This Whole Thing Has Got Me Thinking

Dangerous, I know. But with all the hubub over Rush Limbaugh's comments on one Sandra Fluke and non-stop fake outrage inspired by same, this whole thing has got me thinking about what is, in fact, a 'right'.

Others have probably said this more eloquently than I, but let begin by stating one thing flat out: Your existence in this world, while admirable on your parents part for managing to get you through your formative years without drinking the Drano or becoming a hood ornament for a 1979 El Camino, does not make whatever it is you think you need a right.

That includes, but is not limited to internet access, free pizza, a car, a cell phone, a FaceSpace page(s), free candy, Nike Air Jordans, a tablet (either the old fashioned kind for writing on or the new-fangled contraption that looks like an overgrown cell phone), free Girl Scout cookies, free ice cream, a free birthday party at Chuckie Cheese, or any manner of stuff that you deem free (but in fact costs me more money out of my paycheck every week).

It also does not include behavioral based activities such as shooting up whatever the cocktail drug of choice is this week, sticking whatever feels the best where decent folks don't care to talk about, with whomever you met in your drug-induced deleria.

And you damned sure don't have the right to force the rest of us to pay for the consequences of your 'whatever feels good today' attitude. If you get something Ajax can't wash off and penicillin can't cure, it ain't my f'in problem. You got the crusty crotch from someone, fine. Go deal with it yourself.

Because you can't keep your legs closed doesn't mean I get to pay for whatever contraceptive you think you need. You wanna go play mattress-back queen of the frat house? Go for it. You want to turn into a door knob where everyone gets a turn? Couldn't give two shits less. You want to play glory hole, go right ahead. But don't for one ever-loving minute think that ANYONE else should pay for your choices. Because that's what they are, choices.

As someone I admire once said, your right of freedom to be you also includes my right to be free from you. And that includes paying for the consequences of you acting like a complete moron.

Interesting Perspective

So the Governor has the Constutional Carry bill on his desk. He's not sure if he's going to sign it or not. (He's got until next week to make up his mind.)


Looking through the Codified Laws of South Dakota, he has 3 options available to him. He can 1) sign the bill, 2) veto the bill, or 3) not sign the bill and allow it to become law. My bet is on #3. Why? Let's face it. Consitutional Carry is a controvesial issue right now. CC is the unknown factor here. Only 4 states allow for concealed carry without a permit: Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, and Wyoming. But it's not like were talking about overturning May Issue and replacing it with CC here.


Just look at the vote totals. In the state house, HB 1248 passed 50-18. In the state senate, it passed 22-11. In order to override a veto, there needs to be 2/3 vote of each house. According to my math, the only concern is in the senate wher it passed with exactly 67%.


South Dakota concealed carry permits are the most easily obtainable permit to get in the country. How easy? $10 and a trip to the Sherriff's Department to fill out the half sheet sized application. No training requirement. No firing demonstration. No fingerprints. No serial numbers. That easy.


I've made my thoughts on CC pretty clear. And they've grown over the years. At first, I didn't mind the mimimal cost. But as I've read about the subject and educated myself over the 7 yrs I've had a permit, I've grown to loathe them. So even at $10, you are still paying the government for the priviledge of exercising your Constitutionally protected civil right to keep and bear arms.


Which brings us to the Chief of the Rapid City Police Department, Steve Allender. Chief Allender has his concerns about the bill. Understandably, he's concerned for the safety of his officers. I get it. I really do. But here's the rub. He's concerned about the workload this will put on his officers. It's refreshing to note he's not opposed to it in the usual sense like most other police chiefs. I do note however that without this piece of legislation, the criminal element is still going to carry their guns illegally. They are still going to try to puff up on his officers.

But that is not reason enough to impede the law-biding from exercising their rights.

This Is Interesting...

I've read op-eds from around the country related to the gun issue. Almost universally, they are against everything gun related. From semi-auto rifles, to concealed carry, to purchase requirements. It's a gimmee.

That is until today. The local cat box liner had an editorial today, coming out....

In FAVOR of Constitutional Carry in the state of South Dakota.

You know, when I got out of bed this morning, things felt a little weird. Now I now what set the world all helter-skelter.

The Stupid Is Strong

I don't know what rock this twit crawled out from under, but the only reason why you 'couldn't own AK 47s or 50 caliber handguns that have no purpose but to kill people' is because when you were 'remembering', those items weren't available for import.

