 Doug McMillon, president and CEO of Walmart, in a Sept 3. statement, just took a gigantic dump on gun owners and open carriers. Walmart will stop selling 5.56mm/.223 ammo (because it can be used in “large capacity clips on military-style weapons” and will no longer sell “handgun” ammo (does this include .22LR?). Walmart feels this will help make the country safer as “the status quo is unacceptable.” The statement makes no mention of what Walmart will be doing to make its stores safer. McMillon brags that: We’ve previously made decisions to stop selling handguns or military-style rifles such as the AR-15, to raise the age limit to purchase a firearm or ammunition to 21, to require a “green light” on a background check while federal law only requires the absence of a “red light,” to videotape the point of sale for firearms and to only allow certain trained associates to sell firearms. Even worse, Walmart swerves out of its lane (as a business) to call for stricter gun control. we encourage our nation’s leaders to move forward and strengthen background checks and to remove weapons from those who have been determined to pose an imminent danger. [...] We believe the reauthorization of the Assault Weapons ban should be debated to determine its effectiveness. Walmart getting (partially) out of the ammo business is great for local retailers who do stock and sell ammo. Price gouging on Armslist is going to be a lot harder. 5.56 ammo will not be sold because it is for “short-barrel rifles” or some such nonsense. In other words, they are not selling 5.56 because, in their opinion, it is for the evil black rifle the AR-15 and not hunting rifles. Walmart backed out of selling AR-15s several years ago to move to a hunting-centered firearms line. The much higher muzzle energy and velocity cartridges with better penetration such as .308 will continue to be sold. These hunting rounds are specifically designed to expand in their targets and create incapacitating wounds; in other words, the rounds Walmart is keeping tend to be more powerful and more deadly. McMillon really should have talked to a hillbilly in Arkansas before he approved this statement. Walmart admitted that firearms were not a major part of its business and sales of guns and ammo have been poor. The current media created hype against firearms provides them with a convenient excuse to leave a segment of a market where they cannot effectively compete. This will be a loss of another place where ammo can be purchased for cash and harms Californians who don’t have many options to buy ammo. As it relates to safety in our stores, there have been multiple incidents since El Paso where individuals attempting to make a statement and test our response have entered our stores carrying weapons in a way that frightened or concerned our associates and customers. We have also had well-intentioned customers acting lawfully that have inadvertently caused a store to be evacuated and local law enforcement to be called to respond. These incidents are concerning and we would like to avoid them, so we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer openly carry firearms into our stores or Sam’s Clubs in states where “open carry” is permitted – unless they are authorized law enforcement officers. He correctly blames "individuals attempting to make a statement" (inconsiderate attention seekers), such as the Missouri man who openly carried an AR pistol and tactical vest. Open Carry Texas carried long guns until the open carry of handguns by permit was decriminalized in that state. These bad publicity incidents are why Walmart is “requesting” open carriers stay out or cover up their guns. Covering up guns in order not to scare people is equivalent to telling women to “cover up” because exposed skin will tempt men to rape them. Open carriers are not a problem; assholes who tote rifles where they have no business being are the problem and McMillon and his idiotic staff is too dumb to ask people not to bring their rifles to the store. Tellingly, McMillon blames the concealed carrier who rightly drew down on and held the AR pistol clown at gunpoint for police for scaring people. I guess he should have waited until the guy started shooting to do something? I have not seen any compelling evidence that an openly carried handgun has caused any mass fright in a Walmart. Banning open carry won’t keep many from going disarmed at Walmart, but it is a slap in the face to the Second Amendment and clearly is part of shaming gun owners. By asking open carriers to stay away or cover up and posting signs, along with all the other virtue signalling, McMillon and Walmart are blaming guns. Yes, blame the skirt for the rape too. If it wouldn’t totally alienate the customer base, I bet they would ban guns entirely from Walmarts. Walmart is only “requesting” that customers not open carry, but is posting signs. In Texas, these signs (30.07) will likely have the force of law. In Nevada, as in many states, signs and statements like this have no force of law. A manager, security guard, or other person authorized to trespass individuals from stores (not the greeter) must tell you to leave for open carry to become the crime of trespassing. A request is not a demand. It may be an outright ban, but we need to wait and see how Walmart plays it. If individual stores and employees just don’t care, then it will have no more teeth than the “requests” from Target and Starbucks earlier this decade. Target does not seem to actively enforce their anti-open carry “request.” Not once in Nevada have I been asked to leave a Target for openly carrying a handgun. What is a “non-confrontational” policy? A polite request not to openly carry or to cover up can be ignored. I will simply say “No” and go about my business. If they demand I conceal or leave the store, then I will leave the store, leaving the car where it is, and not come back. However, I rather think “non-confrontational” means ask nicely, then call the police. In truth, after by the new year local employees will stop caring (as if openly carried handguns are really noticed anyhow). Banning open carry sends a mixed message that guns are