Category: —

I have been putting this off for a long time because I know it will piss off lots of people. Today, I am mad at the world, so I will take it out on all of you.

The Question

Did ICE agents use excessive force when detaining Good and/or Pretti?

Legal Standards

Let’s review the basics of what is considered excessive force and some of the appropriate case law.

4th Amendment – Excessive force used during an arrest, detainment, or seizure is governed by the Fourth Amendment protecting against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Graham v Conner – The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) found that excessive force claims are to be analyzed under the “objective reasonableness” standard. Assessed is whether the officer’s actions were reasonable from the perspective of a “reasonable officer” on the scene at the time, not with 20/20 hindsight. Only the objective facts matter. The factors, per SCOTUS, to be considered include:

• Severity of the suspected crime
• Whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to officers or others
• Whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee

Barnes v Felix – Courts must consider the full context of the encounter. SCOTUS went beyond the Graham Factors and stated that all facts and events leading up to the use of force must be included in the reasonableness analysis. For example, did the officer unreasonably create or escalate the situation before using force.

Tennessee v. Garner – Deadly force is permissible only when the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others. This does not preclude the Graham Factors.

Summary

A summary of the combination of SCTOTUS findings in the above cases looks like this:

• Objective Reasonableness – Would a reasonable officer in the same situation believe the same or similar force was necessary? It doesn’t matter if the officer had good or even malicious intentions.
• Totality of Circumstances – Must consider all events leading up to the moment of force.
• Severity, Threat, and Resistance – Graham factors remain the primary guideline.

Good – The more I look at Good, the more I lean towards the ICE agents meeting the above standards. While the agent who shot her made some mistakes in how he moved around the scene, the agent had to react to a fleeing person who used a vehicle in such a way as to be perceived as a deadly weapon. The agent could reasonably decide that deadly force was needed to protect himself as well as others nearby.

In Good’s case, the severity of the crime, the threat to the agents on the scene, and her resistance to being detained meet the guidelines of the Graham factors.

To be clear, it was a horrible situation. However, Good was interfering with ICE operations by purposefully blocking the road, refused to exit her vehicle when lawfully ordered by agents, and she attempted to flee the scene. I feel confident that Good’s intentions were not to try to kill ICE agents, but a reasonable officer could perceive the situation as attempted use of deadly force by Good.

Pretti – This one is very different. To summarize, Pretti had been pepper sprayed multiple times, was clearly under the control of multiple ICE agents who had him on the ground and used their weight to control him on the ground, and he made no attempt to use his firearm. There is almost no way anyone could contend that Pretti was a threat to any of the agents on the scene. He was in a fetal position trying to survive the beatdown he was receiving, and he probably couldn’t even see because of the repeated pepper spraying.

Pretti was not a threat at the time of his shooting. He was well under the control of the agents on the scene and was not a flight risk. He didn’t try to use a deadly weapon even if he carried one. A reasonable officer, even in this highly volatile situation, would not have used a firearm to shoot Pretti.

I want to note that legally carrying a firearm at a protest is not a violation of the law.

As usual, when there are mass shootings or some kind of event like an assassination, gun control people like to say that there common sense gun controls can make a difference. Of course, they fail to understand that the shooter already broke multiple serious laws and that same person will break any other laws that are put in place. They must believe someone thinks, “Oh, murder is against the law, but this other law looks bad, so I won’t break it.”

Anyway, the conversation eventually comes to gun confiscation. Of course, they don’t understand the costs, so I will take a shot at some estimates. The major costs seem to be:

• Buybacks
• Seizures
• Secure Storage
• Secure Transportation
• Destruction
• Record Keeping
• Legal Challenges
• Insurrection and Violence Control

I might be missing something, but those are the basic costs.

Buybacks – In the US, there are an estimated 400 million firearms. Assuming the average cost would be around $500, that is about $200 billion. Some people might say we don’t have to pay fair market value. The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment doesn’t allow anything less than fair market value. Of course, experts estimate only 10-30% of the guns would be voluntarily turned in during a buyback.

Seizures – Obviously, not everyone will gladly take time off from their jobs and turn in their firearms. 70-90% of all guns would have to be confiscated. Law enforcement officers will need to go to courts to get warrants to search homes and confiscate firearms. They would then need to visit those homes, search them, confiscate them, and secure them.  Let’s not forget the Fourth Amendment issues with seizure and the “accidents” when law enforcement break down the wrong doors or people believe they are being robbed and fight back. Conservative estimates range from $250-400 billion. The government would still have to pay the just cost of those guns, too.

Secure Storage – The purchase and seized guns would need to be stored somewhere and kept secured. Imagine the many large vaults required just to store them until something can be done with them. Surveillance, handling, facility space, armed guard, and so on. The costs are estimated to be about $50 billion.

Secure Transportation – After the guns are gathered, they will need to be collected and shipped to their final destination where they would be destroyed. Of course, the transportation would require escorts of armed guards. Cost is estimated to be another $50 billion.

Destruction – The guns, once sent to the site for destruction would then have to be cut up and melted down. Estimated cost would be about $20 billion. Keep in mind that armed guards would have to supervise every step of the process.

Record Keeping – We want to make sure crates and containers full of guns don’t just disappear in the entire process, so a massive database would have to be created, secured, and properly updated throughout the process. Every movement of a gun would have to be documented and audited. The paperwork, alone, would cost about $5 billion.

Legal Challenges – Fifth Amendment challenges around just compensation would be brought into the courts on a regular basis. Lawyers, courtrooms, judges, and then judgements rendered and published would take more than a few resources. Fourth Amendment violations would get out of control, and the costs of seizures would skyrocket as the courts would be tied up with cases all across the country. Let’s not forget the Second Amendment lawsuits, too. The court costs for the number of cases would run about $500 billion.

Insurrection and Violence Control + Lost Lives – What is considered a legal and peaceful protest under the First Amendment and what is outright insurrection and violence? Imagine the costs of squelching potentially armed protests. Lives will absolutely be lost in the process. Do we even need to estimate this one? Experts put the number at about another $500 billion to $1 trillion.

Does anyone even want to try the math? Can we just say it isn’t financially feasible? Anyway, the number would run about $1 – 2 trillion.

Results

Assuming the Second Amendment violations could somehow be justified, the other rights violated would stack up left and right, and there would almost certainly be a civil war of some kind resulting from the process. Keep in mind that law enforcement and military personnel all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Assuming we could implement a police state in the United States, the costs would be tremendous, and we haven’t even discussed the loss of life and the huge change in our culture of freedom.

During this entire thought process, keep in mind that the vast majority of law enforcement and military members take their oath seriously.

AR-15 Myths and Misconceptions

If there is anything that annoys me more than legislators passing laws about guns, it has to be the average person that also has absolutely no idea how guns work. Legislators don’t seem to even try to learn about the subject before they jump in and try to pass laws that violate the rights of the citizens they purport to represent. In this quick post, I will try to hit the main misconceptions and provide some facts.

Assault Rifle and/or Machinegun

The AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle and it isn’t a machinegun. The AR in AR-15 stands for ArmaLite RIfle, the company that designed and built the AR-15 before all of the rights were sold to Colt.

