- Comms
- Law
- Medic
- News
- Opinion
- Threat Watch
- Training
- Warrior Tools
- Accessories
- Ammo
- Body Armor
- Books
- Clothing
- Commo
- Gear
- Handguns
- Holsters
- Knives
- Long Guns
- ACC
- Accuracy International
- Barrett
- Benelli
- Beretta
- Blaser
- Bushmaster
- Custom
- CZ
- Desert Tactical Arms
- DPMS
- FN
- Forums
- HK
- IWI
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- LaRue
- LWRC
- McMillan
- Mosin Nagant
- Mossberg
- Para
- Remington
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- Sako
- SIG Sauer
- SKS
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Springfield
- Styer
- Weatherby
- Wilson Combat
- Winchester
- Magazines
- Maintenance
- Navigation
- Optics
- Sights
- Tech
- Warriors
Posts Tagged concealed carry
Texas concealed handgun carrier thwarts robbery at Denny’s
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News, Threat Watch on 28/Nov/2011 03:31
“Two armed suspects attempted to rob a Denny’s restaurant, but ended up fleeing for safety after a shootout with a customer.
Officials said two armed suspects wearing bandannas entered and attempted to rob the store. The sole customer in the restaurant, a licensed concealed handgun carrier, observed the suspects enter, pulled out his own gun, took cover and fired at the robbers.
Officials said the suspects returned fire and fled the restaurant. The customer followed the suspects, firing as he went. The suspects jumped into a white minivan and fled the scene.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45446615/ns/local_news-houston_tx/#.TtNUGk-kSyN
Getting A Gun In D.C.
An editor at the Washington Times is documenting her attempt to attain a handgun in the nation’s capitol.
My quest to get a legal handgun in Washington, D.C. feels daunting. I went to the D.C. Firearms Registration office two weeks ago to start the process of getting a legal gun by picking up a 22-page packet of forms and instructions.
The second amendment says “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The rules and regulations do just that, infringe. These laws are intended to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but why would any criminal attempt to get a gun in such a manner when they could go buy one on the black market. Laws never prevent anyone from committing an act, they are only used for punishment after the fact.
Gallup Poll: Don’t take away guns
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News on 27/Oct/2011 15:32
By TIM MAK
“This year marks the first time that more people were against a ban than for it.”
“Support for gun control is at its lowest level in more than 50 years, according to a recent Gallup Poll.
In fact, 26 percent of those surveyed think there should be a law banning the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized people, reports a Wednesday Gallup poll. On the other hand, 73 percent oppose such a ban — the highest percentage reflecting such sentiment since polling on the issue started in 1959.
Over the past 50 years, the United States has changed its mind drastically on whether a handgun ban is appropriate. In 1959, 60 percent supported a handgun ban, while only 36 percent opposed it.
With regard to semiautomatic guns … 53 percent oppose laws that would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess them; only 43 percent agree with that sort of ban. This year marks the first time that more people were against a ban than for it.
A plurality of respondents — 44 percent — want firearms regulations to be kept as they are now, while 11 percent favor less strict gun laws; 43 percent suggest stricter gun laws are necessary.
Views on gun laws have changed dramatically over the past twenty years to the point where no key demographic subgroup favors a ban on handguns. Only those living in Eastern America, Democrats and those without guns in the household still have majority support for stricter gun laws generally, Gallup reports.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66874.html#ixzz1c13r6Fqr
Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban
From: Gallup
PRINCETON, NJ — A record-low 26% of Americans favor a legal ban on the possession of handguns in the United States other than by police and other authorized people. When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns. But since 1975, the majority of Americans have opposed such a measure, with opposition around 70% in recent years.
Could HR 822 be amended like the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986?
The fears presented in the previous post on the dangers of amendments to HR 822 are not unfounded, they are based on precedent, and the fact that the NRA seems to have ignored addressing this issue is troubling. The net result  in 1986 was that the “Firearm Owners Protection Act” created a de-facto ban on the ownership of “machine guns” from that day forward.
This was not the original intent of that legislation and yet that is the legislation that was passed into law.
I’m not a legal expert and I would love to have the NRA experts explain to us how another Firearm Owners Protection Act debacle can be avoided.
From: Wikipedia
Machine Gun Ban: The Hughes Amendment
As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332 [4]that would ban a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The amendment also held that any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff date could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.
In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No’s 72, 73, and 74.
Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision.
Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the “amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to.” However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed.[5][6]
The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act.
H.R. 822: Protecting Gun Owners rights or handing more control to the Federal Government?
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News on 14/Oct/2011 17:12
The NRA has come out strongly in favor of H.R. 822, while the National Association for Gun Rights has taken the exact opposite view, warning that H.R. 822 is a dangerous threat to the rights of gun owners.
The National Association for Gun Rights calls the bill a “Trojan Horseâ€, warning that although the bill looks OK on the surface, it’s writers are naively allowing the Federal Government more control in an area that needs to remain solidly under the authority of the States.
The position of the National Association for Gun Rights is that the Constitution grants Americans the right to bear arms, we don’t need or want the Federal Government to have any more control, adding layers of bureaucracy, making it more difficult for Americans to own and carry firearms.
Dudley Brown, of the NAGR, says, “While the idea that all states should recognize a concealed weapons permit is sound public policy, the use of the anti-gun federal bureaucracy to implement it is simply foolish.â€
The NAGR warns that the current bill makes it too easy for a rider or amendment to be slipped in, turning H.R. 822 from a positive-sounding measure to something that hands more power to the Federal Government – that gun owners face the serious risk politicians will pull a fast one and gun owners will lose ground that we will not be able to take back.
