Wednesday, September 30, 2009
In tonight's episode of "Nostradamus Effect" (clearly not the most intelligent programming choice for the channel), the History Channel's narrator said the following:
"Wide-spread extremest beliefs, both in America and off its shores, growing sales of guns and other weapons, and hate crimes increasing every year around the world, all suggest the prophesy of a new Reich is becoming fulfilled."
HUH? Talk about playing fast-and-loose with the facts. Gun sales are up and violent crime is DOWN. In fact, gun sales have been increasing for 30+ years in the U.S. What about the "growing hate crimes" overseas, where guns are illegal? Again, no mention. It seems as though some zealous producer just wanted to tie guns to Nazism for the heck of it...
How does fascism tie to gun sales? No connection is given, but they do show a clip of a gun shop and gun range.
And finally, racism is growing? Ever heard of the 40s, 50s and 60s? Jim Crow laws? Lynchings? A Ku Klux Klan that used to be a dominant force in the US? Maybe "hate crimes" (what the hell kind of violent crime isn't "hateful"?) increase year-over-year for a few in a row, but they're seriously saying things are worse than they were?
Let's not let the History Channel, once a bastion of serious programming (often about the history of firearms) slide down this slippery slope...
On top of rotating the holster to find placement, the other major question is what gun fits well. A long handle doesn't work well--it pokes out and is clearly visible. A snub revlover seems to fit the bill nicely, and I have two that seem to fit the best. My first try was with a Glock 36-- an excellent inside-the-waistband gun. But it's longer grip (though still short) didn't jive well with the ankle configuration.
First, a 38-special Taurus snubbie. It's a 5-shot, wood-handled guy. Not one of the ultra-light-weights, as those tend to be uncomfortable to shoot, but a standard M85-style gun (a bit older, though). It works well, and I carried it Tuesday without issue.
On Wednesday I decided to try my Rossi 357-magnum. It's a bit bigger, a bit-heavier, and holds an extra shot. This also fits well, and with some additional adjusting, was very comfortable.
While I'm finding it does take some getting-used-to to have the extra weight on your leg, and access doesn't appear to be flawless (you'll have to pull your pants leg up to access the gun), cocealablity with boot-cut jeans is excellent. And it's kind of nice to not have the inside-the-waistband style holster when driving.
Will report back more later. To my surprise, I'm liking the ankle holster...
I can't tell you how many students come through our class that have to work near/in bars, and wish they had the right to self defense. Does more violence happen in bars than elsewhere? Yes. Why? Because people get drunk and stupid. Does that mean someone NOT drinking should be left defenseless against drunk attackers? Heck no.
The logic is seriously flawed of bar owners in Arizona who post anti-gun signs. If someone's going to get drunk and shoot someone, they aren't going to pay attention to a sign (how often do we hear about violence in/just outside of bars in states where guns are forbidden?).
I'd rather have the band member, wrapping his gig at 2am and loading thousands of dollars of equipment in his car, able to defend himself. Or the waitress, getting off in the middle of the night after being heckled by drunk customers, able to defend herself from being attacked.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Given these concerns, I'll be your faithful Guinea pig. I'll wear an ankle holster for the next week and report back my findings.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Our president wants to get rid of nukes and talk to terrorists. Great. The big problem is the idea that when you disarm, your enemies will be overcome with your gesture and do the same. We're seeing this play out on a world stage with Iran today.
This is especially true when it comes to guns. Taking away guns from law-abiding people doesn't rid criminals of them. In fact, it makes criminals more powerful, because they're now facing a defenseless victim.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
My age is 48, and I have only owned one gun, an old Stevens double barrel 12 gauge that my dad gave me. In late march I completed a conceal and carry class. Next step is to purchase a hand gun. I went to the recommended store since they seemed to have the best prices for the one I wanted. After going through the demonstration and what comes with it, I filled out my background check. After a few minutes the store owner came back and said I was denied the purchase by the NICS check and gave me some information if I wanted to file an appeal. He didn’t seem to be too alarmed by this and informed me that he had seen Policemen and people with conceal and carry permits get denied. If you call NICS, they will not tell you why you were denied or anything about your record. I had a couple of small misdemeanors in the distant past so I figured there was something there that I did wrong. So, I filed my appeal, which required me to send my fingerprints so they can compare with the FBI records. In the mean time, I started doing research on this issue. It turns out that I had a “weapons disability” according to Ohio revised code 2923.13 - http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/
In short, if you have a conviction of a felony violence offense, mentally ill, drug dependent, or have ANY conviction of a “drug of abuse”, then it is a third degree felony to “knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance” In other words, you can’t touch a gun.