Never mind that FALs were being imported in the 1950s. Dammit, those guns weren't in the country back then, so we need to go back to that time.

I've got a news flash. If they had been available back in 1949 when they went into active service with the Soviet Army, someone would have found a way to import them.

In another burst of brilliance, he bemoans the existence of .50 caliber handguns. Another news flash: .50 caliber handguns have been around for a long time. Here's a picture gallery of some (of course being a search engine, there's going to be some that don't quite fit the bill of .50+ caliber handguns) percussion cap and flintlock pistols in .54 caliber.

But then again, when it comes to hysterical rantings of a self-absorbed moron, never let the facts (or even a little thing like an Internet search) get in the way of a good tirade.

I guess he never heard the quote from Tench Coxe:

'The militia of these commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared to any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.'

I Don't Even Know Where To Begin

During my morning round-up I read several blogs while having my morning chow, at the ones the work machine doesn't block out anyway.

The last one I read before the salt gets mined is Robb Allen. So, I'm getting by morning fix on and came across a post that was the source of a couple of quotes of the day (here & here).

Clicking through to the story that was the inspiration for the post and following quotes, I couldn't help but shake my head.

So to summarize, a guy is on the verge of going Stone Cold Steve Austin on a back door, whilst the homeowners are on the telly to the Po-Po in the Mile High City. After getting not getting a response, which according to the available record was 8 minutes, the justifiably upset homeowner files a complaint.

And here's where the bureaucratic samba comes in. See, Denver Metro PD initially took the complaint, but since it didn't really involve them, they punted to the 911 Dispatch Center.

The money quote for me? (This after already being kicked over to the offending agency, and already knowing that NOBODY showed up at his house for the attempted break in, mind you.)

'The Operations Supervisor advised Mr. Frie that Denver Police Officers responded to his house and then referred Mr. Frie to the Denver Police Department's website to make a "formal complaint."

OK, it's in this instance that I'm glad I don't live in a large metropolitan area. I'd go bonkers. What kind of 'supervisor' doesn't know what the hell is going on?

On second thought don't answer that.

Mr. Allen goes on to explain what he'd do if a situation like this presented itself to him and his. Do a press check. Me?

I'd make sure I made the most reassuring sound in the world to my family, I'd run a 2.75" load of #7 shot into the chamber of the trusty 870PG.

We're Almost There

So, the state legislature is working on another bill for the state to go Constitutional Carry.

The first one went down in flames due to some adolescent pissing contest with one of the state gun rights group.

The last information I had was that a replacement bill had been introduced.

So it is with great pleasure I announce that CC has passed a giant hurdle and been passed out of committee.

Fingers crossed it comes to a floor vote.

You're Right. What Could Possible Go Wrong?

Do you ever get the feeling that maybe there's just too much technology out there? That sometimes, the human factor just can't be replaced?

Well, check this out.

The money quote?

'The new classification relies on data input when determining if an inmate is ready to be released in the community."

Right. What could possibly go wrong?

Pissed Me Right Off It Did

While doing a little Googling this afternoon I came across this.

Oh. My. God.

Can you say RCOB? (Red Curtain of Blood for the uniniated...)

By the third paragraph I was starting to get pissed. By the fifth, I was livid. And by halfway through the article, I was ready to throw my computer out the window.

What kind of petty tyrannical BS is this? Just sitting here trying to put this outrage into words, I'm getting pissed all over again.

Arresting a man because his daughter drew a picture of her Dad with a gun? Have we lost our ever-loving minds?

So in all this, how do you charge someone with possession of a firearm because their daughter drew a damn picture? Can someone explain this to me?

And to top it all off, after being cuffed, led out of his daughters school in handcuffs, violated by a strip search, kept in the dark for several hours about why he's been arrested, had his children taken from him, they want him to sign a piece of paper absolving them of any wrong doing by authorizing the search....AFTER THE FACT!

I find it telling this article doesn't allow comments, as I believe their server would have melted down after word of this got out.

I'll tell you one thing, I wouldn'tve signed that piece of paper if they had a gun to my head. After all that, my name would be on the city hall because I would be owning me some local government.

And just put perfect to the whole article, it's in Canadia. That sure explains a lot, but still.

The Blame Is Strong In This One...