An assault rifle refers to a rifle that is selective fire, meaning it can fire in semiautomatic mode or in fully automatic mode. The AR-15 is only capable of firing in semiautomatic mode.

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges”.

Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is ridiculous because it isn’t used by any militaries. Militaries around the world use the M-16 and M-4 which are based on the AR-15, but they have select fire capabilities.

AR-15s can be Easily Converted to Automatic Fire

This is another lie often stated by gun control enthusiasts and ignorant people. The problem, again, is that our legislators are either ignorant or choose to lie to their constituents.

Converting an AR-15 to fully automatic is illegal in the United States. To convert an AR=15 to fully automatic requires significant modifications to internal components, such as the trigger mechanism and bolt carrier group. These modifications are complex and the parts are not available for sale to the public. Converting to automatic violates the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

Self Defense

One of the biggest benefits to owning an AR-15 is its ease of use. It is easy to fire, it is light, and it is accurate.

Because the AR-15 has very little recoil, it is the perfect firearm for self defense for most people.

Power

The biggest misconception is that the AR-15 is some kind of super powerful rifle. In fact, the AR-15 uses a small bullet, either 5.56mm or .223 caliber (same size), and the bullet is much smaller than the average hunting rifle.

In fact, most states won’t allow the use of an AR-15 because the bullet is so small and it doesn’t lead to an ethical dispatch of a game animals. Much larger hunting cartridges are required for hunting.

The best way to compare the power of different cartridges is to look at the energy. Please note the chart, below. It clearly shows that pretty much every rifle round is more powerful than the AR-15. The AR-15 is in blue, below. Click on the bar chart to make it easier to read.

You might also note that the next lowest rifle rounds, when it comes to their energy, include the 7.62×39 round, which is used in AK-47’s, and then the 7.62×35, which is a newer round called the 300 AAC Blackout and is also used in AR-15’s, even though it is rare.

Mass Casualties

The media, as well as our super intelligent legislators like to say that the AR-15 is the firearm of choice for mass shootings. It just isn’t true and the the government’s own research proves it. Check out the CDC’s database on causes of death. You might find some interesting fact like I did.

More people die from falling off of chairs. What is more interesting is that sunstroke kills three times as many people as mass shootings. Don’t believe it? Check the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Violent Death Reporting System.

Yes, life is precious. However, we need to realize that just because certain incidents make great news stories, and are vivid, does not necessarily mean the issue is a big as the news and politicians make it, and you can’t blame a gun for evil and mentally unbalanced people going off the deep end.

The democratic party seems to be digging up their old playbook, again. Their claim is that they support private gun ownership, but only if gun owners follow their so-called “Common Sense Gun Controls.”

Below are some examples of so-called common sense gun controls. The major issue with many of these potential laws end up making gun ownership an elitist privilege. Gun ownership is a right, and it isn’t a second class right. By implementing extra taxes, excessive amounts of training, and other costs, the right is taken away from the common citizen.

We should never make a fundamental right into an elitist privilege.

Eliminate Gun Show Loopholes

Well, there are absolutely no such loopholes, and there never have been. Firearm purchases at Gun shows have always had to follow the same laws as every other gun sale. The laws have never given exemptions to gun shows.

Require Background Checks

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was established in 1993 as part of the Brady Handgun Violence Act. Some states allow private sales of firearms without a background check. From 1966 to 2022, there were 12 instances of mass shootings that used a gun acquired in a private sale without a background check.

Universal background checks are not “common sense” when they are so flawed that:

Owners can’t loan a gun to a friend or family member.
Owners can’t let others try a gun from another person, even at a range, and even under supervision of the owner.
Owners can’t store guns of friends and family.
Owners can’t engage in consignment sales of guns even with a federal firearms licensee.

Owners can’t even let an instructor handle their gun during training classes.

Red Flag Laws

Gun owners can have their guns taken away based on a single claim by another person without having the ability to have a hearing until after the fact. These laws violate HIPAA in many cases, and they expose law enforcement to high risks when making unannounced “raids” to take away guns.

There are no punishments for those that make false claims.

Assault Weapons Bans

This one makes me laugh because those trying to take away gun rights use the term, “Assault Weapon,” and they don’t even understand the definition. Then to top it off, they fail back to using “Semi-Automatics” even those pretty much every gun made today, whether a rifle or a pistol, is a semi-automatic.

The AR-15 is NOT a weapon of war. It is like every other semi-automatic firearm, but they are villainized because of their looks. The AR-15 doesn’t use special exploding ammunition like many gun grabbers like to say, and in fact, the 5.56mm (also .223 caliber) aren’t even powerful enough to be used for deer hunting.

Magazine Restrictions

The claim is that smaller magazines will result in fewer casualties. Yet, it has never been shown. In fact, some of the mass shootings in the US show that magazine size doesn’t have an impact. Columbine is the perfect example. Klebold used several magazines and was able to shoot 96 rounds with a gun that held only 10 rounds. The Orlando nightclub attack is another example where magazine changes didn’t have any impact. There were hundreds of able-bodied adults, and the attacker had to change his magazines multiple times. Nobody rushed him from behind, from the side, or from the front while he was reloading. Reloading magazines didn’t slow down the shooter. It is one of those sad situations where the magazine size doesn’t make a difference when evil people are involved and attacking others.

However, defensive gun uses show the true value of larger capacity magazines. The person who is defending their lives and the lives of their loved ones doesn’t have the ability to choose when to reload their magazine. They need every round possible to defend themselves, and they are the ones that don’t have time to reload while being attacked.

Training Requirements

This is the only one that I can agree with, but even then, the training requirements become onerous and don’t event take into account the ability held by many people to safely teach how to use a firearm.

One word says it all when it comes to gun rights. Bruen is the word that scares gun control activists. The US Constitution, along with its amendments, is a fabulous document, and it is great to see that Bruen is having a positive impact on gun rights.

Regrettably, there are too many people in high positions in each of the different branches of government that have failed to live up to the oath they took when they entered office. They believe, somehow, that they are smarter than our founding fathers, and they know what is best for our citizens.

They are wrong, and they should all leave office immediately. We do not need oath breakers.

Anyway, back to the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, often abbreviated as NYSRPA v. Bruen, or just Bruen.

Prior Case Law

The Supreme Court of the United States, SCOTUS, prior to Bruen, provided two major decisions around use of firearms for defense.

District of Columbia v. Heller (abbreviated as Heller) –  This ruling established US Citizens have an individual right to possess guns within their homes.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (abbreviated as McDonald) – This ruling established the right to own guns as a right in all states, not just the District of Columbia.

Issues Around Heller and McDonald

SCOTUS failed to affirm the rights defined in Heller and McDonald to extend beyond a person’s home. The right to carry a firearm outside the home was supported by multiple federal laws and common law.

Many Courts used Intermediate Scrutiny instead of Strict Scrutiny. Basically, under Intermediate Scrutiny , courts evaluated gun rights by evaluating whether the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.

Since Intermediate Scrutiny allowed courts to uphold gun control laws based on them being “important interests” in public safety, courts failed to overturn laws that constrained individual rights protected under the 2nd Amendment and affirmed by Heller and McDonald.

