Click above to download the official LVMPD Report
Click above to download the official LVMPD Report
We welcome CMMG to the TIBA/BDS family. Contact us to order or go to our online store to order in-stock items.
Utah CFP class, cost is $25 per person. Includes fingerprints. Call Janke custom arms to reserve a space, our last class was completely full. 801-549-7744
Approved: Washington state passed the first gun control ballot measure of the night, with the approval of Initiative 1491, which allows courts to issue protection orders to remove an individual’s access to firearms, such as domestic abusers.
Approved: California voters followed suit, passing a proposal that requires people buying ammunition to undergo background checks and outlaws possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Approved: Nevada voters narrowly passed a measure to expand background checks, requiring that firearm transfers go through a licensed dealer. The proposal exempts transfers between immediate family members.
Approved: Nevada voters narrowly passed a measure to expand background checks, requiring that firearm transfers go through a licensed dealer. The proposal exempts transfers between immediate family members.
As of early Wednesday morning, a measure in Maine was too close to call. The proposal for universal background checks, which was backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, would be a big victory for gun control advocates in a state that has traditionally supported gun rights.
Utah CCW Permit class available November 1st & 3rd (this Tuesday & Thursday) in the evening.
November 12th, 2016
NRA Basic Pistol Course will be held in the Clearfield, Utah area at 9:00am
This course is now presented in two parts. Phase One is done online, Phase two is completed in the classroom & on the range. Be sure to complete Phase One before class! ?
Cost is $65 per person, limit of 5
Contact Jairus Duncan @ 208-371-3819 or firstname.lastname@example.org
You may also register online at the NRA Website
Concealed Carry on College Campuses.
By Haine Tautuaa.
An October evening, 2007, while walking to her car after a night class, Amanda Collins was grabbed from behind in a parking garage owned by the University of Nevada in Reno. James Biela, a serial rapist with a gun in a gun free zone, saw Collins as an easy target and used his weapon to his advantage. “He put a firearm to my temple, clocked the safety off, and told me not to say anything, before he raped me.” Collins recounted to Fox News. Even though Collins had a concealed firearms permit, she was not allowed to carry her weapon with her on campus, to class, or even in her car; because of campus policies prohibiting weapons. Collins was unable to protect herself and Biela got away. Biela struck again just months later, raping and killing 19 year old Brianna Dennison. Had Collins been allowed to carry her firearm, she says, Biela would have been stopped (Cowen). College campuses should allow concealed carry permit holders to carry their firearms on campus.
Currently in the United States, there are only nine states allowing concealed carry on university campuses; Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, Wisconsin and Texas. Though legislation has been introduced in at least 23 other states to allow concealed carry on campuses, many bills have not passed or are have been put on hold (Guns on Campus Overview). The fact that many other states have seen fit to start legislation on allowing concealed carry on campuses indicates that the movement toward all states and universities allowing concealed carry is slowly gaining momentum.
As mindsets change, and the allowing of concealed carry becomes more accepted, it is important to recognize that the way that it is allowed is different in every state. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) reports that Utah is “the only state to have statute specifically naming public colleges and universities as public entities that do not have the authority to ban concealed carry, and thus, all 10 public institutions in Utah allow concealed weapons on their property.” Recently, Kansas passed legislation that rules colleges and universities cannot prohibit concealed carry unless a building has “adequate security measures,” but, the institutions can still request an exemption to the rule for up to four years. Wisconsin legislation rules that colleges and universities must allow concealed carry on campus grounds; however, campuses can prohibit weapons from campus buildings if signs are posted at every entrance explicitly stating that weapons are prohibited. Legislation in Mississippi allows concealed carry on college campuses for those who have taken a voluntary course on safe handling and use of firearms by a certified instructor (Guns on Campus: Overview). Even though each of these states have allowed concealed carry on campuses, each state has had its own provisions and limitations to the law.
One such case is in recent activity in Missouri, “Rep. Jarod Taylor, wants to permit students with concealed firearms on the campuses of Missouri’s colleges and universities if they have a concealed-carry permit” (Rosman). Although Rosman, an editor, writer, professional speaker, and firearms seller, personally disagrees with the legislation put forward. He points out Missouri code that is already on the books. This code says that in Missouri, faculty are allowed to carry concealed firearms under certain parameters (Rosman). So even though the law has not yet allowed students and other permit holders to carry firearms, the legislation does allow for some provided safeties.
In other states, court actions show that universities are overreaching their authority entirely in regulating firearms. For example, the NCSL revealed, that the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against the University of Colorado, finding their policy banning guns from campus violated the state’s concealed carry law. Similarly, the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned Oregon University’s ban, allowing concealed carry on campus, but the University kept the authority to make internal policies and went on to create a policy that bans guns in campus buildings. Both cases were ruled that, “…only the [State] legislature can regulate the use, sale and possession of firearms, and therefore these systems [universities] had overstepped their authority in issuing the bans“(Guns on Campus: Overview). These cases reflect the feelings of many concealed carry supporters, in that the state should ultimately be responsible for defining and enforcing state laws pertaining to where concealed carry is allowed.
Despite the rulings of state legislatures, opponents of guns on college campuses argue that more guns will only lead to an escalation of violent crime. They also argue that a person carrying a gun could “snap” (suddenly lose all control, go insane) and go on a killing spree. Along with them, there are others in opposition that claim that a gun on campus would distract from the learning environment (Common Arguments). Still others who support gun bans on campuses try to find a middle ground between the opposing sides. They often argue that other defensive tools, such as pepper spray, could be used in place of a gun, or that martial arts are sufficient for self-defense.