okay, but only if you hide them. For decades, concealed carry was traditionally regarded as the province of criminals. Men with nothing to hide openly carried their guns. Open carry is low-hanging fruit. If citizens tolerate this, there will be nothing to stop Walmart from banning concealed carry eventually. Walmart is not a safe place and not because of the El Paso shooting. Because of the low prices, criminals and the kind of violent, unstable scum that tend to be poor are at Walmart. Shit goes down at Walmart and we know where the “two gun” Walmarts are. “Stab-Mart” just outside of Nellis was closed down, but totally not because of the crime or anything… Discouraging people from carrying and shitting on gun owners is not going to make the world, or Walmart, a better place. Walmart’s disavowal of open carriers is a tone-deaf response solely for the benefit of the public relations of one of the retailers and companies Americans love to hate. It is corporate virtue signalling and not any sort of meaningful improvement to violence in America. This latest move is nothing but the actions of an ignorant, out-of-touch corporate board that is trapped in the Leftist news cycle bound to turn employees and customers against the beast from Bentonville. Walmart does not regularly employ armed security that can respond to a mass shooter or any other of the countless incidents of everyday criminal violence that occur at their stores everyday. Under strict liability, businesses are held responsible for creating or allowing hazardous conditions. Businesses that discourage or prohibit carry of firearms should be held liable for injuries when it can be shown an armed citizen could have protected themselves. Armed citizens rushing to the defense of other shoppers in Walmart happens. Once such (unsuccessful, sadly) attempt was here in Las Vegas in 2014 when Joseph Wilcox, a concealed carrier, drew his pistol and prepared to counter-attack the assassins of two Metro officers. Frankly, if there was shooting I’d be inclined to not be a hero and let Walmart reap what they’ve sewn. Walmart is does this at the cost of alienating itself from its core clientele to virtue signal. Shopping at Walmart is unavoidable for a lot of us. It’s cheap. Most shoppers don’t care about buying guns or carrying one, just low prices. The store knows that many of us, especially those in very rural places, have no other effective choice, so a boycott won’t work. But remember Walmart; when the eventual war with China comes you’ll be out of business. Late addition: Kroger has also asked that people don’t openly carry. Or rather their corporate weenies put out a statement. “Kroger is respectfully asking that customers no longer openly carry firearms into our stores, other than authorized law enforcement officers.” My suggestion: open carry anyway. If anyone from the store says anything, just cover up. Even better, get a gun sock or something that makes it clear it’s a firearm but is technically concealed. Make them live up to their own rules. If they ask, say no. If they demand, then comply.  Why do the rules for IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association) prohibit open carry in its matches? 1.2.1 Equipment Principles Additionally, are numerous prohibitions of things like compensators, add-on weights, extended magazine releases, holsters not practical for everyday concealed carry, etc. Essentially, a gun used should be in as close to factory condition possible. The short answer is to keep IDPA shooting as close to a realistic self-defense scenarios as possible. As Ken Hackathorn, one of the originators of both USPSA and IDPA pointed out to Ian MacCollum of InRangeTV, USPSA grew away from its tactical origins to become a gear and reloading manipulation competition. Most of the gear, holsters, and firearm modifications for USPSA has more to do with speed than defensive or tactical considerations. IDPA was a reaction to the “equipment races.” Specifically to open carry, IDPA requires concealed carry for several reasons. At the time it was started, open carry was not a usual method of everyday defensive carry when even concealed carry was illegal or highly restricted in many states. More practically, there is no real way to distinguish regular open carriers from those who would only do it for an advantage in competition. It is guaranteed that if an everyday concealed carrier could speed up his IDPA match times by openly carrying on the range, they would do it, but would lose out on the skills like drawing from concealment. IDPA after all was intended partially to help self-defense shooting skills in realistic scenarios. 8.7 Duty Gear Exemption Law enforcement and military are exempt because they regularly carry openly. This allows them to build and practice skills they can realistically use rather than just cutting down on their times. If civilian open carriers came with a mark or something to distinguish them as bonafide open carriers then maybe IDPA would let them do it too. So IDPA is not putting down open carry. Rather, they are keeping the matches as close to “real world” scenarios as possible by keeping the “gear queers” from ruining the sport.  Last week, an unfortunate forgetful CSN student forgot that he had his rifle and ammo in his vehicle. Apparently, a fellow student saw some firearm magazines in his parked vehicle and called police. Police at this point “tracked down the student who had driven the car to campus. It was then determined that the student had a rifle and approximately 2,000 rounds of ammunition inside the vehicle.” The student was arrested for a violation of NRS 202.265, possessing a firearm on school/college grounds. We have learned that the student, 27 year-old Shayn Striegel is an otherwise law abiding citizen and licensed concealed carrier. Members of the gun community have vouched for his reputation and state that as Striegel said, this was truly an unintentional act. Striegel truly did forget about the rifle as he told police. 