So, 5.7 is coming back. Stargate fans gonna be excited!
The full-sized and full-featured Ruger 57 handgun was announced just in time for the New Year and comes with an FN competing 20+1 capacity.
The 5.7x28mm, made by FN during the “PDW” craze that also gave us the MP7 from H&K and its 4.6mm, is a fantastic and funny little round. These came about as the result of a request for weapons capable of defeating certain body armors and were theorized and developed to be used by Personal Security Detail personnel and those working in confined spaces, like tankers. This all came to naught as military’s were reluctant to field another ‘rifle’ specifically for vehicle crews with highly diminished capabilities over their service rifles. Instead we made smaller AR’s and it has worked out well.
But the guns did find some success in the PSD roles, like with the Secret Service… and against the Goa’uld.
Yes, I wanted one too… thanks Richard Dean Anderson.
Where the Ruger 57 separates most from the FN Five-seveN is in price, with the Ruger carrying an MSRP of $799 against the FN’s $1,435. This makes a Ruger/AR57 combination a very economical alternative to a Five-seveN/PS90 combo, if you just have to have 5.7mm.
Speer is even working out a Gold Dot round which will make both 57 and Five-seveN owners happy.
“The Ruger-57 is destined to become one of America’s favorite handguns,” said Ruger President and CEO Chris Killoy. “This pistol is soft shooting, accurate, powerful and just plain fun to shoot.”
The Ruger 57 has a windage and elevation adjustable serrated rear sight and a rapid acquisition fiber optic front sight. The slide is drilled and tapped for use with a separately available optic adapter plate to keep things in line with Red Dot trends. A Picatinny-style accessory rail for lights and lasers and a ‘Secure Action’ fire control with what Ruger terms a “short, crisp trigger pull and positive reset.” Neat.
For fans of the zippy little 5.7 who haven’t been able to justify the cost of FN’s offering(s) this will play to your hearts. It looks well thought out with an eye and ear towards the modern trends. If it runs well I’m sure the increased demand for 5.7 may see more rounds and an uptick in P90/carbine offerings trickle in too.
But I suspect this will still be very niche in the grand scheme.
A few friends and I have been on about AK’s in 5.56 recently. Especially with available guns like the Rifle Dynamics RN NATO, US friendly to feed AKs have a solid place in our market. However I recall one of the original masters in this space did not originate for our benefit. It was the Polish and their Beryl and the role that rifle would play post Soviet Union.
The Beryl was Poland’s big move with small arms, signaling their return to the fold of Western Europe with NATO. Prior to that the Polish were using AKMs and 74 variants, classics from the cold war. In an intelligent move the country decided their armed forces would modernize on a platform they already knew from the base production level to the individual soldier. And then, export them too!
The Beryl was adopted in 1996 and has seen modernization efforts inline with other western military forces to keep up with the use of modern equipment. Rails, adjustable stocks, the usual.
However currently the rifles have about a 50% total permeation within the Polish armed forces and most are still bone stock iron sight units from the original variant, not the C or D models. Not a single one I saw had so much as a light or a red dot during my personal time spent alongside the Poles in a NATO mission a year back. US Troops are spent well on,
But the rifle itself one of the first notable adaptions of the NATO round to the AK. Now that had been done before, including by the Polish themselves with the Tantal. Other notable examples include Romanian WASR-3 rifles. It had been toyed with but the Polish were the first to buy in big and grab tens of thousands of 5.56 AKs instead of continuing the “Nyet! Rifle is Fine!” stagnation.
And on that. Enjoy 9-Hole Reviews well weathered test of the Beryl! Also go follow them. For science! Do it…
The Global War on Terror has shaped modern gun culture. You can see it in everything. What Glock does SOCOM use? What M4 variant is the current hotness with the SEALs? The Marines use this ACOG! And so on. But with the cool down to skirmish level events all over the Middle East it wasn’t clear where the Military would be focusing its future tech.
Oh sure, the NGSW program and future tech from frigates to F-35 fighter planes were shifting focus to “near peer” forces like China. But the gunfights and skirmishes are still happening in the Middle East. And Iran is the pusher of so many of those buttons it isn’t funny. Iran has supported everywhere they believed they could put pressure on us through militants and have been actively involved behind the scenes in every hot spot there for the past 2 decades. All while remaining officially outside acknowledged military engagement.