Students for Concealed Carry (SCC), has come up against these same arguments more than once. The group cites a combination of studies done in Colorado, Utah, and Virginia, from the date that concealed carry was allowed on each state’s campuses. These studies show that in the more than thirty campuses, for a combined total of one hundred semesters, none of these schools saw a single resulting incident(caused by permit holders) of gun violence, including threats and suicides. Nor did they note a single gun accident or gun theft. Likewise, on a slightly different note, none of the forty-one “right-to-carry” states (states that recognize the right of the individual to protect themselves with firearms), have seen a resulting increase in gun violence. Ever since legalizing concealed carry in the state, the result has been the same, despite the fact that licensed citizens in those states regularly carry concealed handguns in public places (e.g. office buildings, movie theaters, grocery stores, shopping malls, restaurants, churches, banks). Several studies prove that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes (Common Arguments). Along with those, The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) shows a lower rate of crime overall in many of the same states that are allowing concealed carry on campuses (FBI; Concealed Carry Permit). These statistics and studies show that allowing more guns on campuses does not increase the amount of violence or create an escalation of violence on campus.
The myth of someone just “snapping” and going insane is exactly that, a myth. The Secret Service in collaboration with the US Department of Education, and the National Institute of Justice conducted a study into school shootings in October of 2000. This study concluded that a person does not simply snap. Instead a person spirals downward toward violence, and “this spiral is typically accompanied by many warning signs.”(Common Arguments). A regular permit holder with a gun will not “just snap”. In fact, in order to obtain a Concealed Firearms Permit (CFP), the permit applicant has to be 21years old and go through an extensive course that varies from state to state. In Utah this course includes face to face instruction on state laws, federal laws, self-defense laws, areas allowed and not allowed to carry in. Along with basic handling of firearms, firearms function, and firearm safety, many instructors require time on the range using their firearms. After passing the required test and demonstrating basic skills with their firearm, the Bureau of Criminal Identification conducts an extensive FBI background check (Minimum Training). By completing this course, and passing the background check, the state will recognize the applicant as a law abiding and trustworthy person.
Almost in defiance of the fact that states recognize permit holders as law abiding, the argument remains that a gun on campus will distract from the learning environment (Common Arguments). Although this would be valid in the case of an exposed firearm, this argument is invalid for a concealed firearm. The purpose of this paper is to argue for the ability of Concealed Carry Permit holders to carry on campus. If a permit holder is going to carry their firearm concealed on a university campus, that firearm will be underneath clothing in a way that the unknowing population would not be able to tell that the permit holder is carrying. Technology and recent advances in concealed carry clothing and holsters have made the carrying of firearms easier, more comfortable, and more concealable to the point that concealed firearms have become virtually invisible when carried. The firearm will not be seen and so distractions will not occur, therefore the argument of distraction is invalid.
Such misunderstandings and assumptions of invalid points are common also with those who argue that a gun is not needed. The majority of them say that pepper spray or Tasers will work just fine, but proponents of these arguments are misled in their belief also. A large part of what they fail to realize is that those same policies and regulations that ban guns also ban these types of defense tools. When defensive tools are banned, a person is left only with their hands, and what can you do when you only have your own hands to protect you? Many turn immediately to martial arts training, but a hope that knowledge of martial arts will suffice for self-defense is also unrealistic. The problem with this plan is that any martial art takes years of devotion to master to a point where a person will not hurt themselves more than others. On the other hand, a person can become proficient with a firearm in a fraction of that time. Understanding these points lets us choose what seems to be the best answer for self-defense for the 11.1 million permit holders across the U.S. as of 2014(Concealed Carry Permit Holders).
Firearms are called “equalizers” for good reason. A 66 year old woman can deter the continuation of a threat or stop a 37 year old criminal attacker instantly (Santarelli). Survival no longer depends on a person’s own strength and skill versus the attackers, when the person being attacked has a firearm and knows how to use it for self-defense. A little known fact is that Amanda Collins was a second degree black belt in Tae Kwan Do at the time of her rape (Pavlich). With a gun to her head, she was unable to use her martial arts skills to defend herself, yet if she had been permitted to carry her own fire arm, she would have been able use it to protect herself. The tools that a person could utilize, to use to defend themselves, should not be regulated out of reach of those who may need them.
Legal or not, people carry firearms loaded and concealed. Many of these people are criminals who do not plan to change and for whom it is already illegal to have firearms. Many reports of criminals arrested with weapons and firearms, say they would rather be caught by the police with a gun, than caught by other criminals without one. Criminals do not respect the law; therefore they have no motivation to follow any law. Any laws enacted to guard against criminal conduct must be seriously evaluated for the purpose of discovering if that same law, limits the ability of those law abiding people to protect themselves. Only those who respect the rule of law, follow the law.
Concealed Carry Permit holders must be allowed to carry their firearms onto college campuses. If laws, policies, and regulations limit the ability of individuals to protect themselves, then those same laws, policies, and regulations, must be rescinded. We cannot, as a moral society, limit the ability of individuals to protect themselves by any means possible from attackers, rapists, and murderers. In the end, each individual is the only person available to protect him or herself at any given time.
Bureau of Criminal Identification. “Concealed Firearms Frequently Asked Questions.” Utah Dept. of Public Safety. State of Utah, 2016. Web. 22 Mar. 2016.
Bureau of Criminal Identification. “Minimum Training Curriculum for Utah Concealed Firearm Permit Courses.” Utah Dept. of Public Safety. State of Utah, 10 Dec. 2015. Web. 31 Mar. 2016.