2,000 rounds of ammo is also nothing; that’s two bricks of .22 (the size of a pound of butter) or two cases of 5.56 (each the size of a 12-pack). References to mass shootings and threats around the country were placed in many news articles about the incident. Whether these were intended to highlight increased awareness on campuses around the country or a sly way to insinuate something sinister to increase readership or advance some agenda isn’t known. What is known so far is that police have uncovered no plot or anything else to suggest this was more than just bad luck. When guns are legal in cars literally everywhere else in the state, one can see how a regular shooter might make this mistake. It’s a costly mistake to be sure. There is no reason merely having a firearm in your vehicle should be a crime for an adult student. A gun does not become more dangerous on campus than in the parking lot of a private business. That’s before we even address the issue of self-defense carry on campus. There is no practical legal way to possess a firearm on campus. Several bills over the last legislative sessions were shot down or died that would have decriminalized this act. Firearms are only allowed on campus with written permission. CSN policy, along with the entire Nevada System of Higher Education (state college and university system) effectively denies all but the most compelling cases. Few if any authorizations to carry concealed on campus are ever granted. Most permission is for non-defense carry. We even created a form to help people apply for permission. As a reminder, colleges and universities were never the original target of NRS 202.265. Clark County high schools had a problem with adult gang members bringing guns on to high school grounds. When the bill reached the legislature, the college and universities petitioned to be added to the bill without any real justification. College students should, at a minimum, be allowed to possess firearms in their locked vehicles. Many on social media rushed to defend the student and criticize the actions of police. In today’s anti-gun hypervigilant society university officials and police are almost locked into going all the way. This is a sad commentary on our times. As for the police conduct, a student reports seeing rifle magazines in a vehicle. While this in and of itself is not illegal, where there are magazines there is often a firearm. Police will respond to the call and will investigate further. We don’t know at this time if they got consent from Striegel to search his vehicle, but even without consent, if seeing the magazines amounted to probable cause to search for a weapon, such a warrantless search would be permitted under Supreme Court precedence (Carroll v. US). Whether the magazines alone would suffice to establish probable cause is for a court to decide. We hope that Striegel did not give police consent to search his vehicle and did not make any voluntary statements. Nothing good can come from talking to the police without an attorney present. However, if as we are told, this was just an innocent mistake, Striegel’s fate is not a serious one. A violation is only a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to 364 days in jail, and/or a maximum of $2,000 in fines. What is likely to happen is Striegel plea bargain and will have to forfeit his CCW for a time, serve probation, and pay a fine. A normal person who got unlucky in these times and forgot his rifle is unlikely to be severely punished. Additionally, should strict scrutiny be applied to the Second Amendment in the US Supreme Court’s upcoming case, NYSRPA v. NYC, campus carry restrictions may well be thrown out and Striegel’s conviction too. It’s sad that an innocent mistake involving an avid target shooter can be blown up into something criminal when nothing evil was intended. This incident is nothing more than a case of hoplophobia based on media hype and anti-gun university staff from 30 years ago glomming on to legislation.  The LDS Church recently changed its rules to ban guns in their churches, though only in Utah are all LDS churches automatically off-limits by law. The changes have not made many armed citizens happy. Reactions by Mormon gun owners show division in the church with Salt Lake's new policy.   CJ Grisham of Open Carry Texas, himself a Mormon, took the church to task. Texas' new law allowing concealed carry in churches was cited by the LDS Church as the reason to ban guns. In most states, the new change is only a request with little more weight than wearing a blue shirt to the sacrament meeting. I find it offensive and unChristian that ANY church leader would prefer that their sheep be defenseless and senselessly slaughtered for some greater good. Changes in the Church handbook state that “[c]hurches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world.” That sounds great on paper, but do you think the people that want to murder us care what churches are dedicated for? Do you think Devin Patrick Kelley cared that the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs was “dedicated for the worship of God?” Thank the Lord that Stephen Williford was able to engage with the shooter and stop him from killing more people than he had already slaughtered!   Credit: Reddit A Reddit thread on "What Are Your Thoughts About Concealed Carry in Meeting Houses?" Pre-new policy.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons) amended language in its Handbook 2: Administering the Church to prohibit firearms in its churches. Leadership states this is because Texas recently amended its concealed carry law to loosen restrictions on firearms in churches after high-profile shootings and the 2017 mass shooting at a Sutherland Springs, Texas, Baptist church. Before: Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law. Now: Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. With the exception of current law enforcement officers, the carrying of lethal weapons on church property, concealed or otherwise, is prohibited. The timing of this change is particularly bizarre because Wyoming, which has 67,421 Mormons or 11.64% of the population, changed its laws in 2018 to allow concealed carry in churches with no reaction from the LDS church. Texas has dramatically more members, 357,625, but are only 1.26% of