Kind of like when the Russians just casually strolled into Ukraine but forgot their patches. That’s been Iran’s favorite method of participation.
Well Iran poked, again. We poked back. Iran shoved at the Baghdad embassy. We blew up their general and the commander of his favorite pet militia in Iraq.
More desert warfare for us? Probably. Full blown blitzkrieg? Maybe, depends on how well Iran plays chicken. U.S. Troops have known for years that Iran would probably need a punch in the gut at some point. There it was. Factions in Iraq will praise us for it, who’ve suffered under Iranian pressure. Those who had something to gain from Iran will not.
Someday someone bright in the Middle East will be in power and realize that putting on the show of ‘pushing’ the world’s largest military power out of the region is probably a bad idea. Just quiet down and they’ll leave. Stay quiet and they’ll stay gone. Stay quiet a little longer and they’ll come back… but with like tourist money and stuff.
Let’s get into it shall we. Brandon Herrera, has the round up on the Jack Wilson memes. The Texas Hero who took a shotgun wielding assailant down with a headshot at a rather incredible distance.
He also revived .357 SIG and reaffirmed Traditional Double Action (TDA) carriers like myself that our pieces still do work. P229 gang!
San Antonio, Texas (January 2, 2020) – Blaser USA, the official U.S. importer for Blaser, Mauser, Sauer, Rigby and Minox, is now operating under the new name of Blaser Group. The name change is a key component in the global branding strategy of the portfolio of companies in the L&O Hunting Group.
“The transition from Blaser USA to Blaser Group reflects a significant milestone in establishing consistent branding around the world. In all key markets, Blaser Group will represent our fine German and English brands” said Jason Evans, CEO of Blaser Group (USA division). “All U.S. consumer brand strategies and business operations will remain unchanged.”
Blaser Group recently added the new Blaser R8 Ultimate and Ultimate Leather to its renowned line of bolt-action rifles. The R8 features a straight-pull action and is among the world’s fastest and most modular hunting rifles.
London gunmaker John Rigby & Company has released a new limited edition ‘W.D.M. Bell’ model of their Highland Stalker rifle, paying homage to adventurer Karamojo Bell. The African big game hunter is celebrated worldwide as an advocate for accurate shot placement using smaller caliber rifles, a technique he perfected by the dissection and study of the skulls of elephants he shot, namely with his .275 Rigby. This limited run of only 50 rifles is the first in Rigby’s new Heritage series and will be offered in .275 Rigby, like Bell’s original rifle.
About Blaser Group
The Blaser Group is the official U.S. importer for iconic German firearms brands Blaser, Mauser and J.P. Sauer; English gunmaker John Rigby & Co.; and Minox optics. Established in 2006, the company which is based in San Antonio, Texas works with over 200 authorized Blaser Group dealers across all North American states, with this figure continually growing. Today the Blaser Group’s industry-leading product portfolio includes bolt-action, combination rifles and over-and-under shotguns designed specifically for game hunters and competitive target shooters. Its custom shop offers exclusive engravings, design work and custom finishing for bespoke guns. With recent innovations, Blaser Group has gone on to expand its product portfolio into cutting edge optics and accessory lines. For more information about the company and product lines, visit: www.blaser-group.com.
Illinois followed the national trend and legalized recreational marijuana use with the New Year. But, as is still the question in all states with legal use… what about guns? Federally marijuana remains illegal. Now the FBI and DEA aren’t doing backflips to shut down in state operations and are just kind of in a holding pattern until it finally gets taken care of at the Federal level too. But it is still illegal.
The Illinois State Police have also issued ‘guidance’ on what they will do for legal residents who are FOID card holders since federally marijuana is still prohibited.
According to a Facebook post by the ISP, “The Illinois State Police will not revoke Firearm’s Owner’s Identification Cards based solely on a person’s legal use of adult use cannabis. Pursuant to both State and Federal law, a person who is addicted to or a habitual user of narcotics is not permitted to possess or use firearms.”