“Common Arguments against Campus Carry”. Students for Concealed Carry. Students for Concealed Carry. 2011-2012. web. 31 Mar. 2016.
Cowen, Claudia. “Opponents of Gun-Free Zones at Universities Find Unlikely Hero in Nevada Woman.” Fox News. Fox News Networks, LLC. 8 Apr. 2011. Web. 8 Apr. 2016.
“Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States.” Crime Prevention Research Center. 9 Jul. 2014. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Crime Statistics” U.S. Dept. of Justice. U.S. Government. 2015. Web. 31. Mar. 2016.
Rosman, David. “More Guns on College Campuses is Not the Answer.” Missourian. Missouri School of Journalism, 6 Apr. 2016. Web. 8 Apr. 2016.
Santarelli, Christopher. “‘Very Afraid’: 66 Year Old Woman Shoots and Kills Home Intruder.” The Blaze. The Blaze. 22 Oct. 2011. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.
Pavlich, Kate. “Colorado Democrat Lectures Rape Survivor Amanda Collins About Rape ‘Statistics’.” Townhall.com. Townhall.com. 3 Mar. 2013. Web. 8 Apr. 2016.
“Guns on Campus: Overview.” National Conference of State Legislatures. National Conference of State Legislatures. 5 May. 2015. Web. 31 Mar. 2016.
AB 1511 (Santiago) – AB 1511 Limits infrequent lending of guns to specified family members. Formerly dealt with energy conservation, but now criminalizes loaning of firearms between personally known, law-abiding adults, including sportsmen and women. Further details on this bill can be read here. Click here to view the Governor’s reasoning. You can also view our veto letter that was sent to the Governor by clicking here.
SB 1235 (De León): SB 1235 requires background checks for ammunition purchasers, licenses to sell ammunition, and collection of sale information. Restrictions on ammunition purchases, creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners. Bans internet / out of state ammunition purchase. Further details on this bill can be read here. Click here to view the Governor’s reasoning. You can also view our veto letter that was sent to the Governor by clicking here.
SB 880 (Hall, Glazer) & AB 1135 (Levine, Ting): SB 880 and AB 1135 are identical. Both bills dramatically change what constitutes an “assault weapon” in California. The bill does not require individuals to surrender the firearms they currently own, but will require those firearms to be modified or registered as “assault weapons” under the provisions of these bills. For further analysis from the on these two bills, click here. Click here to view the Governor’s reasoning. You can also view our veto letter that was sent to the Governor by clicking here.
SB 1446 (Hancock): SB 1446 prohibits the possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Confiscation of lawfully acquired, standard capacity magazines that can hold over 10 rounds. Further details on this bill can be readhere. Click here to view the Governor’s reasoning. You can also view our veto letter that was sent to the Governor by clicking here.
AB 1695 (Bonta): AB 1695 would make it a misdemeanor to report to a local law enforcement agency that a firearm has been lost or stolen, knowing the report to be false and create a 10-year firearm prohibition for someone convicted of this offense. Further details on this bill can be readhere. Click here to view the Governor’s reasoning. You can also view our veto letter that was sent to the Governor by clicking here.
Click here to receive email updates
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Suppressor Association (ASA) is pleased to announce the introduction of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) by Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05). This historic piece of legislation will remove suppressors from the purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA), replacing the antiquated federal transfer process with an instantaneous NICS background check. The HPA also includes a provision to refund the $200 transfer tax to applicants who purchase a suppressor after October 22, 2015.
“The American Suppressor Association believes that citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the ASA. “The removal of suppressors from the National Firearms Act has been our ultimate goal since day one. For months, we have worked alongside Rep. Salmon’s office and the National Rifle Association to craft this legislation. Although we recognize that introducing this bill is the first step in what will be a lengthy process to change federal law, we look forward to working with Rep. Salmon and the NRA to advance and ultimately enact this common-sense legislation.”
Also known as silencers, suppressors are the hearing protection of the 21st century sportsman. Despite common Hollywood-based misconceptions, the laws of physics dictate that no suppressor will ever be able to render gunfire silent. Suppressors are simply mufflers for firearms, which function by trapping the expanding gasses at the muzzle, allowing them to slowly cool in a controlled environment. On average, suppressors reduce the noise of a gunshot by 20 – 35 decibels (dB), roughly the same sound reduction as earplugs or earmuffs. In addition to hearing protection, suppressors also mitigate noise complaints from those who live near shooting ranges and hunting lands.
Unfortunately, suppressors have been federally regulated since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The NFA regulates the transfer and possession of certain types of firearms and devices, including suppressors. Currently, prospective buyers must send in a Form 4 application to the ATF, pay a $200 transfer tax per suppressor, undergo the same background check that is required to purchase a machine gun, and wait months for the ATF to process and approve the paperwork. In stark contrast, many countries in Europe place no regulations on their purchase, possession, or use.
Rep. Salmon’s Hearing Protection Act will fix the flawed federal treatment of suppressors, making it easier for hunters and sportsmen to protect their hearing in the 41 states where private suppressor ownership is currently legal, and the 37 states where hunting with a suppressor is legal. This legislation will remove suppressors from the onerous requirements of the NFA, and instead require purchasers to pass an instant NICS check, the same background check that is used during the sale of long guns. In doing so, law-abiding citizens will remain free to purchase suppressors, while prohibited persons will continue to be barred from purchasing or possessing these accessories.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SUPPRESSOR ASSOCIATION
The American Suppressor Association (ASA) is the unified voice of the suppressor industry. Our mission is to unite and advocate for the common interests of suppressor manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and consumers. To accomplish our mission, our principal initiatives focus on state lobbying, federal lobbying, public education, and industry research.