the total population. The only high profile firearm incident at an LDS church was the targeted murder of specific individual in Fallon, Nevada, in 2018. While one might easily see how an openly carried firearm in a church could be distracting or disconcerting, a concealed firearm would not be. Instead, the LDS officials have succumbed to the same irrational logic that guns and rules that countless businesses, schools, and governments rely on. Signs and rules are not magical things that keep bad people from doing bad things. It doesn’t make sense and doesn’t have to. Instead, loyal Mormons who will obey the strictures of the church will be disarmed and left at the mercy of potential madmen. Hope is a poor plan. Of course, law enforcement will be allowed to carry. There are a lot of Mormon cops, so there may be some herd immunity there. However, only in Utah is it actually illegal to carry in LDS churches. New Mexico churches must be posted in order to ban concealed carry. Arizona 'No guns' signs do not have the force of law. If you carry past a 'no guns' sign on private property, you may be asked to leave or disarm. Failure to comply would be trespassing. Parking lot protection 12-781 A property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity cannot make rules or policies that prohibits a person from lawfully transporting or storing a firearm:
This does not apply if there is alternative parking in a location reasonably proximate to the primary parking area is provided. Colorado 'No guns' signs do not have the force of law. If you carry past a 'no guns' sign on private property, you may be asked to leave or disarm. Failure to comply would be trespassing. Idaho 'No guns' signs do not have the force of law. If you carry past a 'no guns' sign on private property, you may be asked to leave or disarm. Failure to comply would be trespassing. Montana 'No guns' signs do not have the force of law. If you carry past a 'no guns' sign on private property, you may be asked to leave or disarm. Failure to comply would be trespassing. New Mexico There is no separate church law, however, 'no guns' signs on private property have the force of law for concealed carry only (not like anyone will be carrying concealed to church). Concealed handguns are prohibited on private property when 'no guns' signs are posted or by verbally notifying persons upon entering the property, 10.8.2.16F and 10.8.2.27 NMAC. Signs must be posted according to the standards of the trespassing statute (30-14-6). Nevada 'No guns' signs do not have the force of law. If you carry past a 'no guns' sign on private property, you may be asked to leave or disarm. Failure to comply would be trespassing. Utah Churches (and houses of worship) may choose to prohibit firearms (76-10-530). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prohibits firearms on all its property. Per the BCI page listing notices, only the LDS church and one other church legally bans firearms. Carry in LDS churches and temples is illegal. I would recommend not carrying at all in any LDS owned building. Specifically, it is illegal to transport a firearm into a house of worship or enter or remain a house of worship. The law does not prohibit firearms in vehicles. Washington ‘No guns’ signs do not have the force of law. Private property owners can choose to prohibit firearms and exclude carriers. Failure to leave or disarm when requested would be simple trespassing. Wyoming The “place of worship” section of 6-8-104 was repealed by HB 141 in 2018. Carry is not prohibited by law in churches. ‘No guns’ signs do not have the force of law. Private property owners can choose to prohibit firearms and exclude carriers. Failure to leave or disarm when requested would be simple trespassing.  California legislators are seeking to influence Nevada into passing more strict gun control. They are upset because criminals can buy guns and ammo in Nevada and take it to California. With private sales being banned, part of that is going to be shut down next year, but now they are pushing namely for discriminating against 18-20 year olds by making it illegal for them to buy guns. Nevada is easy prey because it is a purple state. The state government is controlled by Democrats and their accomplices in California see the party as a way to influence our legislators. Arizona is too Republican to manipulate for the next few years. They are exploiting the recent Gilroy shooting to use the emotion to their advantage. Fun fact: California is the largest importer of crime guns into Nevada. One state attempting to influence another in this manner is absolutely despicable. Powerful interests are leaning on legislators to go against the interest of the public for the benefit of tyrants in a foreign state. This would be like Nevada casinos bribing the California legislature and proposing a ballot initiative to outlaw Indian casinos in California. Nevada has a large population of ex-Californians precisely because of this crap. The Democrats have ruined California and are exporting their bullshit to other states. The legislators who proposed this don’t care. They are entirely mortally corrupt and backed by dark money that would welcome tyranny. Their party and (probably) the Bloomberg forces. The hoplophobes will use any advantage to their benefit to enforce tyranny. Nevadans will not comply and will not give up their guns no matter what California or the anti-gunners try to do. Email your representatives, the lead asshat from California, and the governor. No new gun control, no special legislative session. California needs to mind it’s own damn business. Jason.Frierson@asm.state.nv.us; Nicole.Cannizzaro@sen.state.nv.us Governor http://gov.nv.gov/ContacttheGovernor.aspx California lead ass-clown assemblymember.gabriel@assembly.ca.gov  
You’ve just gone through the most intense and frightening experience of your life. You are exhausted from the adrenaline rush that just faded away. Your body aches from the fight. Your ears are ringing from the gun shots and your heart is pounding. The police show up and you want to tell them all about the incredibly terrible thing that just happened to you.