The Basics of the Bruen Case

New York had enacted the Sullivan Act back in 1911. Under Sullivan:

• To obtain a gun, a permit was required.
• Permits were issued at the discretion of local law enforcement.
• Issuance of permits required the applicant to show that they had a need for self protection that was beyond the need of the general community or of others in the same profession.

Basically, New York was a “may issue” state where the issuing authorities didn’t have to issue a permit if they damned well didn’t want to issue one.

The case was filed against Beach (New York State Police) and McNally (New York Supreme Court). After dismissals and appears at different levels of lower courts, Beach was replaced by Corlett and eventually Bruen.

SCOTUS took up the case upon further appeal. The plaintiffs position was that Sullivan:

• Allowed significant discrimination to occur against minority groups because of the lack of objective standards in the “may issue” permit process.
• The approval process of extremely subjective.

SCOTUS Opinion

Sullivan was found to be unconstitutional as it infringed on the right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, the opinion:

• Affirmed that public carry of a gun is a constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment.
• Clearly stated that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right. It is not subject to different rules than the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.
• Intermediate Scrutiny is not allowed when evaluating the gun control laws.
• A more stringent test of whether a law is consistent with the “Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation.”
• Laws that identify “sensitive places” such as court houses might still be allowed, but urban areas would not qualify as sensitive places.
• Restrictions and prohibitions against felons and the mentally ill or use in sensitive places such as schools and certain government buildings still stand as outlined in Heller.

What’s Next?

Bruen changed the way gun control laws are evaluated, and Bruen is being used to challenge:

• Other “may issue” permit schemes.
• Requirements to justify the need for a permit.
• Prohibitions against those convicted of misdemeanors, those under domestic violence restraining orders (red flag laws), and drug users.
• Magazine capacity limits.
• Gun bans of certain types.

• Nobody ever walked away from a gun fight saying, “All that extra ammo was worthless, and I wish I wasn’t carrying it.”
• The only times when you can have too much ammo are when you are on fire or you are drowning.
• You should always have extra ammo and magazines because you never know when you will get the urge to go to the range and get in some practice.

The Debate

All quips aside, there is actually a debate in the industry about the amount of ammo that you carry and whether you should have an extra magazine. I find this very interesting for a few reasons, which I hope I can articulate well enough to make you confused.

Starring in this discussion are two people that I respect, immensely. There are others that weigh in on one side of the other, but these two do a great job of explaining their positions.

In one corner, we have John Correia of Active Self Protection. He proposes not carrying extra ammo or an extra magazine.

In the other corner, we have Massad Ayoob who needs no introduction. He proposes going the extra step and being prepared by carrying an extra magazine with extra ammo.

I have my opinion, and my opinion matters more to me than John’s or Massad’s. Your opinion may or may not change after reading this, but please, just make sure you at least carry. What you do beyond that is a personal decision.

John Correia

I will summarize John’s stance, here, and I am paraphrasing:

• Stats say that while we may be required to defend ourselves from violent crime over our lives, the stats say that it is almost zero chance you will need to reload or you will be able to reload before the gunfight is over.
• Our mission is to disengage from the threat, not to apprehend the criminal.
• It is better to carry other tools that you will need more often like a light, a less lethal, and a medical kit.
• Carrying an extra magazine is emotionally driven, not statistically driven.

Please watch John’s videos on this subject. He is very articulate and very comfortable with his view. It is important to note that John has analyzed 10’s of thousands of videos of private citizen gunfights.

John does a great job of presenting the stats. Please watch his videos for those stats. I am not going to regurgitate them for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0tst9-_pPs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOYLSvg5hqE

Massad Ayoob

If you don’t know this name, then you haven’t been doing a good job of keeping up on the self-defense industry.

Massad’s point of view is pretty clear, and he isn’t concerned with statistics. His view is easily summarized (again, I am paraphrasing):

• The gun is an emergency response tool. It must function when it is needed.
• The gun is a temporary tool unless you can reload it.
• If you need your gun, you may need every round available.
• You should prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
• Three are three very clear reasons why you should have an extra magazine:
1. Shooting might go high volume. It is possible that you will be on the extreme end of the statistical curve and you will be in an extended gunfight. You don’t want to run out of ammo.
2. Magazines fail. You should have another or you may be on the short end of the gunfight if you can’t continue in the event of a magazine failure.
3. You might have to struggle to retain your gun from somebody trying to take it from you. In that struggle, your magazine can be ejected, or it could be knocked out of battery during the struggle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsfGQASU3W8

My Opinion

Like I stated, previously, my opinion matters more to me than John’s or Massad’s. I came my opinion over many long periods of thought. Your opinion should matter more to you than mine, but my opinion is the right one.  

John kind of tries to shame people into his view by saying that those that carry an extra magazine do it out of emotion and comfort. I don’t ever accept that kind of pressure. However, stats say you won’t ever need an extra magazine.

While many people may say that carrying a magazine is starting down the slippery slope, I am absolutely fine with deciding where my line is at, and again, I will not be shamed into making a decision that doesn’t fit with my perspective on the value of innocent life.

However, if you do need an extra magazine, and you don’t have one, I hope you are right with your God.

I, like Massad, don’t care about the stats. It isn’t about the small odds, it is about the stakes. What is at stake is my life and the lives of my loved ones. I will take the extra step of carrying an extra magazine when I consider what can be lost.

The decision to carry an extra magazine is based upon risk (odds), but it is also based upon the individual’s risk appetite. My risk appetite is extremely conservative, and it involves innocent lives which have great value.

Will I ever need an extra mag? It is highly unlikely. Will I ever even need my carry gun? Well, so far, I have only needed it once while away from home, and the draw was all it took to eliminate the threat. The only time I had to use it in self defense (as a private citizen) was in my home where extra mags are easily accessible and don’t need to be carried on my body.

How important is your life and the lives of your loved ones? Can I compare the importance of those lives to a stat? Yeah… No. No, I can’t make life decisions based on a stat. Can you?

First, our apologies for taking so long between posts. We have been extremely busy, and we have been dealing with the loss of some family and some friends. Then there are the many chores, plus training time… You get the idea, we get busy just like everyone. Life happens.

Anyway, with the release of series, The Terminal List, we have been hearing all sorts of people saying that press checks are stupid and that anyone performing them doesn’t know any better. 

Another apology, the guns shown in these pictures came right out of their holsters and were not cleaned just to take these pictures. If you see dust, oh well, we are sorry,  but we aren’t sorry enough to actually clean up every speck of dust.

What is a Press Check?

Simply, when you load your gun, and you chamber a round, how do you know that the round chambered? The answer, you can perform a press check to make sure. A press check is done by slightly pulling back on the slide of a pistol enough to see into the chamber and see if there is a round in the chamber. For example, this picture shows the slide being pulled back enough to see the silver of the nickel plated defense round in the chamber. When done, make sure that the slide is all of the way forward and in battery.

Alternatives

There are always alternatives to doing a press check.

Trust

You can trust that you chambered the round properly. Here is where the problem comes in. Many people get too casual about chambering a round and they will often short stroke the slide when chambering the round before it goes into the holster. It happens. Result? No problem, unless you actually need to use your defensive firearm, and when you pull the trigger, you just hear the loudest sound in the world, which is the click of a Type 1 Malfunction. Does anyone want to start a gun battle with a malfunction? Not us, that is for sure.