The ASA is a sponsorship driven organization. Without the help of the following sponsors, this legislation would not have been possible: AcuSport, SilencerCo, Silencer Shop, Daniel Defense, Gemtech, Yankee Hill Machine Co., Thunder Beast Arms Corporation, Advanced Armament Corporation, Federal Premium Ammunition ®, Vortex Optics, Dakota Silencer, Freedom Munitions, and Liberty Suppressors.
For more information on how you can join the ASA, and help protect and expand your right to own and use suppressors, please visit www.AmericanSuppressorAssociation.com.
Sometimes it’s Hard to Pick Backing up as Your Option.
By Haine Tautuaa.
I carry my fire arm most places I go. I do so, not because of any fear or paranoia but in case of the off chance that I might need it to protect myself, my family, or another person. Five years of security work has shaped my opinion in this matter, the opinion that I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
It is a beautiful day in July of 2013; I, my wife Annie, and our two young daughters, along with our good friends Dallin and his pregnant wife Sharoni, have walked to Harris Elementary School. We have come here a few times before to let my girls play on the playground and get our wives out of the house.
While my girls play and our wives chat, Dallin and I explore the grounds. The two of us head off through a fence to the South, and head West down the road behind the playground. We walk and talk about random subjects and comment on various things on the way; the road, trees, cooking a pig for an upcoming wedding, and different houses and their styles. The road leads to a gap in the fence surrounding the school yard, and we enter back into the playgrounds following the sidewalk back towards the school.
“I think there’s another entrance over there,” Dallin says, pointing westward. I peer in the direction that he is motioning toward.
“Yeah,” I say, “Strange spot for a gate.”
The gateway is on the west side of the school grounds and opens into an apartment parking lot instead of a road or sidewalk. The two of us stroll towards it observing what is around us and on the ground, the color of the grass, and the fact that it is shorter than it was yesterday when we were here.
“There are apartments there that I’ve never seen in Tooele.” Dallin say in a bemused sort of way, as we approach.
“They’re stranger on the inside.” I chuckle mentally as I recall my pizza delivery days.
We come to a halt just inside the fence, now on the west side of the school grounds, looking through the gateway in the chain link fence. In the distance, a straight line of site from the fence, sits on old square building. Hard to tell if had been used as a dwelling or just a tool shed. The colors on the old bricks are faded. The one window I can see is clouded and covered in deposits from weather and age.
“I wonder how old that building is,” I say, observing more of buildings features. Dallin stares for a second. “Eh. Doesn’t look that old,” he comments.
“Dude, it’s got rocks as part of its foundation.” I offer as proof of its age.
As we stand just outside the lot, a car pulls in about halfway from us to the old building. The front windows are down and I notice two in the car as it turns to park.
From the car I hear a male voice, “What the f**k are you lookin’ at!?” I don’t really expect the comment to be pointed at me so I continue in my thinking.
A woman’s voice calls out “You guys lookin for somthin’?”
“No.” I reply “We’re just wanderin’.”
A new thought arises in the back of my mind. “That may be a nice way of saying ‘Leave’.” I glance at my feet. We are still three feet inside the school grounds, as far as I can tell we are still on public property.
The male voice again, “What the f**k do you think you’re lookin’ at!?”
“… tryin to steal our sh*t!” The car is now parked behind another vehicle blocking my view of the people.
“F**k Off!” By the sound of the voice, the owner is getting closer and is PISSED.
“Well that’s a good cue to move along!” is the thought that is now firmly in the forefront of my mind. Red flags of possible danger begin popping up and wave sternly in front of my imagination. “But we’re still on public property.” I try to reason with myself.
“What the F**k are you lookin at!?… F**k Off!”
I turn to the right, my left side facing the oncoming voice. I look at Dallin and can see by the look on his face that he’s just as perplexed by this man’s anger as I am. I see his stance and expression change as the man comes into Dallin’s view. My mind is working overtime. Decisions, possible outcomes, and consequences are flying through my mind, “What’s my next move!?”
My mind lingers for a moment on the thought of my side arm, the weight of it strapped to my hip, and the possibility of having to use it. The man shouts more profanities at us. I can’t understand him. My mind is too busy with the weight of decisions of right now. I am watching Dallin. I calculate the man’s distance aggression and actions, by Dallin’s body language, the expressions on his face and what I see in his eyes.
I don’t want to back down. I have my pride, we are on public property, and we have done absolutely nothing wrong. I comment lightly to Dallin but I cannot recall what I said mere seconds ago. My mind is racing. I have decided that this man will most likely not listen to whatever I have to say. I do not think he is in the mood to be reasoned with. I try to keep my voice calm and reassuring as I turn more, my back now to the man. I take a couple of forced lazy steps toward the school and wait for Dallin to follow.
This process is repeated a couple times, and then I lead off to the north, away from our families in case the angry man decides to follow. I look back to see the tall skinny frame of the man, smoking and pacing Angrily back and forth behind the fence, like a predator in a cage. Eventually he turns and walks toward the apartments.
“Well. That was strange!” Dallin said in a relieved tone.
“Yeah, no joke,” I say.
“Yeah, I didn’t feel like getting shot today.” Dallin’s comment confuses me a bit as I’m the one with a side arm.
“Yeah…” I scoff. “I didn’t feel like having to shoot anyone today.”