While it is natural in the aftermath of a traumatic experience and confronted by the authorities to figuratively spill your guts, this can get you in a lot of trouble. Many of us make no plans or preparations for after a defensive shooting. We figure that it will be relatively unlikely we will have to shoot someone and if we do, we’d “rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.” I’d like you to consider what could go wrong. Maybe you shot at the wrong moment or at the wrong person. Maybe your defensive display of handgun gets called in to 911 as a brandishing and the bag guy’s friends back up his story. What you say is just another piece of the puzzle; not necessarily the gospel truth of what really happened. When police are involved in a shooting, they are asked two things right away: how many shots did you fire and in what direction? After that, they are provided with a lawyer and union representative. Their department reads the officer their Miranda rights and orders them to speak or be fired, thus rendering anything they say inadmissible in court. You don’t get those courtesies. In my time in law enforcement, I’ve seen far too many people open their mouths and talk themselves in to trouble. A lot of them were willing to admit they were wrong and face the music, but in a gray area where your very life could be at stake, you do not want to take chances. These two men over-reacted and one seriously should have shut his mouth. You do not have to speak with the police, but many people want to tell their side of the story. Too many people think they can talk their way out of trouble and instead talk themselves into a pair of handcuffs. Now, if you did do wrong, why wouldn’t you find someone to help you to ensure the best possible outcome? In the road-rage story from Las Vegas linked just above, an attorney would have been invaluable during the interrogation. Remember, the police will ask you questions and elicit responses from you to establish guilt if they suspect you did something wrong. If you screwed up and shot someone when you shouldn’t have, but they were still a threat to you, what you say to the police can make a second degree murder charge when in fact it was only involuntary manslaughter. What if they lie about you? One resident of Las Vegas was accused of pistol whipping a friend during an argument. Despite discrepancies in the victim’s story and the apparent motivation for the attack to be to establish grounds for a “U-visa” (crime victim), the district attorney’s office brought the case forward. The prosecutor was none other than now-Senator Nicole Cannizzaro. The defendant I interviewed accused her of pushing forward the case out of political motivation due to her running for the senate that year. That Las Vegas man spent $70,000 of his savings to pay for attorneys and put his house up for bail collateral after defensively displaying his gun. Though he was acquitted after 20 minutes of deliberation, he is still out that money and has to deal with the damage to his life that the accusation caused. Whether that is the case or not, the time is now here that a purely political prosecution is probable. Do you want to be the next George Zimmerman or one of the horror stories in a Massad Ayoob concealed carry book? Of course not. Can you afford an attorney on your own? The above case of assault with a deadly weapon cost $70,000 and required a top-notch attorney. Do you trust a public defender to get you off? This is why you need concealed carry protection. The US Concealed Carry Association provides legal assistance to keep your money in your wallet for as little as $22 a month. Even if all you ever use from them is the magazine (which is top notch) and the training materials, you have the piece of mind of having $100,000 up to $250,000 for legal defense and $500,000 to $2 million for civil defense. If you are involved in a shooting, you don’t have to scramble to try to find an attorney. All you have to do is pull your membership card out of your wallet and call the 24/7 hotline for a specialist defense attorney come to your aid. Even if everything is 100% above board with your self-defense incident, an attorney can bring you piece of mind and comfort while the police interview you. Join the USCCA today and get the piece of mind that comes with knowing there is always someone who will have your back. Keep your savings for you and your family; let your membership foot the bill. Just like you hope to never use your gun, but if you do, make sure you have someone on call to represent you and the funds to defend yourself.   Read this take on resistance to gun confiscation first. I agree that police will not be engaging in gun confiscation; at least not for long. Most street cops will not be participating because that’s not their job and once cops start getting killed during gun raids many will refuse or quit. Despite the legion of anti-gun assholes who don’t know what they’re talking about, cops value their skin more than their paychecks. Many cops won’t put themselves at risk of certain death and more than you know are just as eager to give the finger to gun control, especially in California. Now what cops will participate? Minorities who are first or second generation Americans who have little to no experience with a gun culture. They come from top-down compliance societies where people are expected to obey authorities and guns are