Tags Posts tagged with "California"


by -
15 582

As a responsible gun owner, you hope that you never have to use your weapon to defend yourself, but you also know that the sad reality of our world is that you just may find yourself in the situation where you have to fire on someone to protect yourself or someone that you love.

A homeowner in the East San Francisco Bay area of Brentwood, California, found himself having to use this last resort to protect himself from robbers who wanted what was inside his gun safe. Unfortunately for them, that’s exactly what they got. Chase Stephens writes,

[Neighbor Reggie] Nichols went outside to see what was happening. “I could see the guy lying in the street, so then I came back and got my flashlight and got my phone, ran over there. He was still alive but he wasn’t doing good,” Nichols said.

The homeowner came out and explained to Nichols that four men tried to break into his house about 11:40 p.m. and steal a safe.

“They made him open the safe. After he opened the safe, I guess they weren’t ready for him,” Nichols remarked, adding that his friend “came out blasting.”

Nichols also said,

I think he had the right to do what he did. Like I said, I’ve seen him. He was really shook up. I don’t think he wanted to do it but he felt like his life was in danger.

Fortunately, no charges have been filed against the homeowner as his actions appear to be legitimate self-defense.

In this situation, it’s both fortunate and unfortunate that the homeowner had a gun safe in his house. Unfortunate because the robbers specifically seemed to want what was in that safe. Fortunate, though, because he was able to use what was in that safe to save his own life.

It’s also good to remember that it’s exactly these kind of high-stress situations that we need to train for so that if we find ourselves in this kind of awful situation, we can take the effective action needed to save innocent lives.

by -
14 705

If there is one thing that you can say about hardline gun control advocates is that they are consistent in their unwavering support of gun control. No matter how much logic gets thrown their way or how much evidence that is shown to them, they remain steadfast loyal gun control advocates.

They are completely devoted to their misguided religious faith in the benefits of gun control.

So, you’ll understand our shock when a left coast newspaper (which would be expected to be stumping for Bloomberg’s gun control nonsense) printed an op-ed piece admitting that gun control does not work. We had to sit down when we read that, too.

The op-ed by Jay Ambrose, an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service, was printed in The Mercury News (a California newspaper) on June 22, 2017. Ambrose wrote,

Whenever there is a shooting, liberals have an answer that is not an answer, namely the charade of more gun control. Fine, try it, and maybe some voodoo along the way but it doesn’t work very well. There are better alternatives and what’s truly absurd in this debate is the demeaning expression “gun nuts.”

What about “gun control nuts?”

What about people who seem to think murders will go down if fewer guns are sold even though a major crime drop starting in the 1990s was accompanied by a huge increase in the number of guns?

What about people apparently not knowing that we have 300 million guns in this country and getting hold of one will continue to be easy short of mass confiscation that will not and should not happen? Criminals, by the way, mostly get their guns from such means as the black market or a family gift, not through store purchases.

Ambrose lays out the details about how banning guns in both the U.K. and in Russia resulted in increased murder rates and that more people are killed with knives and with fists than with guns.

In fact, Ambrose lays out all of the facts that intelligent gun owners already know. It’s just refreshing to see those facts printed in a newspaper in a staunchly anti-gun environment.

We just hope that a few people can open their eyes enough to read Ambrose’s op-ed piece and grasp the truth: gun control doesn’t reduce violence. Gun control increases violence.

by -
14 621

File this under the: “How does this make any sense to anyone?” file.

A proposed bill has the specific purpose of preventing residents from one Western state from being able to purchase more than one gun per month. Yes, we’re talking gun rationing.

Now, we’re not talking about concerns that there will be enough food or other resources for everyone like was used to justify rationing during World War II. We’re just talking rationing because, apparently, State Senator Antony Portantino (D-Pasadena) thinks it’s a good idea. Never mind that it, even if it passes, it won’t apply to him. Daniel Jennings gives us more details about this lunacy in California:

The California bill, sponsored by State Senator Antony Portantino (D-Pasadena), was labeled “firearms rationing” by the Firearms Policy Coalition.

“A person shall not make an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period,” SB 497 states.

The bill applies not only to pistols but also to rifles and shotguns.