Peep Hole

Some guns have a small peep hole where you can peer into it and see if there is a round in the chamber. The picture to the right shows and example of a peep hole that is available on some guns.  If it is there, you will see the round, like in this image. You may need to look closely, but you should see the nickel plated defense round in there.

Loaded Chamber Indicator (LCI)

The LCI is a common feature on many pistols. It pops up to show that there is a round in the chamber. What is really nice about this feature is that you can feel the LCI in the dark. The last picture shows the bump of the LCI on the extractor.

Summary

Please make sure you have a round chambered in your gun, and please don’t just trust that it is in there. Everyone makes mistakes, but the Press Check allows you to make sure you didn’t make one of the most common mistakes made by people that carry guns.

Too many people do not understand the need to run a Function Check on their guns prior to breaking them down for cleaning or maintenance to check them again after cleaning or maintenance. On the surface, it makes sense that you need to know that your gun works before you tear it down, even if it is just a field strip. You should also check it after cleaning or maintenance.

You Need

• Your pistol
• A magazine for guns that use a magazine
• Dummy rounds
• A safe area

The Basic Steps

Load the gun using dummy rounds, if none are available, you can still perform most of the steps with an empty gun.

Insert the magazine into the gun. If you don’t have dummy rounds, you can still do the other tests besides 1 and 3. Please do NOT run any function tests with live ammunition.

1. Chamber a round – Rack the slide to chamber the dummy round. This step verifies that your chamber is not obstructed and that the slide will pick up a round out of the magazine and will, using its springs, drive the round into the chamber.
2. Test the trigger – With all safeties disabled, pull the trigger and verify that the trigger activates. You should hear the click of the hammer hitting the firing pin or the striker being released.
3. Test the extractor and the ejector – Rack the slide, again to eject a dummy round and chamber another dummy round. This step verifies that the extractor and the ejector are working property to pull the round out of the chamber and to eject it out of the ejector port of the gun.
4. Test the trigger reset – With the safeties disabled, pull the trigger, hold the trigger back, rack the gun while continuing to hold the trigger back, then slowly release the trigger. You should hear a click from the trigger resetting. Pull the trigger again, just after you hear the reset click, and verify that the trigger activates again.
5. Test the firing pin – Remove any dummy rounds. Rack the slide again with the chamber empty and nothing in the chamber after racking the slide. While pointing the gun straight up, insert a pencil, a pen, or a dowel of some time into the barrel. Pull the trigger again while watching the pencil or pen to see if it jumps when the firing pin hits it. This verifies that the pin isn’t broken and isn’t obstructed.
6. Test the trigger safety (if one exists) – See the top picture. Rack the slide, and, without depressing the trigger safety, pull the trigger. The trigger should not activate.
7. Test the grip safety (if one exists) – See the middle picture. Rack the slide, and without depressing the grip safety, pull the trigger. The trigger should not activate.
8. Test the manual safety (if one exists) – See the bottom picture. Rack the slide, engage the the safety, and pull the trigger. The trigger should activate.

It is important to understand the current condition of your gun before cleaning or performing maintenance, then run the function checks again after cleaning or maintenance to make sure your gun is functioning before putting it away or putting it back in its holster to be carried.

The verdict is in, and the protests are about to go into full swing.

In a previous post, the actions of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz were discussed. In all three cases, plus the other cases with unknown assailants, they took aggressive actions that could be reasonably interpreted as meant to cause death or serious bodily injury to Rittenhouse, and he defended himself by using deadly force. His defense was justified.

The trial was very interesting. We saw how the prosecution tried to make a case, and violated Rittenhouse’s rights in the the process, where they didn’t have evidence to meet the standards required to convict him of the charges that they brought. We also saw how the prosecution’s witnesses backed up Rittenhouse’s defense case.

The Simple Facts

• His actions met all of the elements of self-defense and use of deadly force in self-defense.
• Rittenhouse was over charged.
• The prosecution, responsible for the over charging, was also malicious and should be officially reprimanded for malicious prosecution, and violations of law in their interactions with Rittenhouse on the stand and by failing to provide the defense with evidence.
• The prosecution failed to even come close to meeting the standards of any of the charges that they brought, except the possession by a minor. The possession charge was thrown out because of the poorly written law.
• Mainstream Media failed in their duties to report the facts, and instead, inserted their opinions that were not supported by the facts in the case. Multiple lawsuits should be expected, soon, against members of the media and their employers for failing to meet the standards of the press and for their malicious actions and defamation of character.

The Arguments

Rittenhouse should not have been there

This is the worst argument that people can make. Rittenhouse had a legal right to be there. He is a citizen and has the same right to assemble as the rioters. These same people seem to think that the protestors had some kind of higher-level rights than others. In fact, many of the supporters of the rioters have even claimed that they had the right to steal and destroy private, as well as public, property because they were protesting. There is no such right.

Rittenhouse should not have been open carrying an AR-15

As covered by the trial, Rittenhouse was not old enough to own and carry a pistol, much less conceal it legally. There was no law violated.

Rittenhouse instigated the violence

Nope. Not the case. He was there, at the invitation of property owners, to help protect their property, but never instigated anything. He was chased by the crowd, he was accosted, and he defended himself to prevent his death or serious bodily harm. This was made very clear in the trial.

Summary

Bad decisions were made by all parties. However, those that were killed or injured by Rittenhouse made worse decisions when they chose to attack an armed person.

There are many guns that have been produced over the years, and many models are no longer in production. However, there are situations where it is not a problem that a gun is no longer made because there is a really large market for replacement parts. Some example would include the earlier versions of the Colt snake guns and the Browning Hi-Power. There are several others.

Recently, Honor Defense went out of business. They made great 9mm handguns designed for the concealed carry market. The problem is that they did not sell a large number of guns, so there is no third party market for key parts like extractors and springs. Magazines are also difficult to find.

Is it a problem that you can’t find replacement parts for repair? Well, yeah… duh! Speaking from first hand experience, it sucks to own a great gun when you can’t even get a replacement recoil spring for it.

The lesson? While it is tempting to buy a quality gun that is no longer in production, make sure you can get parts.

We hear about the 21’ rule, which really isn’t a rule, all the time in our community. Distance is more of an issue than most of us realize. Let’s break distance down into a few areas of concern.

1. Reaction Distance – The Tueller Drill, 21 foot rule, is a measure of reaction time. The idea, a general rule, is that 21 feet is the distance where an attacker can reach you and use an impact or bladed weapon before you can react, draw, and fire your gun. Inside that range, a defender needs to increase awareness and preparedness to ensure they can defend themselves. There are two ways to improve our reaction time, the first is to identify the threat as early as possible, the second is to practice our draw and our initial controlled pair to center mass to make it as quick as possible.
2. Striking/Hands-on Distance – This is the distance where an attacker can hit you and grab you to engage you in hand-to-hand, or empty-handed, combat. It is very clear that most us that carry a gun have not dedicated enough time to learn how to defend ourselves when we have somebody grabbing us, or striking us with punches and kicks. This distance is also the distance where an attacker can attempt to grab your gun. This is another area where most of us need to improve our skills. A good weapon retention class would be a huge benefit for most of us.
3. Shooting Distance – One of the most common questions in gun forums is what distance everyone should practice at when shooting on the range. The answer is ALL distances. We can’t dictate, or control, the distance that an attacker is at when they decide to attack somebody. We need to be able to engage an attacker at any distance where they might be a threat to us or our loved ones.