generally viewed as “bad.” They will be antagonistic towards Americans because they do not understand our patriotic, individualistic culture that literally celebrates rebellion against tyranny such as this. For Latin Americans and Asians in policing that come from a country where only the police and criminals have guns, seeing the violence and non-compliance will not endear gun owners to them. Your average street cop won’t be knocking on your door for your guns. There will be too many SWAT teams to do it, but surely there will be some hitting high-profile targets. Abused red flag laws will end up with more cops getting shot. Someone will escalate it into killing a cop’s family after a raid goes wrong and an innocent kid is killed. Then snipers at the police station, etc. as the whole damn thing unravels and the rhetoric escalates. I can see specialized task forces of local, state, and federal cops volunteering for gun confiscation duty. They will be pariahs in law enforcement much as the ATF is, but worse. These will be the hard chargers with a mission who will come to your door in tactical gear. They can’t get us all, but expect the tall nails to be hit first. I think the actual scheme and effects will look more like as follows. Mandatory compliance will be required. What you are allowed to keep will be required to be registered. Compliance will be checked by tracing ownership from Form 4473s and if you did not surrender or declare, you better have a good answer for who you sold it to. Those bitter clingers who do not turn in their guns or cannot give a good account of what happened to them will probably get an escalating series of nasty letters. Anyone who gets picked up for non-compliance will be arrested in public at a traffic stop or some environment where it is least hazardous to the arrest team. If you happen to find yourself on a non-compliance list for ignoring all those letters, expect to have a warrant out for your arrest. They’ll pick you up at a traffic stop for something unrelated to guns. Non-compliers will have a target painted on their backs. The vindictive power of the government will likely fall upon you; we’re talking IRS audits, Social Security payments stopping, the VA declaring you incompetent because of 10% PTSD rating, etc. That’s just at the federal level. At the state level, just imagine your driver license being suspended, your kids taken away from you, letters being sent to your employer that you are “known to carry and possess” dangerous weapons. All the while in the background politicians are being assassinated, cop-haters using gun confiscation as an excuse to kill innocent cops, crazies are shooting up Walmarts, political protests turning into something out of The Troubles, and nobody being safe or secure anywhere. Imagine living in a time and place where mass shootings, random killings, racial violence, bombing, government terror, etc. are all commonplace. Even if you have relative peace in your area, where the gun control is popular like California, using a gun even in legitimate self-defense will be problematic. You’ll be lucky if the cops are cool and do the bear minimum of taking your self-defense gun or the ones in the house instead of hauling you in on federal gun charges. Mob of Antifa trying to burn down your house and you whip out that AR pistol with 30 round magazines to drive them off? You save your family but at the price of going to jail on gun charges and having your yard dug up. The government will force you to choose between stopping that robbery or revealing you kept an evil pistol. So bury those 80% guns deep. So to recap, imagine a world of unimaginable violence, like Israel before the switch to rocket attacks, or as author Matt Bracken puts it, “Rwanda times Bosnia.” On top of that, the government already suspects you of owning guns and they will deal with you ever so harshly if they can get you on gun charges. So despite having an arsenal for just this situation, if you use it, you’re going to be pilloried for doing just that.   The mainstream media is in a tizzy because the loser from Dayton used an AR pistol in his attack. These weapons are an alternative to paying the $200 short-barreled rifle (SBR) tax and waiting the better part of a year to put a proper stock on a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches. An arm brace, be it the kind that goes around your arm or just literally braces against it, is legal to attach. Adding a vertical forward grip makes it into an “any other weapon” which requires a tax stamp. The difference between these rifles and legally short-barrel rifles is that the idea is they are fired with just the dominant hand holding the pistol grip and perhaps the buffer tube pressed against the forearm. It is not as stable as a rifle or as accurate due to stability and the inherent loss of accuracy in a short barrel. Stability can be improved with braces which have been used by holding against the shoulder like a rifle, creating a “poor man’s SBR.” Unfortunately, the claim is now being made by the anti-gunners and their complicit tools in mainstream media that these weapons are a “loophole.” We are seeing the bump fire stock playbook opened up once again. People said they though bump fire stocks were stupid and now we’re seeing the fruit of “giving something up.” AR pistols are not a “loophole.” It is a precise definition of federal law of “pistol” that