That isn’t what line says. The line on the 4473, question 11e, currently terms it, “Unlawful user of, or addicted to”, not a habitual user. That is a state interpretation from Illinois itself. It sounds like Illinois will be enforcing the Federal provision only if it is also in violation of the state provisions under the new Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act. This is, of course, within their prerogative and seems to be the unwritten interim agreement. But it isn’t the law.
A FOID card will be revoked by the ISP, “where it is demonstrated that an individual is addicted to or is a habitual user of cannabis.” It will also be revoked for those who violate certain provisions of the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act, according to the ISP.
Like stated above, violations of the state rules will be considered most egregious while Federal rules will receive… acknowledgement is probably the best term for it. But the full book could still come down on anyone in violation of the statues so, Illinois be careful.
I saw a meme online on New Year’s morning. It spoke of the value of a traipse through the woods hunting – whether one got one’s limit of game or not.
I like the word “traipse”. I do a lot of it. It means more or less to wander aimlessly.
One of my favorite things to do is traipse through the woods alone. I’m not a true “adventuress” like some of the gals out there. I don’t live in the Rockies and hunt elk on horseback while camping at elevation. But I do enjoy a good wander through familiar territory alone.
I was raised on a patch of 40 acres, and as a kid I would often go on a wander alone down to the pond, or just through the woods. I knew vaguely where I was, so I was never worried about getting lost. I just ambled aimlessly – listening to the leaves crunch, looking at bark and moss and deer poop and such. It didn’t have a “purpose” per se, but it did in the end serve a purpose. It was good for the inner “me”.
That inner me is still fed to this day by that kind of traipsing. These days I do more picture-taking than I used to. But photos can’t capture the smell of the fresh air tinged with pine, damp earth, and leaf mold. The photos also can’t record the “white noise” of the breeze blowing past my ears, or the chatter of squirrels, the scolding of jays, or the screaming of a red tailed hawk as he circles in the currents overhead.
Being alone is what facilitates the experience for me. When I’m with someone else – even my daughter – there tends to be conversation. Although that can be pleasant too, and it’s nice to be able to point something out and say “Isn’t that cool?”, I find that I miss too much when I’m with someone else. When I’m alone, I hear, I smell, I see, and I “feel” so much more.
Maybe that doesn’t make sense to extroverts, but I’m not one of those. My inner life craves quiet, peace, and introspection. I didn’t get enough of that this past year. Because of certain financial pressures I worked too many days, and didn’t take nearly enough time off. I didn’t get enough woods traipsing, and by the end of the year I could feel it – I was mentally, physically, and emotionally exhausted.
This year I aim to fix that. I need to plan more alone time in the woods. I need to put it on my calendar and work it into my schedule purposefully. It doesn’t matter if I’m toting a rifle and actually hunting or just wandering with my woods revolver on my hip – I have found the experience to be too important to my mental and emotional well-being not to MAKE the time for it.
I’m an introvert – and a traipse through the woods is just what the doctor ordered!
On Friday, December 13 (how ironic), the mayor of St. Louis signed a bill into law which bans all firearms in the 110 city-owned parks, athletic fields and recreation facilities. I am certain that felons-with-guns are shaking in their boots. “It’s another tool to help police keep our playground and recreation facilities safe,” said Jacob Long, the mayor’s director of communications. Prior to the passage of the law, Alderman Bret Narayan predicted that this reclassification would face a challenge in the courts by gun-rights activists, who he said would likely prevail.
We know that ‘gun-free-zones’ are killing fields. And the woefully understaffed St. Louis Police Department cannot enforce existing laws, let alone this new one.
For those of you not from St. Louis, the city has thehighest per capita murder ratein the country. In the metro area there is approximately one car-jacking per day. The City isshort 134 officers, and has an ill-informed rule that police officers must live in the City, where public schools are terrible.
The State of Missouri has loaned prosecutors to the U.S. District Attorneys Office in St. Louis; thus, more felons-with-guns are going to federal prison where they will spend much more time than opposed to a state prison. The State has also loaned State Troopers to patrol the Interstate Highways in St. Louis, thus freeing city police to concentrate on the neighborhoods. Statistics indicate that the State Police are making drug busts, and my personal observation is that they are doing a great job of enforcing traffic laws.