Distance is just one more area of concern for defenders. Think about it.

It appears that with Biden’s election, legislators are feeling emboldened and are proposing more and more flawed legislation that won’t make any difference when it comes to the illegal use of firearms by criminals. What really is clear is that these legislators are being overtly discriminatory in their pushing what appear to be racist policies.

To set the tone, let’s look at a couple of terms.

• Poll Taxes – Laws requiring a fixed amount of money required to register to vote were in place until 1965. Many states had poll taxes, many did not. The point is that a poll tax was an impediment on the poor and working classes to prevent them from voting. Poll taxes are clearly discriminatory. Should policies requiring money to be spent to exercise a right, like voting, be considered to be similar to poll taxes that are meant to control individual rights?
• Elitist Rights – This term is a little more vague, but it is fair to say that many rights are not available to poor and working classes because they do not have the discretionary income. It isn’t that the rights don’t exist for everyone, but that those rights are less available to those without money, power, or membership in a certain group. For example, home ownership might be a right, but when it comes down to it, the right to own a home is hard for many people to exercise because of their income level and credit history, which is also a function of income to a large extent. Do we, as a community, want to prevent certain segments of society from being able to defend themselves?

Thanks to Congressional Representative Sheila Jackson Lee and her proposed legislation, we see that legislation is being proposed that would require:

• Psychological Evaluations – Please note that this would include other members of the household, not just the person wanting to purchase a firearm for their own defense. Let’s not even get into the biases of the evaluators as it would clearly make this a non-starter is many cases.
• Insurance Payments – What level, for what guns, for what areas, and so on, are not clear, but what is clear is that there were would be ongoing payments to an insurance provider to protect yourself and your loved ones. The argument that insurance is needed for cars doesn’t hold up, as self defense is a right.
• Government Training Courses – Certainly, these courses would not be free, and they would require people to take time away from work, as well as paying for the courses. Who would establish the requirements for passing is a whole other discussion.
• Multiple New Licenses – The bill requires all new levels of licensing for different types of guns. Yet another cost to exercise the fundamental right to self defense.

However, let’s not forget all of those other proposed laws around the country wanting to charge increased taxes on ammunition as well as guns, making it impractical to train and making gun ownership even more of an elitist right. It is fair to assume that those that can’t afford to practice will be more likely to miss their targets and fail to be as safe as those that would be able to practice. Yes, let’s sacrifice safety to prevent people from buying ammo. We already know from the failed Seattle laws that these laws do not lead to increased tax revenue and do not lead to money invested in gun safety.

Goals?

It is clear that the goal is not increased gun safety, it is the establishment of personal safety as an elitist right and the requirement of paying the equivalent of a poll tax to prevent poor and working classes from exercising their rights.

Clearly, ammunition availability is really low, right now. This is a very common concern, and it isn’t anything new to those that are shooting enthusiasts.

What causes hoarding?

The answer seems obvious. Of course it isn’t easy to explain. It really comes down to confidence in the stability of the world around us. This year, we have seen Government officials, and police, stand aside and not take action against looters and rioters. We have seen Government, at all levels, try to control a pandemic by taking away the rights of individuals and crushing our economy, too. The response, of many, has been to buy guns and buy ammo.

New guns, generally, means a new group of gun owners that need ammo for their guns to train and practice. Ammo is also needed to defend ourselves and our loved ones. This is especially true when we see the police fail to protect the community.

Gun owners have seen hoarding when it comes to guns and ammo for a long time. We see it every time there is an election year and we hear politicians riling up voters by saying they plan to confiscate guns and implement new laws infringing on the Second Amendment. We also see hoarding every time there is a mass shooting that is used to try to take away rights.

What should we do, now?

There are several parts to this answer, and options. Basically, there isn’t much we can do when it comes to the lack of availability of ammo. These are the obvious options:

Suck it up. It happens during election years, and other times of instability. It is like everyone that is a gun owner, or potential gun owner, suddenly realizes that they need more ammo.

Wait. Eventually, the manufacturers will catch back up, and people will get enough stock to stop them from feeling the need to buy more. The problem with waiting is not having ammo. 

Pay. The market drives price, and when there is very little ammo available, the price goes up. Way up. If somebody needs ammo, they will probably just need to pay what the market is demanding. Right now, it is a pretty high price.

Reload. Learn to reload. Normally, this is a good answer, but this year, we saw the key components for reloading also suffer a huge hit. In particular, primers have become incredibly hard to find, and they have also become incredibly expensive. Other components have also become scarce.

What should we do in the future?

Buy. This means buy when ammo is available, and stock up, and also buy when the price is a little high. Dollar cost averaging is the term. It means you set aside a certain budget and buy what you can every month.

Stock up.  When prices are reasonable, buy, buy, and buy. during good times. Don’t be afraid to be called paranoid. It is called being prepared for the worse of times.

Reload. Normally, reloading is the way to go when it comes to have availability for ammo. However, components must be available. The nice thing about having the components, and the skills, is that you can build your favorite rounds when you need them. The components can be stored for a very long time, and some of them can be found for free or close to free, even during shortages.

Where to start… Let’s start with the summary.

Summary

Dumbfuckery is as dumbfuckery does.

The Players, Dumb Fucks, in this case

Rittenhouse

Bad decisions often happen from those without experience in the real world, and Rittenhouse made some bad decisions. The biggest bad decision was being at the riot.

Of course, that same bad decision was made by each of the people that were shot during the riot.

From a legal perspective, Rittenhouse was on private property and protecting that private property. How and why really don’t matter. However you view the decision making by everyone involved, Rittenhouse had a right to be there, and he had a right to defend himself from others, in this case, three violent convicted felons.

Police

From all accounts, Rittenhouse has interactions with multiple LEOs during the evening. Of those officers, a total of NONE questioned whether Rittenhouse, reported as being about 5’3” and about 135 lbs, is old enough to be open carrying a firearm. What is wrong with them? If at least one of them had said, “Hey, how old are you? Do you have some identification?” then the shooting would never have happened.

Rioters and Media

Multiple idiots were in attendance here. We have the main players:

Unknown Rioter #1 – He fired his gun in the air while chasing Rittenhouse. Basically, he threw gas on the fire. Rittenhouse was in full retreat and trying to get away from the crowd that was chasing him. There was absolutely no reason to fire a gun in the air and provoke other reactions.

Rosenbaum – He chased Rittenhouse. Even though Rittenhouse was clearly trying to leave the scene and get away from Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum continued chase. He tried to grab and take the AR-15 from Rittenhouse. I will assume that Rosenbaum had nothing but ill will in mind based upon his history as a convicted felon and sex offender and also based on his actions of throwing an object at Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum was shot and died. Lesson? Don’t chase somebody with an AR-15 that is clearly trying to retreat. Don’t chase them if you are not armed, at all.