Huh. So an Executive Agency in the government decides it wants to push a meme about US guns fueling Mexico's violent crime problem, can't get the corroborating trace data to support such claims, and resorts to taking the matters into their own hands.

And it's all the NRA's fault.

What we know for sure at this point. (Obviously abridged, since to try and capture the entire timeline here would take up wayyyyy to much space. You can check out the Gunwalker time line at the National Gun Rights Examiner, here.) The ATF forced multiple gun dealers in Arizona to sell guns (2000 plus at this point, it could be more) to people those merchants knew were straw buyers, but were told point blank by the ATF to sell to anyway.

Those buyers were surveilled and were NOT interdicted before their purchases were turned over to gun runners. As a result, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in a fire fight with gun runners in Dec 2010. Found at the scene were two guns traced to Operation Fast and Furious. Another federal agent, Jaime Zapata, was killed in Mexico with a gun linked to a similar operation in Texas.

We have senior Justice Dept officials on record as using the results of this operation as a justification for the border states rule on multiple sales of long guns.

But all this is the NRA's fault? Really?

As Ron White would say, I don't think so, Scooter.

Wait...Whuh?

Am I reading this right?

Did they actually ask the question why the NRA is hot after the prez on guns, because the firearms industry is farther into the left side of the ledger now than they have ever been?

Evidently, they haven't looked at his voting record as an Illinois state senator. Or his record as a US Senator. Or that he was on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation, one of the biggest contributors to phony and fake astroturf anti gun organizations in the country.

Or that under his watch, an Executive Agency in the US government was caught supplying guns to some of the most violent criminal gangs in the western hemisphere, and has been stonewalling and lying about it ever since.

Nope. We're supposed to completely let down our guard and go home because a couple of pro gun bills have passed.

Gun friendly. HAH!

We're Gonna Have to Work On That

So, the annual irrelevancy of a certain gun ban organization is out.

What is that, you may ask?

Why it's annual Brady Scorecard!

So how did South Dakota do?

Well, we only got 4 out of possible 100 points. Not as good as Florida's 3, or Louisiana's 2, or Utah that got a perfect score (0).

We're trying to get that number down. We really are. What with debate starting about allowing Constitutional carry, and striking down parking lot gun bans, we're on our way to getting down to that magic number.

Coincidentally, our western neighbor, my home state of Wyoming, started out with a score of 4 out of 100. But they got a 2-point demerit for allowing Constitutional Carry. The Brady's are going to have a fit if Florida style preemption gets passed over there.

It's Baaa-ck!

Just when you thought Constitutional Carry was a dead issue in South Dakota, BAM! There it is again!

I don't know what was up with all the juvenile antics surrounding the last version, but this version doesn't sound much different.

Granted, South Dakota's permit system is largely symbolic, in that we don't have the training, fingerprinting, or serial number requirements of other states.

But still, it's the principal of the issue. In no other instance do we require a permit to exercise our rights. Imagine the uproar if we were to require a permit to attend church. Or to buy a book. Or have certain politically correct medical procedures done. The outrage would be unimagineable.

So why do we continue to put prior restraints on the rights that, to a shrinking minority of people, is politically incorrect? (Although that political incorrectness is becoming more and more irrelevant by the day.)

Well Ain't That Special

To send a statement about the flow of weapons into Mexico, El Presidente presided over the creation of a sign that reads 'No More Weapons' that was placed near the US-Mexican border.

Here's the rub. It was made from weapons seized from Mexican nationals and crushed under the tracks of a tank. (Funny, that's one thing I can never find at any gun show I've ever attended, well, that and those rockets and greanades. And I've been looking!)

One has to wonder how many 'Fast and Furious' guns are involved in this publicity stunt. Because as we all know, nobody else in the world could provide weapons to the Mexican people except those damned old American gun shows/stores and those merchants of death themselves, the NRA. Not the caches of weapons from all over Central/South America. Not the black market, and certainly not the arsenals of the Mexican military itself. Nooooooo. Nothing to see here, move along.

Flipping through the photo gallery, they have all kinds of firearms. Bolt action, semi-auto, etc. What I find interesting is flipping through, I can't see the 7500 'assault rifles' they're proclaiming.

I've got to wonder though, was 'Furious Mike' Bloomberg involved in this?

I Saw That Flick!

So the folks over at the CSGV have got their knickers in a knot over gun sales numbers. As usual, Thirdpower has been all over this like a fat kid on a cupcake.