This instance is a situation where even though i had my firearm, there wasn’t a need for it. By simply walking away, even though it was against the fighter in me, we were able to defuse a situation before it turned into anything that would warrant the use of that firearm. I carry to protect myself and others, even so, there is no reason not to avoid a potential bad situation, if possible, before it occurs.
Monday, JPFO contributor and National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea noted that in its first ruling of the new year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has determined that a business, merely by making its machining equipment available for a fee, to individuals to use in building a firearm, has now “manufactured” the gun, and must meet all the requirements imposed on commercial gun manufacturers. This includes a gun manufacturer’s license from the BATFE, the marking of the firearm (or receiver, which for legal purposes is the firearm) with a serial number, manufacturers’ record keeping, and conducting a background check on the person who actually did the work in making the gun.
This, although heinous, should not have been unexpected. The BATFE had asserted such a position, if only informally, almost two years ago. Again from David Codrea:
. . . an April 12, 2013 letter from Debra S. Satowiak, Chief, Firearms and Explosives Industry Division, to Jason Davis, attorney for Ares Armor Metal Works, LLC, advised that a Federal Firearms License is required for “a business premises at which, for a fee, it makes available a computer numeric control (CNC) machine, tools, equipment, and instructions to persons who bring in castings or raw materials for the purpose of creating firearms.”
This, of course, raises a good many questions. Attorney Joshua Prince asks one:
“Can a company offer membership, whereby any member is entitled to utilize the company equipment for free, and the member complete his/her/its firearm on the company equipment since the business would not be engage in the business?” he asks. “Do machine shops now need to inquire of the individual as to what he/she/it is going to be utilizing the machinery for?”
If you own one of Defense Distributed’s “Ghost Gunner” firearm-optimized CNC milling machines, and a buddy wanting to complete his “80% complete” AR-15 receiver offers to bring a pizza in exchange for use of the machine, would you become an “unlicensed gun manufacturer” (and a gun trafficker) if you agreed?
For that matter, if renting out access to one’s machining equipment, which is then used to manufacture a gun, is to be considered “being in the business of” manufacturing firearms, how is selling the equipment any different?
Incredibly, the rampant illogic gets worse. Ares Armor, a company that manufactures “80% complete” AR-15 receivers (some polymer, and some aluminum), and has been doing battle with the BATFE for nearly a year now, took to their Facebook page to amusingly summarize perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of the new ruling (warning: mild profanity in the link):
Question 1: So an 80% lower is not a firearm…
ATF Answer: Correct
Question 2: So if I drill a single hole in the fire-control pocket of an 80% lower then it is a firearm…
ATF Answer: Correct
Question 3: Ok then… If an 80% lower with one hole drilled in the FCP is a firearm… can I then take the firearm that I made at home to an FFL and have him complete the rest of the work because he isn’t manufacturing the firearm, he is just “gunsmithing” the firearm… I already manufactured the firearm by drilling the hole so it should be no problem right…
ATF Answer: Oh Crap!!!!!!!! ummmmm… Let me get back to you on that. No that can’t be right… There is no way you can do that… That is not fair! you cheated!
What this is about is that the BATFE has previously ruled that by drilling a single hole in the fire control cavity of an 80% complete receiver, or even making the material that should be removed a different color, so that the home gun maker can more easily see what must be done to make the receiver usable, the 80% complete receiver is not just an 80% complete receiver, and is instead a full-blown firearm (well, firearm receiver, which amounts to the same thing by law).
This became a problem for them when people realized that they could buy an 80% receiver, drill a single hole in the fire control cavity themselves, thus making the receiver “complete” in the BATFE’s eyes, even though considerably more machining would be required to make the receiver usable in a functional firearm. That, in turn, means that if now the owner of the “gun” turns it over to a gunsmith with the right machining equipment, the gunsmith could do the rest of the machining, and it wouldn’t be “manufacturing” a gun (which, after all,” has already been “manufactured), but merely “gunsmithing” (modifying, repairing, etc.), requiring no serial number, no background check, etc.
This, of course, could not be borne. So part of this new ruling fabricates a new, artificial distinction in gunsmithing.
ATF Ruling 2010-10 does recognize that gunsmiths may improve firearms by participating in the manufacturing process. However, none of the enumerated processes (i.e., repairing, modifying,embellishing, refurbishing, installing parts, or specialized finishing) actually create a frame or receiver, or make an existing frame or receiver suitable for use in assembling a “weapon” capable of expelling a projectile.
This is consistent with the traditional services that gunsmiths offer. Generally, licensed gunsmiths perform actions in repairing or improving firearms that are already complete weapons, or capable of being assembled as such. Gunsmiths do not perform the machining or other manufacturing processes to create frames or receivers, or make them suitable for use in assembling a weapon that can expel a projectile.
So now, any gunsmith or machinist who is hired by the “gun” owner to complete the machining is going to be ruled to have “manufactured” a gun, and will thus be held to the same restrictions that apply to all commercial gun manufacturers. The BATFE is insisting on having its cake and eating it, too. They have previously argued that an 80% receiver ceases to be an 80% receiver, and becomes a “firearm,” if the manufacturer does so much as scratch an outline showing where material needs to be milled away; but now, if the buyer of what the BATFE recognizes as an incomplete receiver similarly removes some of the material that must be removed in order to make the receiver function in a firearm, and then turns it over to a skilled professional gunsmith or machinist to finish the work, the professional ends up being considered the one to have “manufactured” the gun.