26 years prior, I had a misdemeanor drug conviction in the state of Kentucky. So, time to get it expunged. I sent for my record in Kentucky and it came back clean. After more research, I found that Kentucky passed a law to get rid of old misdemeanors on the books and also got rid of the electronic records. So it turns out that even though I didn’t have a record in Kentucky anymore, the FBI still knew about it. So I contacted a lawyer in Kentucky and he said he would do the expungment for $500. Bummer, that is the cost of the gun I wanted. So I sat and pondered all of this. A little over 4 months go by and I get my appeal back from NICS. It stated that I was indeed the person with the record, but after further research, I was approved to purchase one firearm from the exact dealer where I was denied. Apparently they must have run my record again in Kentucky and saw it was now clean. Also, when I received my appeal back, it had a copy of my FBI record. I figured the only way to keep this denial thing from happening again was to get this expunged because NICS keeps no records. They are required to destroy records of a background check within 24 hours. This is a good thing; otherwise it would be gun registration by the federal government. I contacted the county courthouse where I was convicted in Kentucky and they said I could file for expungment for $100 and it didn’t require a lawyer, but I had to provide them with the FBI record that was less than 30 days old so they knew what to send to the state police. The FBI will only expunge a record when told to by the state police. So, now I got that done. Went to get the gun and the shop owner had only seen an appeal approval certificate one other time. I guess not too many people win their appeal. He re-ran my check and my “appeal recheck” came back “Delayed”. I called the NICS the next day to see what was up and told them I am getting tired of the embarrassment of being turned down, and the woman said to hold tight for a few more days. But, after two days it was finally approved. So, if I didn’t get my expungement done, I would most likely have to go through this every time I wanted to purchase a firearm from a dealer. So my next move is to get a CCW license. More on that if there is a problem.
Why am I writing this story? Because I want to share my experience with others that have questions when and if they get denied. Ohio’s weapons disability law is pretty crappy. There is no room for a second chance and I have seen on the web that some states don’t allow expungement at all. So those people only have one other option. There is a provision in the Ohio law where you can get relief from the disability, but it appears that it could be expensive. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
This has been illustrated, yet again, on the gun-free campus of Yale. This is an affluent, "highly secured" area. Yet a young woman, days before her wedding, was apparently brutally killed and her body hidden, only to be found several days later.
She was worried about her safety before she died, even taking the typical, recommended precautions (travel in groups, take public transportation, etc.). They didn't save her.
Thick walls and cameras may help deter an attack, but as it's happening, they do nothing. When a bad guy attacks, sometimes the only defense is a weapon. When will universities and corporations who forbid carry learn this?
They were for it before they were against it: Cleveland Plain Dealer editors call for repeal of statewide preemption
By Chad D. Baus
Last week, upon the occasion of the injury of two Columbus officers by a marijuana-growing suspect who fired on them with a semi-automatic AK-47 rifle, gun ban extremists quickly ran out to dance in the officers' blood.
These groups, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Freedom States Alliance, and the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, sought to sell the line that the incident had occurred because the Ohio General Assembly acted in late 2006 (via HB347) to preempt local gun control laws, including so-called "assault weapons" bans in Columbus and Cleveland.
Over the weekend, the gun banners' accomplices on the Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial board dutifully took the gun control groups' ball and ran with it, in an editorial entitled "Ohio should get its cities to make and enforce anti-gun laws."
In doing so, the newspaper failed to acknowledge that it editorialized in favor of the law on August 7, 2007, or provide any change that would explain its new position, offered now in two subsequent opposition editorials.
From the editorial:
Remember these names: Chris Redfern, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party; state Sen. Tim Grendell, Republican from Geauga County; state Sen. Tom Patton, Republican from Strongsville; and state Rep. Kenny Yuko, Democrat from Richmond Heights.
These area politicians have aided and abetted the gun lobby in putting the bang back in gang.