Unknown Rioter #2 – He tried to kick Rittenhouse in the head, but missed. Rittenhouse shot at him, but missed, and unknown rioter #2 ran away.

Huber – After Rittenhouse fell down while trying to run away from the crowd, and another unknown rioter tried to kick Rittenhouse in the head, Huber hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard and tried to take the AR-15 away from Rittenhouse. For all of the people out there that think a skateboard swung by an adult male is not a deadly weapon, I ask you to let us know so we can take a swing at you and see how quickly you go down. Of course, it is a deadly weapon when it was swung like it was. Of course Huber, not exactly a stellar citizen with multiple convictions including assault and domestic violence, is not exactly a brilliant person. Attacking somebody that has an AR-15, and that has demonstrated that they know how to use it, is just not an intelligent move.  Huber was killed.

Grosskreutz – He rushes at Rittenhouse with a drawn handgun. Let’s not gloss over that this is another convicted felon and that he was carrying a firearm, illegally, Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse with his hands up (with a gun in one) then lunged at Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz was shot in the arm, which took a very large piece of his bicep off. Intent to cause harm was clear. If Grosskrueutz had just kept his hands up and backed away, he probably would not have been shot, but instead, he became aggressive.

Media – While not all of the media, the vast majority reported about what great people Rosenbaum and Huber were, and the Grosskreutz is also a wonderful person that was there as a volunteer paramedic. It took a good while before any of the media dared to tell the truth about these three individuals. Big kudos to Richard McGinnis, though, as he did a very good job of reporting the incident as an eye witness.

I saw this meme on the Internet, today. I started to see red. To compare these two, in the same breath, in the same light, is completely irresponsible.

I decided to step back, and gave it some thought. I decided to share my thinking.

Definitions

There are three different, for the most part, definitions regarding crimes involving the killing of others.

Murder in the First Degree – There are three elements to be convicted of this charge. They are:

1. Intent – You intended to cause the death of the other person. it was your plan. This is where modifications might come into play as the prosecutor tries to prove intent.
2. Deliberation – Also known as premeditation, you have to have had time to consider it and make the conscious decision to commit the murder. Generally, this means that you had time to reconsider and second guess yourself.
3. Death – The person must actually be killed.

Murder in the Second Degree – The elements are a bit different. The main difference is that there is no deliberation involved

1. Intent – You intended to cause the death of
   the other person. it was your plan. This is where modifications might come into
   play as the prosecutor tries to prove intent.
2. Death – The person must actually be
   killed.

There is no deliberation if in the heat of passion, instigated by a serious and highly provoking act of the victim, and there is not a sufficient time between instigation and the act for second guessing and reconsideration.

Manslaughter – The difference between Murder in the Second Degree and Manslaughter is that in Manslaughter, the act is not knowingly committed, but it is committed recklessly. In other words, there is no intent, but there is negligence.

Intent

Intent is a very important part of the formula. But, it makes no difference to the victim, as they are no longer with us. I agree to that point, but let’s compare the two cases involving the death of an innocent person.

Breonna Taylor

In the Breonna Taylor case, we saw:

1. A no-knock raid. These scare the fuck out of me as law enforcement officers make mistakes. Hankison, was not the one that made the mistake on the address. There was no intent on his part to kill Taylor.
2. Walker, Taylor’s boyfriend shot at the police. I get why that happened, see #1. It was a horrible mistake, but again, not made by Hankison. At least I don’t remember him being the one that submitted the warrant request to the judge using the wrong address. Hankison was not one of the officers, from what I have read, that went into Taylor’s residence.
3. Officers returned fire. Again, I get why. Again, a horrible result going back to #1. The officers returned fire from Walker. They did not act inappropriately in this case.

To be clear, Hankison’s irresponsible firing of his firearm, by shooting blindly, was way outside the realm of what should be expected from anyone carrying a gun. I would say a charge of manslaughter is appropriate for Hankison.

Cannon Hinnant

In the Hinnant case, we saw:

1. Clear intent to kill the child.
2. Clear premeditation of the crime.
3. Death of an innocent child.

Comparison

To compare the Breonna Taylor case to the Cannon Hinnant case is UNACCEPTABLE, and to think that they are even close to being comparable is disingenuous on a scale that I have never seen before. The comparison infuriates me, it is very inappropriate. Sessoms committed a horrendous crime.

Racism?

Neither case appears to have involved racism.

I swore, many times, over the years that I would never reload 9mm ammo. It made little to no sense.

Then, the pandemic hit. Ammo is scarce and pricey when you can find it. I am seeing most places selling 9mm at 40 cents per round. That is nuts.

The pandemic also gave me lots of free time.

So, here is the math for 9mm, if you really want to do it well.

• 2.58 cents per primer
• 1.76 cents for gun powder
• 0.00 cents for cases, I just had to go and pick them up outside
• 0.00 cents for projectiles using free lead
• 0.87 cents for powder coating the lead cast bullets

Total: 5.21 cents per round. Yeah, I know, I didn’t take into account the electricity or my time. However, shooting is a hobby and I enjoy my hobby. I can’t even imagine that electricity would drive up the costs that much.

OK, to be fair, free lead isn’t a given. You may have to pay for it. The going rate seems to be about $2 per pound. However, I see lots of it for less, but let’s use $2 per pound.

The projectile math

• 7,000 grains per pound
• 129 grains per bullet, I use a 125 grain mold, but they come out at 129 grains as I use almost pure lead.
• $2 per pound for lead, while it is actually cheaper in most cases.

The new projectile price is 3.7 cents per round.

The new total: 8.91 cents per round.

It is horrible when the wife asks how much something costs. Absolutely horrible. Then, a gun loving friend asked me. Well, now I need to think about it. I will focus on just one caliber, 300 BLK, but the idea is pretty much the same for different calibers.

The costs come down to:

• Equipment – which lasts forever
• Supplies – consumed for each round

Equipment – I tend to do things on the cheap, and I also buy stuff so I can reload a step at a time and reload around my other activities in life, like watching TV.

• Hand Primer – I use an RCBS hand primer tool, and prime cases when sitting on my couch. $45
• Hand Press – I use a Lee hand press for several steps of reloading. For example, I can use it to size brass while I am in a teleconference meeting. $65
• Single Stage Press – I use an inexpensive Lee press for when I want to sit down and just crank out a task like crimping a couple of hundred rounds, quickly. $80
• Powder Dispenser – I use a Lee Powder Measurer. $35
• Powder Scale – I use a Lee Beam Scale. $40
• Case Trimmer – I use an RCBS Pro 2. $135
• Deburring Tool – I have no idea what brand/model it is. $15
• Die Set – Decapping, forming, bullet seating, factory crimp, etc. $40
• Ammo Checker – I like to verify several rounds meet spec at a time. $30
• Lead Melter – I started casting, and it is saving a ton. $75
• Lee Mold – I bought a cheap two cavity 230 grain mold for my subsonics. $45
• Lead ladle and melting pot and other stuff – I got them at a yard sale. $20
• Lead Mold – Old Corn Muffin cast iron pan – $5

Total investment for equipment is approx: $630

Supplies – I buy lots of stuff all at once, but I tried to put current prices on it, per round.