In October the St. Louis Board of Alderman approved spending $5,000,000 on “Project Cure Violence”. “The program treats gun violence as a health care crisis. It aims to change the behaviors and norms that uphold violence. Other cities like Baltimore, New York and Philadelphia have utilized this plan as well.” [Project Cure Violence was founded in the year 2000 and was originally named “Project CeaseFire”.]
Programs like “Cure Violence” can be applauded for trying to address the roots of violence (though not for defining it as a “health care” matter). But during the interminably long goodbye to violence in society, we must make ourselves safe. Banning firearms anywhere makes those places more likely to be attacked and more vulnerable to bad outcomes when they are.
As the good people of the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas found on Sunday, police even 1 second away are too far. The shooter there killed 2 in the 6 seconds before he was shot dead by one of the church’s security team. An armed society is not only more polite, but capable of protecting its innocents infinitely better than signs notifying passersby of another “gun-free zone”.
The Second Amendment, applied as written, is America’s best defense against violence—228 years ago, this week, and for as long as our nation endures.
.
.
— Warren Lind is a retired licensed clinical social worker and former security officer who writes extensively about crime, survival, and self-defense. He is a member of too many pro-2A organizations to list.
Image Credit - Derplist and wherever they meme mined it from
Happy New Year to all!
This is a curious read. Click and hop over to the Providence Journal and see for yourself but in essence it seems to suggest that since they have used the law 33 times it is therefore a success…
I’m not convinced for a number of reasons.
Firstly, in each case, was the ‘Red Flag’ legislation the only legal mechanism by which to accomplish the goal? In only 1 of the 33 cases is this stated, at least in the piece linked, to be the case that the police had no other recourse but to ‘Red Flag’ an individual for making threats. The search didn’t turn up the alleged weapon.
In only a handful of cases were firearms recovered. In other cases, like the story presented in the opening of piece, a man giving signs of suicide (through picture and text message) was intervened with by law enforcement and he did not kill himself. That man had a weapon. However that case is hard to justify as a ‘Red Flag’ win. The police are empowered , and have the full human ability to go speak with someone showing concerning behavior, that wasn’t magically granted unto them with the advent of ‘Red Flag’ laws…
It seems to me, and perhaps I am merely pessimistic, that ‘Red Flag’ authors are chalking anything remotely resembling a use of the law as a ‘win’ and not doing so through the lens of abilities present before the law change. I also don’t think they’re going to chalk anything into the ‘lose’ column, even if something is missed, someone is wrongly flagged, or even if someone dies during the seizure.
As a break from waxing overly political on NYE I instead want to delve into some fun tech! I’m still looking at the various political machinations and how opinions are polarizing around the shooting in Texas. I will have more thoughts on that one but…
Tech break everyone!
Kinetic Energy Weapons are something that has been mostly relegated to science fiction. At least in how they’re usually portrayed. In reality we use low power kinetic energy weapons (firearms) and chemical energy weapons (explosives) and have for centuries.
Our low power kinetic energy weapons, say your EDC sidearm, aren’t using raw kinetic energy as their principle wounding method per se. Instead it’s a combination effect of the kinetic hydrostatic transfer (terms like hydrostatic shock and temporary wound cavity address this damage) and the permanent wound cavity through critical body systems causing organ failure due to tissue damage and exsanguination (not enough blood left in the body and/or one or more of the really important organs turned off)
Our chemical weapons (explosives), and by extension our nuclear weapons, are expensive special material enhancements to up the amount of destructive power a device can deliver from its inert kinetic raw form.
What strategic level kinetic energy weapons do, or would do, is take the energy levels currently only achievable through chemical or nuclear reactions and use extreme speed to do the same thing. We are using the kinetic energy equation to maximum effect, because the big money energy contributor is speed.
This is also the tech behind railguns, non-complex material traveling at high speed. Gravity, however, is the easiest and most plentiful accelerator we have access too. It isn’t going anywhere and doesn’t fail. Which makes the whole concept of orbital strategic kinetic weapons this incredibly interesting cross between high tech and low tech.
High tech because… well… space! Low tech because we’re doing the orbital equivalent of dropping a lawn dart. High tech again because we’ve given it GPS and other guidance tech like we’ve adapted to precision munitions. We also design the ‘dart’ from a dense high mass material and shape it to efficiently retain velocity, resist drag, and survive hypervelocity atmospheric entry and transit.