They did so by supporting legislation two years ago that nullified local gun laws.
Patton was in the House at the time, as was Redfern. Gov. Bob Taft's veto of House Bill 347 was overridden with the help of Grendell, Patton and Yuko; Redfern did not vote to override the veto.
At the time, Cleveland had enacted laws that required, among other things, that handguns be registered; that prohibited the possession of firearms by minors; and that forbade the sale and possession of assault weapons.
All of those laws are in limbo now, unenforced while the city challenges the state law in the courts.
As of Friday, the city has seen 72 homicides this year, 49 of which involved handguns. Last year at this time, there had been 73 homicides, 52 of which involved handguns.
The truth, of which the Plain Dealer has been informed by Buckeye Firearms Association on multiple occasions, is that the gang never had lost its "bang", and no other of these homicides would have been prevented had the city's gun ban remained in effect.
During the fight to pass statewide preemption, Buckeye Firearms Association was able to verify through public records requests that in all of 2006 there was not one single person charged with a violation of Cleveland's assault weapons ban. That's right, not even one.
Our investigation also found that, in 2007 (before HB347 took effect), one person was prosecuted for a violation of Cleveland's bans. But the case never made it to trial because the Grand Jury returned a "no bill," meaning they couldn't even find the enough evidence of a crime for the case to move forward to a trial.
So not only did the City of Cleveland not convict a single person under their so-called assault weapons ban in 2006 or 2007; they never even took one case to trial!
We conducted our investigation after months of calling on the Plain Dealer and other media to ask these questions themselves, and when we were done, we provided the Plain Dealer with the facts, which they have yet to publish.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer history on covering the debate over statewide preemption of local gun control laws is an interesting one indeed.
On August 7, 2007, the Plain Dealer actually editorialized in FAVOR of preemption:
This page continues to look skeptically on concealed carry, but consistency in the form of statewide, uniform standards makes more sense than a confusing patchwork of local contradictions.
Less than four months later, Plain Dealer editors reversed themselves, without noting or explaining the reversal:
By taking away local governments' ability to regulate the sale and possession of guns, the legislature tramples the principle of home rule more egregiously than ever.
When I contacted Plain Dealer Deputy Editorial Director Kevin O'Brien about the discrepancy, he admitted that the same person - Phillip Morris - had written both editorials, and repeatedly attempted to explain that the change of opinion was because "Mr. Morris detected some changes" in the language of the bill.
The problem was, the language in the bill related to preemption - the language which both editorials were specifically directed at - had not changed during the course of those four months. (Perhaps this shouldn't come as a surprise, given that in 2005 Plain Dealer editorial page editor Brent Larkin admitted to me that they don't read legislation before editorializing. Ironically, this admission came during a conversation about another inaccurate Plain Dealer editorial about a different provision in the exact same legislation - HB347.)
Despite being confronted with the facts on the preemption language having been unchanged, O'Brien and the editorial board refused to issue a correction, or any acknowledgement whatsoever that it had reversed itself in editorials just months apart.
Nor did they make such an acknowledgement in the current editorial, which goes on to present an example of a case the editorial board infers would have turned out differently had HB347 not become law:
Together with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Cleveland police have executed 189 gun-suppression initiatives so far this year, made 604 arrests and seized 124 firearms.
But all that is cold comfort to De'Ajah Campbell, a 22-month-old toddler who was shot in the back Tuesday night after her mother got into an argument with 20-year-old Darrin Harsley.
Harsley, who police say confessed to the shooting, is a convicted felon who just two weeks ago was released on bond after his arrest on a weapons charge.
Back on the street, police say, Harsley had no trouble obtaining a handgun. He was also armed with two other weapons, including an assault rifle. Police are now trying to trace those firearms.
How is a thug like Harsley able to rearm so quickly and easily?
In part because misguided politicians such as Redfern, Grendell, Patton and Yuko seem to think that gun sellers have more rights than gun victims.
The state law must be overturned. It not only violates the state's constitutional cornerstone of home rule, it also keeps cities from using the lever of the law to reduce the number of easy-to-get, cheap guns.
Did you catch that? Even though laws which make it illegal for felons to buy guns or for felons to be in possession of guns or to sell guns to felons (not to mention laws which prevented this perp from carrying the gun concealed, or laws prohibiting murder) failed to protect this child, the geniuses on the Plain Dealer editorial board want you to believe that one more law would have made all the difference.