We’re incessantly told about the dangers of failing to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally incompetent. How much more dangerous, though, is it to hand guns, badges, and the power to formulate gun policy (no legislation needed!) to such people?
A former paratrooper, Kurt Hofmann was paralyzed in a car accident in 2002. The helplessness inherent to confinement to a wheelchair prompted him to explore armed self-defense, only to discover that Illinois denies that right, inspiring him to become active in gun rights advocacy. He also writes the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Kurt Hofmann Archive.
Ambiguous wording? What else would you expect from an anti Second Amendment piece of legislation spawned by gun control enthusiasts and backed by billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg and more recently Bill Gates and his Microsoft executives. Washington’s controversial I-594 was one of the few gun rights losses of late and recently went into effect. Gun owners are worried and for good reason.
I-594 passed by an 18-point margin. Had gun rights voices been louder and the truth known, the numbers might have reversed. The new law expands background checks in Washington to include all gun sales whether made in private, online or at gun shows. Opinions within the pro 2A community unfortunately vary on this point.
However, the biggest danger is not in the debate of private sales, but the ambiguous language defining what constitutes a transfer. The new law does not stipulate that such actions as handing someone else your gun to shoot at the range or for a day is not legal. Yet many critics say that the law only loosely defines what constitutes a transfer, and some gun owners worry that something as simple as handing someone else a gun at the range or while hunting could be illegal. As ridiculous as it sounds… sure, you would win in court, but after having to spend how many thousands of dollars to prove your innocence?
To test the theory, gun rights advocates are planning a rally later in December in front of the state Capitol in which they will be “exchanging guns.” There are no plans to arrest anyone exchanging firearms at the rally, says a Washington State Patrol spokesperson. However, the spokesperson did not go so far as to clarify law enforcement’s position on the matter overall.
“We don’t think that we could prove that that’s a transfer,” Bob Calkins, spokesperson for the patrol, told The Seattle Times. “These are law-abiding folks, they have a political statement. We don’t expect a huge problem.”
This leads to the question of whether the law will have any positive effects as intended. According to law enforcement, it is very unlikely, which is why the gun control crowd may well have duped the voters. The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action cites 22 of the state’s 39 sheriffs as critics of the law. The prevailing belief among the sheriffs is that the new tighter gun restrictions will strain police resources and possibly be unenforceable. This leaves less time to enforce other laws and prevent crimes.
Critics of the law also worry that I-594 will expand the state’s gun registry and make it illegal to loan firearms to friends or family members. That sounds like an overstatement to many, but Sheriff Ben Keller of Garfield County.
“This initiative is a violation of the Second Amendment,” said Keller. “I come from a gun owning family and it would be a crime every time someone wanted to use my trap gun at a trap shoot. Being in law enforcement for 24 years, this initiative is not going to keep guns off the street. What keeps guns off the street is keeping the felons that are using the guns illegally in jail.”
Much to the dismay of its residents, California is the testing grounds for much of the anti gunners agenda. Assembly Bill 1014 is no exception. Signed on September 2014, the new law subjects legal gun owners the seizure of their Second Amendment rights without representation or due process.
Assembly Bill 1014 allows any police officer or immediate family member to petition a court for a gun violence restraining order. The subject of the order does not have to be present, is not consulted or given the opportunity to mount any defense. So basically, a disgruntled spouse, parent, child—or many others because ‘immediate family member’ is loosely defined—can feed the court any story, fail to offer any proof and your right to posses and bear arms are immediately stripped via an emergency restraining order. The order would prohibit you from possessing firearms or ammunition for 21 days. Can you say “instant victim?”
During these 21 days, the subject of the restraining order is notified and must get rid of his or her guns and then given an opportunity to mount a defense. Failure to convince the judge that you are not a danger to yourself or others results in the order going into effect for a year.
Can you imagine the nightmare this would be for anyone, not to mention a collector with hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars wrapped up in a collection? Moreover, all without proof, just someone’s contention at a hearing? If the alleged mentally disturbed person were not on the edge before the initial hearing, what would a 21-day notice of a loss of Constitutional rights do?
As would be expected, Assembly Bill 1014 is yet another knee-jerk reaction by opportunists to capitalize on a tragedy. The democratically controlled legislature quickly pushed Assembly Bill 1014 through in wake of a tragedy perpetuated by a mentally ill student at the University of California at Santa Barbara. In that incident, the attacker first stabbed three men to death in his apartment. He then used legally acquired pistols and legal magazines that held 10 or fewer rounds—both subject to ineffective laws to reduce gun crime—to kill three more people. This happened while killing and injuring more with his car.
All of this carnage, yet the only weapon the legislature was concerned with was the firearm. No legislation resulted to deal with the underlying issue of mental illness. There was nothing to keep mentally ill individuals from accessing cars or knives.
How dangerous and general is Assembly Bill 1014? Well, to begin the law defines “immediate family member” as “any spouse, domestic partner, parent, child, any other second-degree relation, or anyone who has regularly resided with the individual in the past six months.” I suppose anyone could say they were a house guest. What about a college roommate? How is “immediate family member” defined in a dorm style situation or military barracks?
Doctors of Psychology with years of academic training and field experience cannot accurately predict which patient will become violent and which ones will not. How does anyone expect law enforcement and “family members” to figure it out?
In the case of the UCSB student, law enforcement had been in contact with the subject only weeks before his spree. They did not determine him a threat then, so why would this law have changed anything? What about the Constitution? The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, the Fourth Amendment against illegal search and seizure and the Fifth Amendment against due process. The AB 1014 order can be issued without so much as a mental health evaluation. The defendant is judged without representation and their property seized before adjudication.