It’s mostly just that the same physics that go into dropping a foam finned football onto your siblings head from the second story deck can be macroed onto a planetary orbital scale and become a superweapon.
Senate Bill 3065 would empower the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to set standards for “firearm locks and safes” and for other purposes. U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy introduced the legislation to partner with Senate Bill 193 which would nationally mandate safe storage practices.
(4) SECURE GUN STORAGE BY OWNERS.—
“(A) OFFENSE.—
“(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to store or keep any firearm that has moved in, or that has otherwise affected, interstate or foreign commerce on the premises of a residence under the control of the person if the person knows, or reasonably should know, that—
“(I) a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor; or
“(II) a resident of the residence is ineligible to possess a firearm under Federal, State, or local law.
“(ii) EXCEPTION.—Clause (i) shall not apply to a person if the person—
“(I) keeps the firearm—
“(aa) secure using a secure gun storage or safety device; or
“(bb) in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure; or
“(II) carries the firearm on his or her person or within such close proximity thereto that the person can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if the person carried the firearm on his or her person.
“(B) PENALTY.—
“(i) IN GENERAL.—Any person who violates subparagraph (A) shall be fined $500 per violation.
“(ii) ENHANCED PENALTY.—If a person violates subparagraph (A) and a minor or a resident who is ineligible to possess a firearm under Federal, State, or local law obtains the firearm and causes injury or death to such minor, resident, or any other individual, the person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
“(iii) FORFEITURE OF IMPROPERLY STORED FIREARM.—Any firearm stored in violation of subparagraph (A) shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture in accordance with the procedures described in section 924(d).
So… considering the CPSC already has standards on firearm storage devices with several specific articles and that the industry as a whole has a high motivation for their safety devices to work… what are they doing here? And, of course, the Government gets to keep your firearm.
Also, how are they going to be handing out those $500 fines? Random checks? How about those felony convictions if someone who shouldn’t get the gun gets it? Does putting the kids parent in prison for picking up the gun under the bed and hurting themselves or someone else make the situation better? If it was accidental, certainly not. And if it was deliberate? If the minor or prohibited individual took the firearm with ill intent? Will more prison and fines improve that?
What is the reasonable standard of security? Locked door? Safe? What if they’re in the safe but someone knew or figured out the key or combination? Is that reasonably secured or are they liable?
Does doubling down on negligence penalties make anyone less negligent? That might be an interesting research question. What level of education/penalty balance produces the best societal compliance with smart practices? Maybe some of the $25 Million recently passed can give us an answer from the CDC.
Firearm safety practices must be tailored. Circumstances change and owners must adjust for the current environment they are in. Firearms are going to get stored vastly differently in a home where small children are watched vs. a household where only trained adults reside. It’s an active retention and adjustment. It would be nearly impossible to ‘enforce’ such a rule, only penalize if it goes wrong.
Why do we just keep rebranding negligence and pretend this will fix it?
Over the weekend we had two highly publicized examples of targeted violence, both seemingly of anti-religious sentiments. At the very least both events targeted a religious gathering. One unfortunately illustrated vulnerability, while the other preparedness.
The title image is a still taken from the video live stream in Texas of the church service attack. It shows the moment that an attendee, Jack Wilson, one of several in the congregation who was carrying since Texas passed the law allowing carry in church, engaged and killed the gunman who pulled a shotgun and open fired.
Law Enforcement is not releasing details yet on who the gunman is but is being termed as having “ties to the area, but transient”. It is unknown if the motive was hostile to the church itself, faith in general, or something else entirely. 240 people were in the congregation when the man pulled the shotgun. Two people were killed on account of his actions. One man died at the scene and another enroute to the hospital.
The video is below. Warning: It is graphic.
Image from Facebook. Warning: Graphic, includes casualties. Wilson can be seen on the left as he draws and engages the assailant.
The congregates, many who were part of a volunteer security team, had a plan and enacted it. They stopped the shooting in six seconds.
But despite the horror of the attack, imagine it unopposed. Imagine if state law had still prohibited church goers from taking steps to protect themselves, and those 240 people were left to the whims of a violent man with a shotgun. Those watching live through the stream would have had a front row view of an even greater horror show than the brief gun battle above.