It specifically exempts law enforcement agencies, correctional facilities, licensed firearms dealers, motion picture and television production companies, and licensed collectors.

Current California law makes it illegal for private citizens to purchase more than one handgun a month. SB 497 extends that restriction to rifles and shotguns.

“This bill would make the 30-day prohibition and the dealer delivery prohibition described above applicable to all types of firearms,” the legislative counsel’s digest of SB 497 states. Dealers who violate SB 497 can be prosecuted as criminals.

The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 25-13. To become law, it must pass the state Assembly and then be signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, who vetoed a similar bill in 2016.

What I want to know is what in the world that State Senator Portantino (and the other Senators that voted for the bill) hopes to accomplish with this bill. So, they stop someone from buying a second gun this month. The bill doesn’t stop someone from buying a gun right now (whch is all some nutcase needs to go commit a horrible crime), and the bill doesn’t stop a criminal from stealing or obtaining a gun by some other illegal manner.

All this bill will accomplish is that it will allow these State Senators to say that they helped to protect the children (without actually making any difference) and to place an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun shops to have to to through the process of making sure a customer hasn’t already (legally) bought a gun of any kind this month before selling them a gun.

It’s ridiculous and a waste of time and money.

by -
16 778

If you meet someone who tells you that you need to act one way because everyone needs to act that way but, then, they act completely opposite to their statement to you, what would you call that person? Yes, you would call them a hypocrite (and you’d be right).

And we have a perfect example of people being hypocrites. The specific problem that we’re talking about is that legislators in anti-gun strongholds are hypocrites when it comes to gun control. Don’t believe me? We’ll let Scott Osborn tell you the details:

The California State Senate agrees with Charlie Rangel that they “deserve” to own guns but the citizens do not! Every year they pass more and more gun control laws and NONE of them apply to themselves!

They voted 28-8 to exempt themselves from the gun-control laws that apply to the rest of the California.

You think maybe this will cause Californians to rise up? NOPE! It happened 5 years ago and since then, California has passed a plethora of other gun laws…that only apply to citizens.

Yes, you heard me right! The exemption was created in 2011 and the California legislature has passed a number of gun laws since. Pretty easy when you are passing bills that do not apply to you!

It is not the only special privileges California legislators provide themselves!

They do not pay red light camera bills or for gasoline!

So, just to repeat: the California State Senate overwhelming voted to let themselves have guns while restricting gun ownership in that state. Oh, and the don’t pay for gasoline or tickets when they run red lights.

It’s utterly ridiculous. And then you have anti-gunners wondering why people like us who are pro 2nd Amendment distrust politicians. If these anti-gunners did any research for themselves instead of buying into propaganda from the mainstream media and from politicians that lie to them to get their votes, then we’d have a lot less opposition about the 2nd Amendment.

The fact of the matter is: If it’s good enough for Senators to have guns, then it’s good enough for you and me to have guns, too.

by -
20 969

As an adult, you know that, even when you do the right thing, that doesn’t mean that you’ll have immediate victory. There is an unfortunate story in an anti-gun stronghold which confirms this fact of life.

You see, the Michigan Supreme Court recently upheld a University of Michigan rule which banned guns on its campuses. The Associated Press notes,

In a 2-1 decision, the court said a 2001 ban doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution. The court also said the university isn’t covered by a state law that prevents local governments from putting limits on guns.

The university is a “state-level, not a lower level or inferior level, governmental entity. More specifically, it is a constitutional corporation of independent authority,” judges Mark Cavanagh and Deborah Servitto said.

All University of Michigan properties are gun-free for students, non-police staff and the general public, unless a waiver for “extraordinary circumstances” is granted by the public safety department.

Judge David Sawyer wrote a dissenting opinion, saying the university is exceeding its authority by adopting its own restrictions. The appeals court decision was dated Tuesday [June 6, 2017] but released Wednesday [June 7, 2017].

With all due respect to the majority justices in this case, this is the kind of ridiculous thinking that only can come from a state which starts from an anti-gun viewpoint. In the first place, any limitation that doesn’t involve a conflict with another right has no reasonable limitation.