Growing up in Pennsylvania’s game-rich Allegany region, Dave Dolbee was introduced to whitetail hunting at a young age. At age 19 he bought his first bow while serving in the U.S. Navy, and began bowhunting after returning from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Dave was a sponsored Pro Staff Shooter for several top archery companies during the 1990s and an Olympic hopeful holding up to 16 archery records at one point. During Dave’s writing career, he has written for several smaller publications as well as many major content providers such as Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Outdoor Life, Petersen’s Hunting, Rifle Shooter, Petersen’s Bowhunting, Bowhunter, Game & Fish magazines, Handguns, F.O.P Fraternal Order of Police, Archery Business, SHOT Business, OutdoorRoadmap.com, TheGearExpert.com and others. Dave is currently a staff writer for Cheaper Than Dirt!
Here’s What Happened When a Texas Police Officer Confronted an Open Carry Advocate and Thought Nobody Else Was WatchingDec. 10, 2014 2:02pm Jon Street 8.7KSharesA Houston officer has sparked an internal police investigation after video of his confrontation with anprotester legally carrying a firearm was captured on video – but only after the man objected to the officer who at first tried to delete it.“Got your ID?” the officer asked the man.“No, sir. I do not,” he said.The officer later told the man he needed to have his ID so he could tell who he was. The man then told the officer he could tell him who he was.The officer then asked him, “How do I know you’re not lying to me?”Moments later the officer demanded that the man take his gun off as the officer appears in the video to throw the man’s protest sign on the ground and then take the gun without the man’s consent.Image source: YouTubeImage source: YouTube“You are going to jail for failure to ID because you can’t tell me who you are, you can’t prove who you are. I’m tired of you idiots coming out here,” the officer said.It was then that officer must have realized the man had been recording the entire incident.“Take the phone off now because we are going to erase it because you’re recording everything,” the officer said.But fortunately for the man involved, the officer tapped the button to end the recording twice, thus stopping the video and then starting it again.The video was posted to YouTube December 6 but a police spokesman said the exact time and date of the incident cannot yet be confirmed because of the ongoing investigation.David Amad of the gun advocacy group, Open Carry Texas, responded to the controversial encounter by accusing the officer of being an “un-convicted felon.”“He may not ever get convicted, but the fact of the matter is this one particular officer broke the law big time,” Amad told KRIV-TV, while adding that he thinks this was an isolated incident of police misconduct and does not necessarily reflect accurately on the organization’s relationship with the Houston Police Department.KRIV-TV legal analyst Chris Tritico called the officer’s actions “completely illegal,” and a “violation” of police policy.“Someone calls up and says this makes me nervous, they were pointing the gun, whatever the complaint was, the police then have the right to come to you and investigate that complaint and so at that point they lawfully have the right to say give me that weapon while I talk to you and you have to give it up,” Tritico told the outlet.No charges were filed against the man who was confronted by the officer, an HPD spokeswoman confirmed to TheBlaze on Wednesday. The spokeswoman said she believed the man was lawfully carrying the gun and was released at the scene but that information was not immediately confirmed by officials, who cited the ongoing investigation.
Every body—and I mean the way we are shaped—is different. Some have more on top, or broader hips, while others stand as straight as a board. Be it the curves, extra padding, hips or breasts—small and large—there is no denying women are shaped differently than men; this means traditional holsters probably won’t fit any of us well. Deciding which concealed carry setup works for you can be time consuming, expensive and just plain frustrating. There are so many choices with little guidance on which holster to choose. It is very overwhelming for the new gun owner or to those new to conceal carry.
There is not one definitive gun and holster that will work for every single shape. What you do on a daily basis and how you dress is a factor for which gun and carry method will work best for you. Fortunately, there are many women shooters out there designing and making holsters exclusively to meet women’s needs. I feel sure you can find one that suits your needs.
However, all holsters have their drawbacks. Depending on type of clothing worn and the season, many of us choose to have a few different conceal carry setups. A thigh holster is no good worn under pants, while your inside the waistband holster has nothing to clip onto when wearing a dress. Additionally, warmer months require less clothing, which makes carrying a larger gun a challenge.
Firearms expert, trainer and instructor Clint Smith said, “Carrying a gun is not supposed to be comfortable; it’s supposed to be comforting.” Us women know something about being uncomfortable—shoes that pinch, jeans that dig, undergarments that bind and bra wires that poke. Though we do sometimes choose fashion over function, our holster and carry gun cannot be like those Manolo Blahnik heels we wear a few times a year. Your daily carry gun and holster must be as comfortable as possible, because as Clint says, “The gun that’s with you is better than the one that’s home in the safe.”
Here are five tried and true carry setups that real women find work for them.
The Smith & Wesson Bodyguard is a double-action only .38 Special revolver made specifically for concealed carry. It is lightweight at 14.36 ounces, 6.6 inches long with a 2-inch barrel and integrated laser. The thin profile and light weight makes it easy and comfortable to carry in a variety of ways. The Flashbang bra holster by Looper Law Enforcement is worn between the breasts and attaches the bra via a leather strap. This set up is comfortable and drawing is quick and easy with some practice. However, the Flashbang works best for C cups and larger.