anti-gunners would find “problematic” and the determination, again derived from fact, that a “brace” is not a stock, even if can be used as one. The ATF determined braces, even if shouldered, were not stocks, changed their minds, then changed it back. With bump fire stocks as precedence, we could see political pressure ban AR pistols once again. Such pistol versions of rifles exist because the National Firearms Act of 1934 originally was to apply to pistols, so sawed-off shotguns and cut-down rifles were included to limit the availability of concealable weapons. In the 1930s, America was about two decades past the height of the anti-concealed carry hysteria of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The rhetoric calling for the banning of “pistol toting” died down when the rise of “auto bandits” created the panic, combined with bootlegging crime, lead to the NFA. Pistols were removed from the Act over strong protest from the NRA and the US Revolver Association (many influential persons were active members of both). The latter had written the model Uniform Pistol Act in the 1920s that sought to strictly regulate pistol purchase, acquisition, and carry that was an attempt to forestall total pistol prohibition. The Association was keen on keeping their pistols for matches and many members disapproved of defensive carry—an attitude far more widespread than today. In some states, the remnants of the Pistol Act continue to infringe on rights today. Banning of AR pistols would not be a total confiscatory ban like with bump fire stocks (that saw little compliance from their owners). Using past examples, the ATF would likely require registration along with an amnesty. The pistols would then be NFA items (either “any other weapons” or short-barreled rifles). I don’t see room in the US Code to allow the NRA to create a new class of weapons to be registered, as California did when it created bullet-button “assault weapons” in addition to pre-1989 “assault weapons.” Short-barreled rifles and shotguns are essentially anachronistic regulations, banned because there was no lobbying group to take them out of the Act once their purpose for being in it was removed. One could argue that short-barreled rifles and shotguns are more concealable than full-length variants and more deadly than pistols (accurate, longer-ranged, and more suitable caliber), so regulating them would put revolver armed officers on a more equal footing with criminals. Of course, those arguments are dumb because criminals by definition don’t follow the law. Clyde Barrow stole M1918 BARs from National Guard armories and cut them down. Today, police and civilians both commonly carry weapons of equal parity. Most criminals, as in 1934 and today, use a cheap handgun or less commonly a cheap rifle or shotgun without half of the training that even officers for departments that place a low priority on marksmanship have. The SBR regulation is outdated, obsolete, and utterly pointless except to prosecute those dumb enough to be caught. In a practical sense, people own AR pistols because they want a more powerful weapon than handgun that is also compact. A 24” inch not-legally-a-rifle is a better weapon in a fight than a true pistol. The 5.56mm round has better accuracy, better range, and greater effect on target than a pistol round. A rifle is what you should be fighting with; as the saying goes, a pistol is what you use to fight your way back to the rifle you never should have put down. This is why people like AR pistols, short-barreled rifles, and shotguns as “truck guns.” Carrying a rifle into Walmart in case some bad dude with a rifle carries his gun into the store is not feasible. A gun in a vehicle or even in a bag for contingences when a full-size rifle can’t be carried is a good alternative for major trouble. Should one be caught in a mass shooting or terror attack and need to intervene, an AR pistol is a viable go-to weapon. Sadly, the hype of these mass shooters has limited the practicality of these weapons in personal responses. Whipping out an AR pistol during an incident is likely to get one labeled a second shooter than a good guy. In a few incidents now we’ve seen reports of multiple shooters because citizen carriers draw their weapons. In a defensive gun use that escalates or where one has time to access the AR pistol, or in a rural area where police response may be long in coming, may be much more viable. The shorter length and better handling makes these weapons an ideal weapon for home defense, especially in light of the fact that 5.56mm rounds tend to be less likely to over-penetrate residential walls. In any event, whether or not AR pistols fall into the category of bump fire stocks or face a ban with ARs and semi-autos in general, more scrutiny is guaranteed. I don't see how the Supreme Court could realistically support a ban of these weapons. Short-barreled rifles are in common use by the military (the M4 has a 14.5” barrel and shorter weapons are common police and special forces weapons), so under the Miller ruling, they could not be regulated. Also with the legality of regular handguns the original reasons for regulating SBRs is pointless.   