Clearly (and you don’t have to be a Constitutional scholar or a genius), this ban on guns on college campuses only violates the Second Amendment rights of college students (and any visitors) in the State of Michigan. It makes those college students even less safe.

And this gun ban comes from the people crying for safe spaces who say that they are concerned about rapes on campus. But, if they really wanted to keep college students safe, then Constitutional carry would be the rule.

It’s ridiculous, and those majority justices need to be sent back to a real law school to learn their jobs.

by -
23 1480

The new year in California isn’t off to a happy start for golden state gun owners. A court battle is brewing over California’s pending ammunition-control laws.  The legalities are still being sorted out, but according to California’s prop 63 (which passed last November) anyone who wants to buy ammo will need a permit. This language contradicts another state ammo-control law that recently passed, the whole hot mess will almost certainly be decided by the courts. The new laws are set to take effect in phases from now until 2019.

From the Sacramento Bee

Under legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown last summer, Californians buying ammunition would need to pass an in-store background check, which involves vendors running information through a Department of Justice database to see if they are prohibited from owning guns. The buyer would pay a fee of up to $1 with each transaction, an amount that can rise with inflation.

Proposition 63, the ballot initiative voters approved in November, sets out a different system. People interested in buying ammunition would have to purchase a four-year permit from the Department of Justice. The state could charge up to $50 for the ammo license. Retailers would be required to check with the department to ensure customers have a valid permit.

It’s not clear which of the provisions will win out. Typically, ballot measures override legislation, but the Legislature passed a bill prior to the November election that attempted to supersede Proposition 63’s licensing requirements.

They’re running out of ideas for gun-control laws. Why not switch to ammo-control? Did Chris Rock inspire this madness with his comedy routine about a bullet costing $5,000? Does anyone really think that gang-bangers in L.A. won’t be able to shoot each other because of the new ammo-control laws? The price of ammunition will go up, no doubt, but the crime rate isn’t going to be affected.

In the Sacramento Bee article above, the paper points out that anyone can import ammo from out-of-state. This is true, but criminals gangs won’t even need to do that. Any gangster who is 18 years old without a criminal record can get the permit and buy ammo for the entire crew or they can just buy/steal ammo from the same person who sold them their illegal gun. California’s insane gun-control has already failed to prevent criminals from obtaining federally regulated firearms, just imagine how effective state regulated ammo-control is going to be.

Whether or not the permit is required or the background check is required, the result is all the same: law-abiding gun owners are scapegoated and punished for the actions of criminals.

by -
31 3148

ar-15CaptureVoters will have the final say in November over explosive laws involving ” universal background checks” and “high capacity magazines.” The stakes are high, with some really crazy laws being thrust upon voters.

Of course, California, takes the cake by banning all gun magazines over 10 rounds and forcing a bizarre state background system for ammunition purchases. (similar to the one that already failed in New York)

Bearing Arms sums the other three states:

Ballots in the state of Washington will hold Initiative 1491, the Individual Gun Access Prevention by Court Order. Voters will decide whether to allow the government to strip people who are ‘subject to extreme risk protection orders’ of their gun rights. The measure cites people with active restraining orders against them as well as individuals ‘risk of suicide’, but no mention of due process or penalties for falsely accusing individuals.

Finally, in both Maine and Nevada, residents will have an opportunity to vote on whether they want background checks to extend to private gun sales.

“2016 will be the year of gun sense,” said Kate Folmar, a spokeswoman at Everytown for Gun Safety

Great, the year of “gun sense.” Sounds like a nightmare.

Three out of four of these initiatives are in blue states where Hillary Clinton is heavily favored to win. To stop these blue state initiatives from passing, Hillary Clinton voters will have to vote for the Second Amendment. The situation looks pretty bleak. In California, a poll just showed that over 83% of voters support the ballot initiative.

To make matters worse, voters in California will be asked if they support “large capacity” magazines, but they won’t even be told how California defines the phrase “large capacity.” Some voters might think it’s 15 rounds like it is in Colorado, but actually “large capacity” means ten rounds in California.

There is still time to turn it around, but the situation is grim.



0 28
You can be forgiven if you've never heard of Rex firearms. Most people in the U.S. aren't familiar with the company despite being popular...