New York
Compare that scene to the fear within the Jewish community in New York were a string of violent anti-semitic attacks was put into sharp focus with a mass stabbing home invasion that severely injured 5.
A Rabbi’s home in Monsey, New York was violently invaded by Grafton Thomas (seen in custody below) where he stabbed five people celebrating Hanukkah, the house held around 100 at the time. Thomas then fled and was arrested covered in blood after a traffic camera pinged his license plate.
This, so shortly after the Jersey City shootout, has put the Jewish community, especially those around New York in a heightened state of fear and awareness.
The mayors and governors can stand up in their press conferences and bloviate on their commitment to the safety of the community all they want, but their policies actively suppress the rights of individuals to defend themselves if attacked. The government keeps promising and individuals keep getting assailed.
Now Thomas, the home invader in Monsey, does not appear to have an active anti-semitic connection at present, unlike Jersey City. But in the end does that matter? As a community that feels under threat does the fact Thomas wasn’t targeting the gathering because it was a Hanukkah celebration matter?
No. Motive never matters in the moment. Reaction does. Those five people were stabbed in the safety of their Rabbi’s home, their home, and it doesn’t much matter if the motive was anti-semitically driven or not to the injured. It has implications in the larger picture for future policing, but not in the moment.
The community is now calling for more safety, more policing, more measures to protect them from hate, violence, and crime. The state of New York is further and making a show of calling these terrorist acts? Governor Cuomo, what does ‘calling it terrorism’ (when it is, like Jersey City) or when its unknown (like in Monsey) have to do with empowering your citizens to safety? Does naming it something different allow your police force to be more places?
Contrasting
The gathering in New York I am certain did what they could, the fact that only 5 were injured may be a testament to forcing Thomas bodily from the premises. He also may have left of his own volition, whether seeing so many gathered changed his mind, he had done the damage he meant too, or any other whim swung his judgement is not known.
But the reaction from the community shows they firmly believe this is the government’s job to solve… and they will be disappointed.
In Texas, an attack with a weapon arguably far more lethal, the attacker was not given the latitude to choose. He was met with force, effectively and swiftly, and put down.
Now which gathering, should the worst occur, would you rather be in? The one empowered for their defense, or the one government keeps promising to do better by?
This one out of Arizona, the AZ Capitol Times to be precise, a state known as a bastion of firearm freedoms.
The Arizona Department of Public Safety currently issues concealed weapons permits at the state level. However, eligibility criteria are lax and, due to Arizona being an open carry state, obtaining a weapons permit is not required to own a firearm. We propose a state licensing program in order to reduce gun violence in Arizona. All gun owners should be required to obtain a firearm permit. Licensing would include a rigorous training program including a classroom-based curriculum focused on firearm safety, Arizona gun laws and a review of gun violence in the U.S. Subsequently, a written exam would need to be passed in order to advance to live range training. Individuals would then learn how to properly handle and shoot firearms followed by a live range qualification exam. Upon successful completion of the program, individuals would qualify to obtain a firearm permit which would be required to purchase or own a gun in Arizona.
Compare this with Article II Section 26 of the Arizona State Constitution.
“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.”
State licensing (at a cost/tax) with a review of Arizona laws and U.S. gun violence statistics (at a cost/tax to prepare) with a written exam that is likely to have a cost/tax to take, submit, and grade. Then advancement to live range training (cost/tax to pay instructors and range safety personnel who maintain the state standard) and a qualification exam. Upon completion of the program (and paying your right access tax) individuals would qualify to obtain a firearm permit which would be required to purchase or own a gun in Arizona.
That seems to me, and maybe it is just me but I doubt it, to be impairing the ability of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves or the state. As the state will not be making the proposed training readily available and at no additional cost to residents or as part of public education I cannot see how this scheme in the least is feasible.
Nor how it will positively influence homicide rates into decline. Unless, of course, the theory is that by making exercise of the right a pain in the ass, especially to lower income individuals who are more likely to be victimized and statistically more likely to perpetrate, you intent to slowly filter out firearms from the ‘undesirables’.