• Lead – I try to get it as cheap as possible, free and up to $2 per pound which is 7 cents per bullet.
• Powder Coat – I have no idea how much I spend, but $12 per pound last about a billion rounds. I will count this as 1 cent per round. It is probably much less.
• Primers – 4 cents per round.
• Powder – I figure $190 for 8 pounds. The cost for 20 grains (I use less) is less than 7 cents per round.
• Brass – Free

Total cost per round: Under $0.19

If you buy your own projectiles, on the cheap end, you can count on at least 16 cents per projectile, vs the 7 cents for cast, which would push your cost per round to about 27 cents per round. Even that is a huge savings over retail.

I have been putting off this blog entry for a few weeks. I wanted to see more of the reactions of our US citizens when it came to this pandemic. But, to summarize, we have seen:

• Lots of first time gun buyers and gun owners
• A lack of guns in gun stores because of the mad rush to set records buying more guns
• A lack of ammo because of the mad rush of people that need to protect their toilet paper stash
• Politicians trying to close gun stores as not being critical to our citizens
• Lawsuits being filed against those politicians and their counties and states to force them to allow the guns stores to remain open
• Other liberties being taken away by petty and power hungry local politicians that seem to have forgotten how the Constitution works
• Hordes of petty citizens that also seem to have forgotten all about individual liberties and are reporting their fellow citizens left and right for doing things like playing frisbee golf

Snitches get Ditches

The first item that I would like to address are the individuals reporting on their neighbors, family, and friends for violating unjust and unenforceable violations of our liberties. Their behavior clearly shows that none of them could ever be trusted to keep Anne Frank safe, and they would have reported on every slave that was trying to seek freedom. I will say this as clearly as I can. I am disgusted by each and every one of you that reported on your neighbors, family, and friends for violating unlawful directives that came from petty and power hungry politicians that seem to have forgotten that they have sworn to protect and defend the US Constitution.

For those snitches, we will skip the stiches as they would take up too many valuable medical resources. They should go right into the ditches so their corpses can rot away.

New Gun Owners

Welcome. We are glad you finally realized that the Government can’t guarantee your safety and that the police are not there to protect you, either, when it comes to significant issues that take up lots of resources. By the way, you might want to read up on police and that they are not required to protect you. I am a big supporter of our law enforcement officers, but there are only so many, and there are lots and lots of us. They can’t be everywhere.

While I am not happy that you helped buy up all of the ammo and drive up prices, I am happy that you have realized that protecting yourself and your loved ones is pretty damned important and should have a bigger focus in your life. Thank you.

Your next steps should be to:

• Get some good training. Learn how to use and store your gun, safely. You need to have the four rules of gun safety tattooed on your forearms so you can read them over and over and over until you have them engrained in your consciousness.
• Get some good training. Learn how to shoot, accurately, as well as safely. You will learn that those four gun safety rules are all important, and the fourth one is something that you may have never considered, before.
• Get some good training. Learn how to be aware of your surroundings. You need to alter your mindset. You need to know what areas are places where you should be more alert and more concerned. You need to understand what transitional spaces are, and how to navigate them. Cooper’s color codes should be tattooed on your other forearm so you will also have them engrained in your consciousness.
• Get some good training. Learn how to clean and maintain your gun.
• Get some good training. Learn how to identify and resolve malfunctions. Type 1, Type2, and Type 3 malfunctions should be practiced so often that you can wake up out of dead sleep and fix any one of them, immediately.
• Read and learn. You should read everything written by Jeff Cooper, Massad Ayoob, Dave Grossman, and David Kenick. There are other great authors with deep knowledge of the conceal carry lifestyle and the laws of self defense. However, these should be your first reads.

Don’t forget to get some good training. You should learn how to carry concealed, how to draw from concealment, how to get good hits, and the laws of self defense. Don’t forget the above, too.

Good Training

Have I mentioned that you should get some good training? Well, as a new gun owner in a pandemic, you really can’t attend a good class, or five, because you are locked down. YouTube can help. But, you need to find a good trainer and learn.

How do you find the good ones? Ask around. Call them and see if they pass the basic tests for somebody that is concerned that you learn the basics. If they start talking about being former Seals, Rangers, or some other Tacticool past profession, they might not be the right one. If they start talking about safety, mindset, laws, and basic skills, they are probably the ones to start off with when it comes to that first training class.

Summary

When your friends talk about new skills that they gained during the pandemic, you can look at them and say, “Yeah, whatever, what color code are you in right now? Do you know what a fail to stop drill is? I bet you have no idea how to fix a double feed. Also, I bet you have no idea what a good sight picture looks like. Let’s see how important your new skill at making lemon curd is during the next pandemic.”

I just got back about twenty minutes ago from helping one of my neighbors haul some hay. I took off my boots, and got a fire started in my wood stove.

All of a sudden, I hear gunshots. Not just a few, but a whole bunch of them. They are not coming from the range, which is a good two miles away. They are close. Yes, I do know the difference between gunfire and fireworks.

Normally, if anyone in the area wants to shoot, they either go to the nearby county owned range, or they call me and ask if they can use my range, or they call one of the other guys in the area that has a much nicer range than mine. This was unusual. I reacted. The issue is what is appropriate action vs. what most people do.

Most People

A friend of mine once said, when white people hear gunshots, they look out the window to see where it is coming from, but minorities take cover behind furniture or drop to the floor, or they do both. When I heard this, presented as kind of a joke, I said, “You know, I would say that some people would, indeed look out the window because it just doesn’t happen in their lives, very often. For that that have had a stray round come through their windows or walls, they take cover.

Some people then call the local law enforcement, usually by dialing 911 to immediately report it.

What I did

• Grabbed two more magazines for my carry gun, which I still had on and put them in my support side back pocket.
• Grabbed four magazines for my pistol caliber carbine, and set them with the carbine, close by.
• Checked the security camera for my front gate to see its status and to check for any alerts.
• Put on my boots, again.
• Continued monitoring my security cameras.
• Sent txt messages to all of my nearby neighbors to see if any of them were shooting.

I would like to point out that I did not call 911. I did not call local law enforcement. It is not against the law to shoot guns in my area unlike most urban areas.

Result

About twenty minutes later, one of my neighbors txt messaged back to tell me that they had some friends over that were shooting some new guns.

I really enjoy discussing “reasonable gun control” with those that are incredibly ignorant about what that actually means. In the last couple of years, everyone seems to be pushing for Universal Background Checks to fix what they see as the:

• Gun Show Loophole
• Internet Sales Loophole

First, there are no such loopholes. Let me be as crystal clear as I can on the topic: “There are no loopholes.” People can’t go to a gun show and buy a gun in any different way than purchasing outside of a gun show. The exact same laws apply at gun shows that apply anywhere else. The same is true of Internet sales. The ignorant seem to believe that you can order guns from the Internet and have them delivered directly to your home. It is not true.

Why are gun owners against Universal Background Checks?

Let’s outline some of the basic reasons, all of which make felons of law abiding citizens:

Inability to loan a gun to a friend or family member – This sounds like it would be reasonable to not loan guns, but let’s remember, this also applies to those that have permits and those that already own guns.