Pro: Wear virtually any outfit without printing
Con: Doesn’t work for smaller breast sizes
Other firearms to consider for the Flashbang:
The Kel-Tec P3AT is an incredibly slim, lightweight semiautomatic handgun that lays flat any way you carry it. Ankle, corset, small of the back and bra carry—all done successfully—is easy with this little number. The .380 ACP P3AT has a 2.75-inch barrel, is 5.2 inches long and very thin at 0.77 inches wide. It holds six rounds, has no external safeties and shoots double-action only. The Can Can Concealment garter holster is a thigh holster that does not require a garter belt to keep the holster secure on your thigh. However, a garter belt is optional. For dresses and skirts, it is the perfect set up. Even in a long skirt or dress, the gun is easy to access and does not get in the way when sitting cross-legged, nor does it print when you position the firearm correctly on your thigh.
Pro: Comfortable summer carry, good for skirts and dresses
Con: Holster will slide down slighty toward the knee
Labeled a compact, GLOCK’s model 23 is a .40 S&W semiautomatic handgun with no external safety. Though it is one of GLOCK’s smaller models, it is large compared to many other typical concealed carry firearms with a 4-inch barrel and 7.36-inch overall length. The GLOCK offers 13 rounds of .40 S&W—a larger caliber preferred by some to the .380 ACP. With a barrel swap, the GLOCK 23 will also shoot 9mm or .357 SIG. The Blackhawk SERPA holster has a finger release that keeps the gun securely in place inside the holster and places your trigger finger in the ready position when you draw. Since the SERPA clips to a belt on the outside of the pants, in concealed carry-only states, a cover garment is necessary. This combination is best when carrying in winter.
Pro: SERPA is an incredibly secure holster
Con: Entire set up is slightly bulky; requires cover garment
Other firearms to consider for the Blackhawk SERPA:
The Charter Arms Undercover Lite has a 2-inch barrel, simple fixed sights and holds five rounds of .38 Special ammo. It only weighs 12 ounces and has soft rubber grips. Bellyband holsters conceal virtually under any outfit and are extremely versatile in all the different ways you can carry. You can position the bellyband in the middle, top or lowest part of your abdomen. Because of the bellyband’s design, you can also position your firearm on your body where you feel it is the quickest and most comfortable to access. Once used to wearing a firearm, you may find that under your arm is the most comfortable position.
Pro: Comfortable and unobtrusive
Con: Bellybands fit better on flatter stomachs
Another firearm to consider for a bellyband holster is the Kel-Tec P3AT.
The SIG Sauer P938 is a 9mm single-action only 1911-style small pocket pistol. It has a beavertail grip frame, exposed hammer and ambidextrous thumb safety. It has a 3-inch barrel and is 5.9 inches long overall. Despite the all-metal construction, the P938 only weighs 16 ounces without a magazine. The 1.1-inch thickness aids in the ease of its concealability. It has night sights and holds six rounds. Lisa Looper’s AVA belt holster is worn inside the waistband—meaning it clips to a belt or the waistband of your pants and is worn between your pants and your skin or undershirt. The AVA is made of leather and thermoplastic, and designed specifically to mold to a women’s curves. The purple suede back is soft and comfortable enough to wear without an undershirt and does not rub or chafe even during the summer months. Worn with or without a belt, the AVA is good for dress pants or jeans without belt loops. Depending on what is most comfortable for you, the AVA’s clips are adjustable so you can carry where and how you prefer.
Pro: Traditional, preferred inside the waistband carry
Con: Larger guns may print under tight shirts
Another firearm to consider for the AVA is the SIG P238.
NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS ALERT: Vol. 21, No. 46 11/21/2014
Federal Investigations to Proceed on Operation Choke Point
As we reported last month, a coalition of congressional representatives led by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) had requested internal investigators at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to conduct formal inquiries into Operation Choke Point, as well as any officials and staff involved in the program. Rep. Luetkemeyer is now reporting that those requests have been granted. According to his press release announcing the decisions, “The correspondence I received from the FDIC and DOJ is a great first step in ensuring that those responsible for Operation Choke Point are held accountable and that Congress and the American people receive details and answers they deserve.”
The “Universal” Clipdraw attaches in seconds with 3M Corp. #4941 VHB (very high bond) double coated tape. VHB tape is used in the construction and aircraft industries as a replacement for rivets. It provides a 20 lb. continuous bond that resists oil, solvents, heat and vibration. Heavy recoil and rapid slide movement have no effect on the bond strength between gun and Clipdraw. The Clipdraw stays solidly in place with adhesion actually increasing over time.
Briarpatch Defense Systems shared a link.Posted by Jairus Duncan · 2 seconds agohttp://teespring.com/briarpatch1Briarpatch Defense Systems – Basicteespring.comBriarpatch Defense Systems – The basic star design
Police say three armed men broke into a Lumberton, North Carolina, home on Monday night with intentions of raping a 19-year-old woman and robbing her family. But the one thing they weren’t prepared for was dealing with their would-be victim’s fearless grandfather.Two of the suspects reportedly knocked on the grandfather’s door at around 10 p.m. Monday and then stormed in and demanded money when he answered. All three of the men were armed and wearing black cloths, ski masks and gloves, according to police.The 67-year-old grandfather and his wife were reportedly taken to the back of the house and ordered to open a safe. But the trio of thugs crossed the line when they attempted to gang rape the man’s granddaughter, officials said.It wasn’t clear if the grandpa kept a gun in the safe or how exactly he got his hands on his firearm — but he did. He reportedly shot all three of the suspects, though he was also shot while rescuing his granddaughter.The suspects eventually fled and drove away in the grandfather’s Cadillac.Two of the men were found by police after they went to an area hospital for treatment. Police found the third suspect, identified as 20-year-old Jamie Lee Faison, dead in the stolen Cadillac.