Instead of focusing funding, policing, and prosecution efforts on targeting organized and semi-organized criminal activity that make up the majority of homicides nationwide… I’m sure taxing a human right is the way to do it. It has worked to well in Illinois after all, nobody gets shot in Chicago with all those FOID cards.
Oh… well… huh. Well I’m certain the licenses allow them to solve all those crimes at least.
Okay so… not that great, but let’s see what they say about the rest to justify this point of view.
The right to bear arms is guaranteed in our nation’s Constitution and many, including the NRA, are against new laws or requirements to gun ownership.
That is what guaranteed means…
However, our law enforcement and military are trained extensively on firearm usage, both in the classroom and on the range, before they are allowed to handle and use guns.
Bold assumption. It would be accurate to say members of these organizations receive a standardized curriculum on service weapons. The Marine Corps has one that is drawn out, emmerive, and instructive, as part of basic training. But it is also very basic and doesn’t get more advanced unless your specific MOS requires it to do so in other schools. The Marine Corps is also a foundation up professional, high mobility, specialized, combined arms fighting force. Not Joe Americano of Arizona who just wants a 9mm in case someone breaks down his door or tries to carjack him.
Civilians should be held to the same requirements.
No they shouldn’t. It is entirely unreasonable and unnecessary to expect all citizens, including those of less able body (who are at increased risk of victimization), to conform to some kind of military standard.
An independent study found that carrying a gun did not realistically provide self-defense unless a user is properly trained in the classroom and on the range (NGVAC, 2015).
Yes, this is true. Just as owning a tuba doesn’t make you a musician owning a firearm does not make you proficient in its use. This logic does not compel the state to make it mandatory to be proficient for ownership and right exercise. If it does, then let’s start talking about literacy and competency tests for voting again, since you have to be proficient to exercise a right with any good effect. Right?
The NRA (2019) even offers courses to help people learn firearm basics, safety, and improve marksmanship and shooting skills. Required licensure is not meant to reduce Second Amendment rights, but rather ensure that those who own guns are properly trained for their own safety and the public’s.
What it is meant to do is not at issue. We attack laws all the time that were not meant to do one thing but ended up disproportionately negatively impacting a group, usually minorities and lower income citizens.
Which. Is. Exactly. What. This. Will. Do.
If it were meant to work as you say we would make this part of public education and accessible to high school students, as a necessary part of their civic education, and adults at their leisure. But of course we won’t. Because the goal is to strangle the Right to Keep and Bear Arms slowly from the public consciousness through lack of accessibility. Why are we pretending otherwise?
If you have a gun-violence restraining order, you’ll be prohibited from buying a firearm for up to five years, under AB 12 by Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin, D-Thousand Oaks. It takes effect Sept. 1.
An employer, coworker, employee or teacher can seek a gun-violence restraining order from a court, allowing police to remove firearms from someone making threats, under AB 61 by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco. It takes effect Sept. 1.
You can’t buy guns in California if you are prohibited from buying guns in another state, under AB 164 by Assemblywoman Sabrina Cervantes, D-Corona. The bill takes effect Jan. 1.
California law enforcement agencies before Jan. 1, 2021 must develop and adopt written policies and standards regarding the use of gun violence restraining orders under Irwin’s AB 339.
Suicide warning labels must be on gun packages and in gun stores by June 1, under Irwin’s AB 645. The handgun safety certificate test also will cover the topic of suicide.
Certain gun “precursor” parts must be sold through a licensed vendor under AB 879 by Assemblyman Mike Gipson, D-Carson. Provisions of the bill begin to take effect Jan. 1, but others don’t until July 1, 2024 or 2025.
No more firearms and ammunition can be sold at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in San Diego after Jan. 1, 2021, under AB 893 by Assemblyman Todd Gloria, D-San Diego.
The $100 cap on processing fees for concealed firearm licenses is going away with the passage of AB 1297 by Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento. County sheriffs can now charge “an amount equal to the actual costs for processing the application,” according to the bill, which takes effect Jan. 1.
If you have a gun-violence restraining order against you, you can fill out a form that says you’re willing to relinquish your guns, under Ting’s AB 1493. The bill takes effect Sept. 1.