The newspaper claims statewide preemption "keeps cities from using the lever of the law to reduce the number of easy-to-get, cheap guns." But given the case of Edward Lesure, which we covered (and the Plain Dealer ignored) in 2008, it is highly possible that the city of Cleveland once again failed to use the laws currently in effect to keep Mr. Harsely behind bars where he belongs.
The Lesure case involved a perp committing gun crimes while under several felony disabilities. Despite having pending felony charges, he was charged instead by the City of Cleveland with misdemeanors, nearly all of which were eventually dismissed. You read that right - not only did the city not pursue the sitting duck felony charges for firearm under disability, they dismissed most all the misdemeanor charges from Lesure's assault case. Lesure wound up pleading to only a resisting arrest charge. No domestic violence, no assault, no aggravated menacing, no violation of the Cleveland assault weapons ban, no violation of the safe storage law - all of which the circumstances of his case suggest he could have been prosecuted for.
Col. Jeff Cooper once said that "The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem."
The evidence is in, and it is indisputable. Cleveland's "assault weapons" ban did nothing to prevent crime, it went largely unused as a tool for city prosecutors, and Plain Dealer editors are long past any legitimate claim of being unaware of these facts. As such, the only logical conclusion is that the newspaper is intentionally ignoring the facts in the pursuit of an anti-gun agenda.
Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman, and an NRA-certified concealed carry instructor.
This article was sent using my Viigo.
For a free download, go to http://getviigo.com
Saturday, September 12, 2009
NRA-ILA--In an effort to strengthen worker's rights in Michigan, a number of pro-gun bills (HB5302, HB5303, SB792, and SB793) were introduced that would protect workers' rights to lawfully store firearms in their vehicles, while prohibiting an employer from retaliating against an employee who exercises his or her rights.
Also introduced this past week was Senate Bill 747. This legislation would permit holders who are at least 21 years old to carry a concealed firearm on college and university campuses by removing them from the "safe zone" list of prohibited places. At this time no action is required.
Our opinion--bad idea. If you're an Ohio resident, get an Ohio permit. If you want to get another state's permit as well, such as Florida, New Hampshire or Utah, fine, but have the Ohio as well.
The cop in our group tells us that when an Ohio cop pulls you over and you have an Ohio driver's license, he expects to see an Ohio CCW.
And to add to this, some states are beginning to drop Utah, due to the lack of live-fire training for certification there:
NRA-ILA--As we reported in July, the Nevada Department of Public Safety (NDPS) dropped Utah from the list of states whose Right-to-Carry permits are recognized by Nevada because Utah state law does not mandate live-fire range training as a part of its course requirement for the issuance of a permit.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
A lot of anti-gun stuff shows up on TV and in the movies. Only the cops and bad guys have guns, a gun is an accident waiting to happen, kid-gets-gun and does X bad thing, etc.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Plus we bumped up the time for the fun part. Range time will now be three hours.
This means you don't have to give up a whole day to attend, you save some cash, and you get to shoot more! All while covering the same content.
Visit AdvancedShooting.com for details and stay tuned for more developments!
The spineless jerk even killed a toddler and a pregnant woman. To keep up the quote theme, one from the rocker Ted Nugent: "I'd rather see the woman [being attacked] pull out a 38 and shoot him in the head. I'd rather have the bad guys be dead. I guess I'm weird that way."
Friday, September 04, 2009
If you think about it, church is an easy time for bad guys to strike. Let's say you're a divorced woman with a restraining order against your husband who attends church, synagogue or mosque services regularly. Where are you at every week, where the ex-with-an-attitude can easily find you, often with your guard down?
We've even held classes in a few churches in Ohio. So if you're a preacher, or a parishoner, and you're not sure if it's a good idea to leave your flock/fellow worshipers vulnerable, give us a call. We'd love to help you to be armed and faithful.
A great article that reminded us why many church-goers and preachers feel it's the right move to allow carry in church (or carry themselves).
We're still Advanced Shooting, and will hold onto AdvancedShooting.com, but it'll forward to the new URL.
Thanks to all our students for the amazing support and years of fun at the range! Let's keep putting that brass on the floor!