• “Hey Dad, my gun has to go in for repair. Can I borrow the extra gun that you have so I can continue to protect myself?” Background check.
• “Hey Dad, my gun was fixed, and I got it back. I will drop off your gun this afternoon.” Background check.
• “Sally, I know that you had to file a protection order against so and so, and that they are still making threats. Yeah, I know you have the training and necessary skills. I will let you borrow a gun so you can protect yourself.” Background check.

It does not matter if the person is a certified firearms instructor with a concealed handgun permit and the ability to train others so they can get their concealed handgun permit. Background check.

Inability to let others try a gun of another person, even at a range, and even under supervision of the owner – Again, what sounds reasonable is far from reasonable. People like to go to the range and shoot together to help each other with improving their accuracy and also to try out some different guns to see what works best for them. This would not be possible without a background check.

• “Hey Steve, I hear you are thinking about buying gunbrandx, you can try mine and see how you like it.” Background check.
• “Hey Joe, I am going to the range, can I borrow your gunbrandx so I can try it out?” Background check.

Again, this applies whether everyone involved has permits or even if they are certified instructors.

Inability to store guns of friends and family – There are many times when it makes sense to store guns with friends or family members.

• “Joe, I am going to London for six months to work on a project. Can I put my guns in your safe while I am gone?” Background check.
• “Joe, I just got back from my extended trip away, can I pick up my guns from you later this week?” Background check.
• “Hey, Harry, we just got an evacuation order. I am going to stay at my brother’s house. Can I store my guns in your safe until they allow us back?” Background check.
• “Hey, Harry, they are letting us get back to our house, can I pick up my guns?” Background check.
• “Joe, you know my wife just died from cancer. I am feeling a little down. Can you store my guns for a bit until I feel better?” Background check.
• “Joe, I talked to a therapist, and they agree that I am clearly better and am not at any risk with having my guns. Can I come and get them?” Background check. This applies even if medication is not prescribed or anyone made any recommendations.

Consignment sales – Let’s say somebody wants to sell a gun or two and take it to Federal Firearms License holder to sell it for them.

• “Hey, Mr. Retailer, I decided I am not going to sell this gun after all, and I want to get it back from you.” Background check.

Criminals

Let’s not forget, criminals will not be going through these same processes. These laws and additional costs of doing the background checks only apply to the law abiding.

Summary

Universal background checks only impact the law abiding, inconvenience the law abiding, make it incredibly difficult to enjoy legally owned property in many cases.

If anyone thinks that this is a reasonable gun control, they need to be evaluated for mental instability.

I took my time, as I usually do, so I could think about what Walmart’s recent change around firearms and ammunition means to our industry before I gave my take.

I like to say that adults make decisions based on facts, not emotion, so I wanted to make sure I focused on the facts.

Highlights of Doug McMillon’s Statement

• History of supporting hunters – I had several issues with how McMillon made statements about being a hunter and gun owner as if it makes the decision valid. It was a great example of trying to say that he is one of us, but he clearly isn’t as he parroted several of the gun control crowd when he used “large capacity clips” and “military-style weapons” in his memo while calling our for “common sense” measures. Some of the other highlights that follow support that he is not a friend of our community. Let’s also not forget that he also said he wants to reimplement the so called assault weapons ban that had no impact on crime.
• Stop selling handgun ammo – Walmart’s market share is very high, and them no longer selling ammo will drive up the price at other stores and will very likely result in job losses in the industry as changes will need to be made to distribution channels to get ammo to other stores for sale and distribution to us. To be honest, when I would travel for training, I would often purchase ammo from Walmart as it isn’t possible to carry 6000-1,000 rounds for the training classes that I take.
• Stop selling handguns in Alaska – The reason Walmart was selling handguns in Alaska is that they are able to meet the requirements to do so, and get valuable firearms into the hands of those that live in the back country and have the need for reasonably priced firearms for protection as well as small game hunting.
• Stop selling 5.56mm and .223 ammo – This has similar impact as stopping handgun ammo sales. It will hurt the community of law abiding sportsmen and those that need practice and defense ammunition.
• Open carry discouraged – I have never supported open carry, but it is a right. Taking away the ability for some people that do not have conceal handgun permits to still carry to protect themselves and their loved ones is a huge detriment to the community. Walmart is trying to make itself into a gun free zone. Do they not understand that criminals don’t abide by the laws and by making themselves gun free zones, they are only making their customers less safe?
• Encouraging government intervention – This clearly shows that Walmart is not a friend to our community and absolutely does NOT support hunters.

Who Wrote the Memo?

I wonder who actually wrote the memo. It was clearly drafted by a PR firm that is anti-gun as they used the same language, and inappropriate terminology, in the memo.

I do not believe that McMillon wrote the memo.

History

Just to lay the foundation, let’s remember, Walmart caved to the PC crowd, the social terrorists, when the stopped selling certain guns. It was clear that they were trying to appease these people.

Walmart caved to the pressure the first time, then they caved again when it came to selling long guns to those that are 18 by raising the age limit to 21. Again, to appease the PC crowd.

Then, they caved to the PC crowd that didn’t like certain shirts with certain slogans.

Now, they are taking another step and sacrificing more of the business to appease these social terrorists.

This won’t stop here. Next, it will be the shot guns and hunting rifles, then it will be all archery accessories and components, then it will be anything that can be used to hurt people.

Walmart set the precedent awhile back, and they are going to continue to cave over and over again.

Hypocrisy

Having had the opportunity to meet Sam Walton and talk to him at one of the stores in Southern Colorado, it is clear to me that he would never support this action. Sam Walton was big on guns, and he clearly wanted Walmart in the market.

Next is the clear virtue signaling that is taking place. Walmart says they will continue to sell what they have in stock. Wait… WHAT? If this ammo is so evil and is causing so many problems, why not stop selling it right away. Take the loss. Show that you really mean it. No, they are going to continue selling until they run out so they won’t have to take a loss. Profit over the supposed safety issue that they are saying is the reason they will stop. But wait, there is more. If guns are evil, then stop selling all of it. Oh yeah, there is that profit thing again.

What really bothers me, though, is that McMillon’s memo makes it sound like he is making the change to save lives, but the hypocrisy runs deep when Walmart continues to be huge sellers of other products that cause poor health and deaths at high rates. Should we be asking McMillon about how he can take that point of view with firearms and ammo, but not for:

• Tobacco products
• Alcohol sales
• Junk food

Come on, which of those cause more issues? We could look at many of the products sold by Walmart that cause poor health. However, those just don’t matter. They make good money, and there just aren’t enough people protesting the loss of life caused by drinking.

Dick’s Lesson?

Many people point out that sportsmen lashed out, and hard, when it came to Dick’s violating the trust of its customers and removing firearms from its shelves because of the number of people that protested them, and they were not even customers.

Outdoors sportsmen are not going to stand pat when it comes to Walmart, and we can expect them to take action, even if it is just voting with their dollars and spending their hard earned income at other stores that support them.

What was the impact to Dick’s? They lost $250 Million, at least that is the amount that they attribute to their anti-gun stance.

Summary

Walmart’s actions will not impact violent crime. Their new policies would not have prevented any of the attacks that supposedly drove them to make the change. None.

However, Walmart’s actions will have a significant impact on law abiding citizens, especially rural customers.