But something ole Josh said in the last couple of lines struck a memory.

Faced with a stagnate customer base that has declined precipitously over the last 35 years-the gun industry has purposely and continuously manufactured firearms for one of its most important market segments: traffickers and prohibited purchasers (i.e. children, criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, domestic abusers, etc.). All in the name of profit.

Ooo! Ooo! Pick me, Pick me! I think I saw that movie. It was supposed to be good movie when it came out, heck it had Col Rhodes and John Cusack in it. Couldn't be all bad, right? Boy was I wrooooonnnnng. This was back before I got my 2A and evil semiautomatic rifle thing going. By the end of the movie, I was so disgusted I threw it away (brand-spanking new DVD chucked in the trash). Which was kind of odd for a John Grisham movie up to that point, he usually had some pretty good flicks.

I think that was the last time the anti-gun movement scored a victory in court. It's also the only way they can win anything at this point, and that is in the world of make believe. (Coincidentally this is also the only place those pie-in-the-sky anti pipe dreams actually work, such as ballistic fingerprinting.) They have nothing left. Trying to pass off the plot of a not-so-great lawyer movie as fact shows just how bankrupt their ideology really is.

Packaging Fail

Why do you package up a gun cleaning kit, where everything has a place all nice and neat, only to GLUE the damn thing shut?

Note to the manufacturers of Winchester's nifty little cleaning kit. When you want people to be able to use the packaging over and over again, this is not how you go about doing it.

Not Sure What To Make Of This

First off, let me say that the reasons for killing Constitutional Carry in the State House were among the most asinine and childish I've ever heard of. C'mon, really? You can't put aside your teenage angst long enough to look at a bill objectively? Sometimes you really have to wonder about the idi...I mean folks that get elected to statewide office.

Anyway, there's been a bunch of talk recently about South Dakota finally cashing in on some that Oil Boom going on in western North Dakota. If you're not aware, the Bakken Oilfield in ND is among the biggest in the world and makes the reserves of the Arabian Peninsula look like a mud puddle.

It seems that the Sheriff up there in Belle Fourche is, not surprisingly, worried about what effects an oil boom would have in his county. I can understand, the whole boom town thing: I was born in the middle of oil boom, and grew to adulthood through 3 different coal booms. His fears are real.

However. I'm not sure what to make of his comments yesterday. In the linked piece, he is discussing the potential negative aspects a boom would have in the area, and the very next line, he says something very troubling. For the life of me, I can't figure out why an increase of women getting concealed carry permits is a bad thing. I'm not sure if he's intimating the increase in permits is bad thing or if the quote is taken out of context.

Me personally? I'm all for the fairer sex having the ability to defend themselves, especially if this boom comes and the assorted riff-raff that accompanies it shows up.

Maybe Another On The List

So South Dakota is considering Constitutional Carry. This is a very good step for the fine people of the state. We're relatively free here. We're NFA-friendly, got one of the best permit systems in the country outside of AK/VT/AZ/WY in that a permit only costs $10 and there is no training requirement. Permits are good for 4 yrs and aside from the usual suspects that don't honor ANYONES permit, there are only a few that don't recognize ours.

I say good step because for a few years, in order to buy a handgun here, you had to have a permit to pick up your purchase at the time of sale. If you didn't have one, well, it was 3 days before you got to go to the range and fondle your new purchase. That changed, I want to say, back in either 2008 or 9.

The one thing that absolutely drives me up a wall in these debates is the argument that if we allow everyone with a clean record to carry a gun without a permit, then the criminals will too. I don't know how many times I've said to family, friends, and random strangers on different forums that 'Hell-oooo, the bad guys already don't have a permit. Why do you think they call them criminals?'

The other argument that holds absolutely no water in this discussion is the one involving background checks. The 'But' crowd (you know, the I'm a Gun Owner, but...-types?) love to point out that without the permit, how do you know if the person is allowed to have a Roscoe? Never mind the anal probing that filling out the lovely ATF form 4473 brings. Add another one on top of that, this time performed by the state in order to exercise a constitutionally protected civil right, and I can't really feel sorry for these guys who think this invasion of their privacy is anything other than begging permission to exercise said right.

I mean really? That act is the only time you'll ever be subjected to a prior restraint on your rights. At no other time are you forced to fill out a form to exercise a right. And in the case of a carry permit, you're paying for privilege. Try forcing a similar form at the voting booth, or public library, or hell even buying a computer and watch the so-called 'civil libertarians' heads rotate like Linda Blair in 'The Exorcist'.