Nonprofits “that are at high risk of terrorist attack due to ideology, beliefs, or mission” can apply for state grants of up to $200,000 from a newly formed State Nonprofit Security Grant Program to beef up their onsite security. The bill, AB 1548 by Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, D-San Fernando Valley, was in response to mass shootings at mosques, churches and synagogues.
Starting Jan. 1, the fees Californians pay the state when purchasing a firearm will climb to $38.19, with the passage of AB 1669 by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda. The bill also updated California’s legal code to reflect that gun show regulations apply to ammunition vendors.
If you’re younger than 21, you can’t buy a semiautomatic center-fire rifle starting Jan. 1. SB 61 by State Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, also prohibits Californians from buying more than one semiautomatic center-fire rifle in a 30-day period beginning on July 1, 2021.
Beginning Jan. 1, the owner of any unlocked gun taken out of a home by a child or a “prohibited person” can be charged with a crime and penalized with a 10-year ban on gun ownership under Portantino’s SB 172. The bill also set gun storage requirements for nursing homes.
The number of transactions a gun seller can make without a firearms dealer license is now limited to six per year under SB 376. Portantino’s bill also sets a cap of 50 total firearms within those six transactions. The bill takes effect Jan. 1.
California wants to keep their top spot as the nation’s most anti-2A (or as they may term it, ‘firearm safety conscious’) state.
And for what? The only rule in the list that makes a modicum of sense is the security grant program for non-profits. $200,000 is a decent enough budget to put surveillance, harder doors, and perhaps even staff in place to respond to an attack or other emergency. Being California, they would be remiss to not include earthquakes, fire, and your average everyday medical emergencies among their preparatory list. But what do I know? I just do this for a living around a bunch of folks who do that for a living.
One gun a month for their neutered semi-automatics, 21 to buy, an ammo background check system with a 20% or better false positive rate, ‘Red Flag’ mayhem and no written accountability until 2021. Meanwhile that same order can ban your Second Amendment right from you for five years at a time, all without a conviction.
Here’s a fun one. Beginning Jan. 1, the owner of any unlocked gun taken out of a home by a child or a “prohibited person” can be charged with a crime and penalized with a 10-year ban on gun ownership under Portantino’s SB 172. The bill also set gun storage requirements for nursing homes.
Don’t know your friend or family member is prohibited under some other state’s rule? They get caught using your gun, not dangerously, just using it, even with your permission,.. done, 2A gone for you in California.
You can only sell your property up to six times per year. The other limit of 50 firearms seems rather stupid too, more like an attempt to seem like their trying to influence curbing unlicensed for-profit sales. But the real limit, the true limit, is 6. I hope your firearm turnover rate is low. Because if not, even during just one year, you are an unlicensed dealer and a criminal.
Firearms now need a ‘suicide warning’ on the package, it’s California so I’m sure they cause cancer too. Taxes are up, the State fees are rising on purchases and applying for a concealed carry license (which will now surpass Michigan’s fee by an unknown amount). Just buying a gun nets the state $38.19, on just the fact it is a gun, before any other tax.
All the efforts for naught…
Every law they pass is said to target a specific aspect of ‘gun violence’, usually with a mass casualty attack being the most visible and prominent. All of this while overlooking the abysmal statistical likelihood that massive and intrusive efforts will prevent an attack because of what an attack like that entails.
The rare individuals motivated to indiscriminate or targeted mass violence will not be deterred by any provision herein. They will adjust for it. The data supports that such people are often at least collegiate level educated, only some have prohibitive criminal backgrounds (that didn’t prevent the attacks), and these events happen with an infrequency amongst the general population and possess so many variables that they cannot be ‘filtered’ from the general population with anything like reliability.
This leaves effective measures weighted heavily on the response end of the spectrum for reducing casualties and not the prevention end. That’s why that security measures grant makes some semblance of sense as it funds reactive measures in case of an event.
California continues to be on about the right to ‘safety’ and not ‘defense’. The state saying that your are secure in your person and belongings is not and cannot be a right of ‘safety’. It is a right that the state backs you in that what is yours is yours, and that if you exercise personal force up to a lethal level in a justified manor the state still backs you. It is the assurance of a legal status, not a physical one.
The only person who can most influence that physical state of being is still, always, and forever will be, you.