KTNV This is why we can't have nice things. Conor Climo, the winner who thought an open carry patrol with a rifle and tactical stuff in his Centennial Hills neighborhood, was arrested Friday by the FBI on terrorism charges. He wanted to apparently shoot up or blow up a synagogue or gay bar and got caught because he was talking about it online. Not like we didn’t see potential issues with him before this. No one needs a teenager open carrying a rifle patrolling their neighborhood—not even in the whitest trashiest part of Nevada. Because when something like this happens, this blows up. And in the week following the triple mass shooting hype and the dumbass stunt in the Missouri Walmart. To hell with these guys. Chipotle Ninjas make us look bad. People who do open carry stunts like that, probably the super majority of the time, are looking for attention in all the wrong places. I don’t know what this douche canoe’s problem is, but he’s got them. A stint in Club Fed will fix that right up and we’ll never have to worry about him making open carriers look bad again because he will be a felon. These people are not representative of the open carry community. The only time long gun open carry patrol is appropriate in an urban area is in the midst of a major disaster or unrest. I know some of us in our community tried to reach out to him to put him on the right path, but it appears this guy was broken to begin with. He was a kid who start out meaning to do well, but with no positive influences he was lured away into darkness where he found community. The societal values found in churches, schools, and community groups that have traditionally counteracted radicalism are mostly absent today. Unfortunately, instead of being taught good things like responsibility and patriotism, that lead young men into the military, law enforcement, or being responsible politically involved citizens, the same forces that impel many into good impel others into evil. Influential members of a community on the fringes can sway impressionable minds as we see here. Climo was drawn to “white nationalism” and corresponding with what he thought were Neo-Nazis. “White nationalism” is the new euphemism for white supremacy, a racist ideology. Many prominent conservatives and independent thinkers are slandered through use of this term for espousing an end to unfettered immigration and recognition that European heritage is no reason for “white guilt.” In the twisted minds of the Left, people like Stefan Molyneux ends up being compared to Hitler. If you are an empty headed kid and someone who validates you fills you with hate, it's easy to fall into one of these poles. Foolish young men filled with rage channel their anger into futile activities like shooting up a Walmart after gorging at a trough of hate served up by keyboard commandos. A constant influx of essentially propaganda can be exhausting and frustrating. Instead of dealing with the internal conflict this provokes in a constructive manner, through non-violent political change, mentally unhinged individuals pick and object of their frustration (gays, Jews, Mexicans) and target them directly. Climo, I'm told, has cognitive issues, but to what level, we are not fully sure of. Because these young men generally are not very bright, not well read, not positively influenced, and believe everything they hear about the globalist/Jewish/whatever conspiracy, radical forums become an echo chamber for every bad idea. Before the Internet, it was harder to radicalize people because stupid people had to find each other in real-life. Now the Internet has given everyone a voice, a way to find each other, and amplifies their ideas. For others, they find themselves in place of hate and darkness, and like the titular Shakespearean villain from Richard III: To entertain these fair well-spoken days,/I am determined to prove a villain/And hate the idle pleasures of these days. Or, from Gunfreezone.net: "the cause of mass shooters in the United States, both lone-wolf white men and predominately black gang violence [is they] both largely stem from the same place, a sense of hopelessness. Young men who believe they have no solid future of value, so retreat into ideological extremism or fatalistic recreational violence." That was the case in Las Vegas, Santa Barbara, and Sandy Hook. Yes, a civil war is coming and with it unimaginable violence, but none of us need to hasten it. If you ask Climo why he chose these targets instead of say the actual people responsible for whatever aggrieved him, I’d bet you’d come away with an answer that indicated he picked them because he hated them. He didn’t want to change anything; he just wanted to hurt people he didn’t like. Most of these mass killings have just been expressions of inner hatred. Constant exposure to hate, left or right, on TV or online has been poisoning people and becoming a corrupting influenced unbalanced by any good. Did he have an “unregistered firearm” as some of the clickbait headlines are crowing about? No, the DOJ press release says specifically a “destructive device” as in Molotov cocktail parts (or bomb components).  |
Archives
October 2019
CategoriesSupport Nevada Carry/Frontier Carry on Patreon for just $1 a month! This helps us keep the lights on and cover our expenses where the paltry ad revenue can't. It's a way to contribute something to help us keep spreading the truth about gun laws, gun control, and history. In return, you get access to rare tidbits I've found in historical research, links to scholarly articles, invitations to meet ups, premium Q&A questions etc. Please email regarding one-time donations.
|
RSS Feed