web analytics
2A 2nd Amendment California high capacity judge magazine ban Roger Benitez

Judge Blocks ‘High Capacity’ Controversial and Upcoming California Mag Ban

Judge Blocks ‘High Capacity’ Mag Ban to Prevent Criminalization of Law-Abiding Californians

On June 29 — two days before California’s “high capacity” magazine ban was set to take effect — U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez blocked the ban to prevent “otherwise law-abiding” citizens from being criminalized.

Benitez ruled that the ban takes away Second Amendment rights “and amounts to the government taking people’s private property without compensation.”

Freilich did not address the fact that the high-profile shooting in Santa Barbara — May 23, 2014 — was carried out with “standard” magazines of 10 rounds.

I’m glad there’s at least one non-corrupt judge in CA doing his appointed duty.  I’m still trying to determine why it’s bad to have more than 10 rounds in a magazine.  Even if criminals obeyed this law (they won’t), it’s trivial to remove an empty 10-round magazine from a handgun and replace it with another 10-round magazine.  It can be done very quickly.  But that’s IF a criminal decided to use 10-round mags.  It’s stupid…if a guy is willing to rob a bank, what makes you think that he’s going to follow a magazine limit law?  “Oh, I have to go out and buy 10 round mags before I rob this bank…can’t use 15-round mags…that’s against the law…derp.”

I’ll be watching how this one plays out.

2A 2nd Amendment blog Colorado gun control mass shooter Obama refugees social media syria

Colorado Mass Shooter, Obama Speaks Out Before Facts Are Known


I saw this posted on Facebook yesterday:

“The last thing Americans should have to do, over the holidays or any day, is comfort the families of people killed by…
Posted by The White House on Saturday, November 28, 2015

My response is:

Here we go again with trying to make a whole population feel guilty for someone that’s either crazy or doesn’t care about rules. True to form, Obama didn’t even wait for the bodies to stiffen before rushing to the podium. What’s wild is that he admitted that they don’t yet know the motives of the shooter. If you don’t yet know the important facts, why make a statement?

Do any of you feel guilty when a murder is committed and a gun WASN’T the murder weapon? Probably not. Why is this any different? Because a gun was used? It’s not the gun that’s the problem…it’s the fact that people keep using the media as a tool to final fame in their end game. Also, this game of “its so commonplace that we’ve become numb to it” is ridiculous. Whenever I see something like this, I just shake my head, but I’m not going to give up my right because some fool murdered someone. That’s why people who commit murders are tried in courts of law…they try the assailants, as they committed the crime. Not me or other law-abiding gun owners, but he assailants.

I’m not buying the excuse that it happens a lot, especially when the media hypes things up.

Tightening gun control will NOT help…if anyone can point to a place in the US (NOT any place OCONUS) that has seen a decline in murders because of tight gun control, share the data.

The bottom line is, I refuse to pay any price for someone who wants to go out with a large body count. Why should I feel guilty or wrong for a crime I did not commit? I refuse to be even remotely responsible for this act. Some dude killing several people and me using my guns for sport and self defense…two VERY different things. Again, why should I be morally responsible for a nut going on a killing spree?

I’m going to leave this here: Obama is really pushing for the Syrian refugees to be allowed in this country…he doesn’t see a problem and has stated that these refugees are not terrorist, but he’s pointing blame of hysteria to a certain group of Americans. Well, he’s right…not every muslim is a terrorist, JUST LIKE EVERY GUN OWNER IS NOT A CRIMINAL. He’s giving leeway to the refugees by refusing to believe that terrorists might slip into America, but he’s believing that every gun owner is responsible for the relatively few nutjobs that commit murder. That doesn’t make sense. The difference is that he wants to control one situation (guns in the US) but not another (refugees that might be criminals). He ignores that they might be criminals in the refugee ranks but won’t acknowledge that there are criminals in the gun owner ranks. He really doesn’t have control of either group of people, because criminals will be criminals. Again, it doesn’t make sense.

On a slight tangent, I saw someone state that using social media as a debating tool doesn’t help a cause.  Actually, for people that are on the fence about political matters, it just might help to open a dialogue with them.  Many times, such discussion spills over into real life discussions (example, you visit a relative that might support tighter gun restrictions and he’d read your view on the 2nd Amendment).   As well, many of my FB posts are copied to either my Google account or my blogs.  Blogs are definitely powerful as a social media tool.  Also, sometimes I make videos to spur discussion.  Really…if politicians use FB or any other social medium, regular folk can too.


2A 2nd Amendment Colion Nior media news NRA

The Media’s Latest Attack On Freedom – NRA News

Good stuff here:

“This isn’t Minority Report. We don’t arbitrarily strip American citizens of their rights based on crimes they haven’t committed and a list they’re not aware of. If someone is seriously that much of a threat, arrest them and charge them with some shit.

When a person they’re monitoring shows up to buy a gun and the gun store runs a background check, the authorities know about it immediately. At that point, they either tell the gun store owner to allow the sale, or they block it. This is how it’s supposed to work.

Which is why the pathetic attempt to demonize the NRA isn’t coming from the CIA, the FBI, the NSA or any other intelligence or law enforcement group … it’s coming from the most powerful anti-gun organization on the planet: the mainstream media.”

2A 2nd Amendment A well regulated militia Bill of Rights Penn Teller

The Meaning of “A Well Regulated Militia” within the 2nd Amendment

One of the things anti-gunners tend to rant about is the wording of the 2nd Amendment where it states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The key focus of many antis is the wording of “a well regulated militia”.  Well, Penn and Teller break it down as I’ve stated in the past, but deliver the message in a way that I never could.

2A 2nd Amendment national reciprocacy

So You Want National Reciprocacy…

Many people are welcoming national reciprocacy when it comes to firearms regulations.  What’s my take on this?

Right now, I’m only concerned with my current state of residence (VA).  I don’t travel out of state all that much and when I do, it’s almost certainly NC that I visit.  VA and NC currently have reciprocacy.  This works for me.

I know that tracking reciprocacy across the nation is a big headache.  I’m sure I’d doubly think so if I had to travel through multiple states while carrying.  Is national reciprocacy the answer, though?

I don’t think it is.  Why?  Because the current administration is hostile to gun ownership.  The last thing we need as collective gun owners is to give them the authority to change the current regulations…that will give them the legitimacy to do anything they want.  Currently, they do not have the authority to change 2A at the state level and if they’re hostile to the idea and we give them the authority to apply reciprocay at the national level, what do you think is going to eventually happen?  No, it might not happen immediately, but it will eventually happen.  The US government almost ALWAYS takes and never gives.  Once they have the authority and are allowed to create national reciprocacy, and once they start to change things that people don’t agree with, it will be too late to reverse things.

In my opinion, it’s better to deal with what we currently have in place than to allow them to change things or give us what we want but include something hidden that will give us problems later.  It’s in every government’s nature to control as much as possible…why give them more control over something we’ve had difficulty in gaining in the past?

I’m no alarmist but I’m not stupid, either.  Never give up what was hard-earned.  Giving the government control over something that’s a right is stupid.

UPDATE:  Here’s a related link on 2A reciprocacy.