similar might look in the United States. The Australia "model" is popularly referenced by many folks as a result of recent shootings including the President.
I don't link many articles requiring the reader to click but this one is worth reading from the source:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/
Why do you need an "arsenal"? What's an arsenal anyway?
Written by reg mathuszThere has been a lot of discussion about people having a lot of guns - something that the media likes to call an "arsenal." How many times have we heard "The shooter had x-number of guns..." with him or in his home. Not sure what it matters how many he has at home matters, but media seems to think it does. What's worse is that often times "arsenal" equates to not very many firearms, sometimes as few 3 or 4. In the recent Oregon shooting the shooter had a total of 13 firearms, of which 7 were found at home. This has prompted some people to claim that there should be restrictions on the number that a person can have arguing that a person only has two hands and can only use two at a time. This is true - however, I do not see the reason to limit the number a person can have, after all we can only hold two at a time right?
I write this even as the President has spoken of requiring special licensing for individuals who may exceed an arbitrary number of firearms purchases, sells, or transfers. I didn't see a number specified but Federal Lawyers and the ATF have previously expressed that such a requirement would be illegal and unenforceable. My guess is it will target people who might have an "arsenal."
This prompted me to realize that a great number of people are NOT familiar with firearms and are grasping at concepts (any) that may help (in their mind) these tragedies. I was recently in conversation and pointed out that firearms are a tool - with specific purposes and functions. I pointed out that just for hunting that a person could potentially have:
1-goose shotgun, 1-duck shotgun (i'm not using a 10 ga for duck), 1-deer rifle, 1-elk rifle, 1-long range game flat trajectory rifle, 1-big game rifle, 1-Varmint rifle, 1- brush rifle (hog), 1-small game rifle, 1-hunting revolver (again multiple can be needed depending on game)
That's *10* firearms! An "arsenal" according to some!
I haven't even touched upon home defense, self defense (yes they can be different), competition (IDPA, 3-gun, trap, clays, etc), or just plinking.
And the 10 are just plain old hunting firearms. They are not even potentially scary looking (shotguns, bolt actions, revolver, etc) aka 'military-style' looking.
However, some of them certainly could be.
The AR15 that for some reason inspires fear in non-gun people can easily be used for deer, elk, long range game, big game, varmints, hog, and small game. The platform is remarkably adaptable (changeable caliber) and very accurate. Non-gun people might be surprised that the cartridge that the military uses was actually for VARMINT hunting. (Yes, gun people will be quick to point out the leade differences between 5.56 and .223 which is a technical difference that makes no difference for this discussion but I know someone will point it out).
I will also point out here that I was very explicit in using hunting firearms since they seem to be more accepted (by non-gun people) but that the 2nd Amendment, as the NRA slogan used to say: "Ain't about duck hunting." Remember, the Standing Army was DISBANDED after the Revolutionary War, but I digress.
I write this knowing that the average reader is a gun person and none of this will be new to them. However, it is my hope that someone potentially using Google to find out why a person has a gun "arsenal" might find it.
Sorry, for the changes. I am currently trying to find a new theme for the site. I like the old one, but it is so old that it was missing a lot of functionality and I had lost control of my sidebars completely. I could manually code it, but every update would wipe them out.
I kind of like this one, but it is far from perfect. However, the sidebars at least work. Let me know if you hate the theme.
My Dad recently confronted a burglar and wanted some very small and lightweight. He preferred a semi-auto, but it needed to be able to fit into a robe pocket. Since he is older I worried about his ability to be able to rack a semi-auto slide under stress or late at night. The first pistol I thought of was the Beretta 21a Bobcat because of the tilt barrel making loading/unloading simple. But, I couldn't find one (he can't have mine). He actually wanted a 25ACP. I personally prefer the 22LR but I thought the straight wall cartridge might feed better, especially if the pistol isn't kept clean and well lubricated--something I find that the Bobcat requires. The Bobcat does not like to be run dry.
What I did find him is a Taurus PT-22 Poly. He is already a Taurus fan and a has a Taurus 85. Additionally he likes "features" like the internal lock and safety (on a DAO?) I have to remember it is not for me.
Here are some pics with my notes comparing it to my Bobcat.
- I was genuinely surprised at the PT-22 grip. It is much larger than the Bobcat. The magazine also has an extended base plate that is wide and long
- The PT-22 is a DAO pistol
- The PT-22 has a magazine disconnect safety that also locks the slide
- Both pistols have a locking safety. The Bobcat can be locked cocked and locked or with hammer-down DA
- Disassembly is the same but note that the magazine must be in the PT-22 to move the slide
- The PT-22 is supposed to be .8 ounces lighter than the Bobcat - they feel the same.
Click on pic to enlarge
The PT-22 in the box.
Comparison pic PT-22 (L) vs Bobcat (R)
Bobcat on top - pretty close in size overall
You can see how much wider the base plate is on the PT-22.
PT-22 baseplate lets you get an extra finger on the grip
PT-22's feed ramp (right) is much more extended
The tilt barrel is cool - makes it easy to load/unload and requires no hand strength to function the slide
Bobcat vs PT-22 magazine. Size difference is immediately apparent
PT-22 front sight is taller
PT-22 rear sight groove is also larger. Note that the PT-22 has a bobbed hammer
Note the triggers are cut differently especially the bottom hook on the PT-22 (top). The material and thickness seem the same.
How do they compare? It is probably not fair since my Bobcat is 10-20 years old and very well broken in - it is smooth as butter in SA or DA.
The Taurus is of course safety heavy. It snaps clean though (remember to use an empty case or risk breaking the firing pin!)
For some reason the pistol comes with a bag as does the internal lock.
I am not a fan but my Dad likes them.
I included this from the manual because they have some very strong feelings on +P and +P+ ammo.
To be fair the manual also does talk about using the safety if you "must" carry it loaded whereas a lot of other manufacturers just say not to.