So, let's get this done. I for one welcome being on the short list with VT, AK, AZ, and WY.

I Would Have Killed Him Where He Stood

The question I have is what would you have done in this situation?

Holy Crap!

So I'm down at the funstore this afternoon, hanging over the counter jaw-jacking with other customers and a couple of the counter guys. In the midst of our conversation, one of the counter guys grabs an AR slathered in Magpul stuff.

While I'm chatting, I see he's having problems getting the rifle back into battery. After a few seconds of watching him struggle, I motion for him to come over and volunteer to see what's wrong with the rifle.

So he hands me the gun, I see the bolt's not all the way forward. So I pull the charging handle to the rear and check the chamber. It's all clear. Not seeing anything in the chamber, I let the bolt go. Because the only way to take down an AR with a bolt not in battery is to get it into battery before you take take it down.

POP!

Fortunately, not a bang, but a noise nonetheless. Have you ever had that happen? Where something that wasn't supposed to happen did? I've had the reverse happen a couple of times, both in the field with a nice muley or whitetail doe in my cross hairs. Pull the trigger, expect a bang and get a click.

This sound scared the crap out of me because I'd followed all the rules. I checked the chamber. I didn't have my finger on the trigger. I had the rifle pointed away from the others at the floor.

So what caused the POP?

After taking the rifle all the way down in a detailed strip, it was discovered that a primer had somehow become lodged in the upper. Not sure where, exactly, but it was found in the lower beside the hammer. It had been pinched when the BCG rammed home.

All we knew was something was obstructing the BCG from going into battery, and the only way to get it apart to see what it was was to get the BCG back into battery. Who thinks a loose primer is roaming around the insides of a rifle? From now on, I'm adding that to my mental checklist on clearing obstructions from rifles.

I will tell you, hearing that pop and seeing the smoke coming from the ejection port, I bade my friends good day, came home, and promptly changed my shorts.

Let this be a lesson. Even when you're sure the weapon is cleared, there could be something else that causes a problem.

Well Ain't This Special

I was going to write up a post about the moron whose family sued Glock because he stole the pistol from a friend by stealing the key to his lock box and then accidentally discharging said firearm into his leg trying to return it, but this is much better.

It would seem that 2 years ago this month, a deluded schizo named Erik Ayala went and bought himself a gun from a pawn shop. Two weeks later, he goes and shoots a bunch of exchange students for which he took the cowards way out by committing suicide.

In response to this, his family is suing EVERYONE involved. From the pawn shop that sold him the gun, to the nightclub where it happened because it was in 'a high crime area downtown', to the Rotary Club (yes the Rotary Club) which sponsored the exchange students 'because they dropped off at least one of the victims' at the nightclub in question. For $1.8 mill.

Aside from the lawsuit-happy bloodsucker representing the family here, let's take a look at that pawn shop situation for a second. The complaint points out that the perpetrator was mentally unstable and that the shop 'should have known he was a danger to himself and others. Really? Now, I've never worked in a gun store, but I do spend a lot of time in them. I've seen a wearing a plaid shirt, khaki pants, and bright yellow rain boots walk in on a 100 degree day to shop and trade firearms. I've seen birkenstock-wearing hippie types lean on the counter and talk about the latest 1911 clone to hit the store, and I've seen your average everyday working class stiff walk in and buy a (insert handgun of choice here). Not once have I ever seen the 'dangerous to himself and others' guy walk in and plunk down some bread for a new Roscoe.

How, exactly, is the counter monkey supposed to know that 'Dangerous to Himself & Others' is actually dangerous to himself and others? Oh, there's that whole NICS check thing, but that system is only as good as the information that gets reported to it. No, everything went according to the law. He filled out the form, the store clerk made the call, it was approved, and 'Dangerous to Himself and Others' walked out with a 9mm Gat. Maybe if the coworkers who noticed that 'DTHAO' had accompanied him to the pawn shop that fateful day, maybe none of this would have happened.

As it is, trying to discern the motives of someone buying a gun without a crystal ball and an open copy of their mental health records, is just so much pissing in the wind. This situation, much like the one in Tuscon, is more of an indictment of the system than of the dealer. Oh, and a bloodsucking personal injury lawyer...