Dudley Brown said,
“So-called “pro-gun†Republicans even KILLED an amendment that would have allowed permit holders to defend themselves in the District of Columbia, one of the most dangerous cities in the country.
Over the past two days, amendments have been offered to require REAL ID-type government requirements on state CCW permits as well as giving Eric Holder the power to classify even more gun owners as “terrorists.â€
And while these amendments may have failed in the House, Harry Reid’s Senate is sure to put the screws to gun owners.
The Senate DOES have the votes to impose a HOST of anti-gun amendments to H.R. 822 much like they have done with legislation in the past.â€
Brown also warns:
“This bill isn’t just about the right to carry for self defense — it’s a battle over the role of government and the ability to restrict our Second Amendment rights.
Many statists in Washington will co-opt H.R. 822 as part of their grab for more federal power and less individual liberty.â€
That is the real danger here.
These are few of the potential threats the NAGR says could result from H.R. 822 being passed:
- More onerous standards to acquire a permit, so that only FBI agents can pass muster (look at New York’s permit system);
- Higher fees;
- More training requirements;
- A demonstration of “Need†for a permit;
- More frequent renewal periods;
- Federally-mandated waiting periods;
- A national database of all permit holders, accessible by Attorney General Eric Holder;
- An extensive, federally-created list of Criminal Safezones, where only criminals will carry and where law-abiding gun owners are vulnerable
We’d like to think that the NRA stands solidly with gun owners, that they are using their political and financial clout to protect the rights of gun owners, but there is a precedent for bills starting out to be supportive of gun rights but winding up actually legislating stricter gun control.
A classic example of this was the the bill H.R. 4332, which eventually became the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act.
“The gun rights movement lobbied Congress to pass the FOPA to prevent the abuse of regulatory power — in particular, to address claims that the ATF was repeatedly inspecting FFL holders for the apparent purpose of harassment intended to drive the FFL holders out of business (as the FFL holders would constantly be having to tend to ATF inspections instead of to customers).â€
The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 addressed the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report. Gun rights advocates pushed for it and this is what they got:
- It reopened interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, allowed ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act),
- ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing,
- permitted travel between states supportive of Second Amendment rights even through those areas less supportive of these rights, and
- addressed several other issues that had effectively restricted Second Amendment rights.
“However, the act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement.
Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000.”
So, although H.R. 4332 was intended to improve the status of gun owners, the Hughes Amendment ended up banning machine guns – which has not been reversed. In an Orwellian turn of events, the “Firearms Owners’ Protection Act” ended up preventing Americans from owning an entire class of firearms.
Rights are easy to lose and very difficult to re-gain.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Signs Concealed-carry Bill into Law
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News on 10/Jul/2011 17:24
ROTHSCHILD, Wis. (AP) — “Wisconsin has become the 49th state to legalize the carrying of concealed weapons.
Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill Friday removing the state’s ban. Except for a few minor aspects, the bulk of the law goes into effect in November.
Under Wisconsin’s law, people who obtain a permit and go through training will be allowed to carry concealed weapons in most public buildings, including the state Capitol and city halls, unless a sign is posted saying they are not permitted.”
http://www.newsmax.com/US/ConcealedCarry-Wisconsin/2011/07/09/id/403027?s=al&promo_code=C95C-1
Thigh Holster for Women’s Concealed Carry
Posted by Gary in Holsters, Warrior Tools on 17/Jun/2011 17:16
From: Chics with Guns
Crossbreed Holsters and Concealed Carry
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Gear, Holsters, News, Warrior Tools on 24/May/2011 23:43
Review: 10mm EAA Witness Compact
George Hill has an excellent and thorough review of this gun over at Human Events.
The one thing that has always bothered me about concealed carry guns is that they are all about compromise. You give up power for smaller size. You give up accuracy for a shorter barrel. You give up everything you really want in a handgun for the ability to have it on you all the time. Maybe I’ve grown cranky. Maybe I’m just fed up. Whatever the source of my feelings, I’m tired of compromises

Why should college campuses be “Criminal Safezones�
Posted by Jack Sinclair in News, Threat Watch on 9/Apr/2011 20:32
“A concealed weapon permit holder, mother and student at UNR (University of Nevada, Reno), Amanda wasn’t allowed to carry a firearm on her college campus because it was a “gun free zone.â€
That meant she was unarmed on a night in October, 2007 when she was attacked while walking to one of her classes.
You see, her attacker didn’t care about the “gun free†designation. He had his gun. And he held it to her temple while he raped her.
She had left her firearm at home because that was the law. A law that left her completely vulnerable when she needed a way to defend herself the most.”
by Dudley Brown, National Association for Gun Rights
Backup Gun: Smith and Wesson M&P340
Posted by Brian in Handguns, Opinion, Smith & Wesson on 25/Feb/2011 01:02
Tactical Wire just wrote a a review of the Smith and Wesson revolver as a good choice for a backup carry gun.
A backup gun to complement the excellent M&P auto pistols and M&P15 carbines, the M&P340 is a Scandium frame super-light Magnum revolver. I’d avoided flyweight Magnums before this one. The steel small-frame guns got to be too much for me to shoot with any regularity.
Interest in Concealed Carry Permits Increases
From Tactical Wire:
Of particular significance, however, is the finding that the handgun owners who don’t already possess a concealed-carry permit, about 40 percent said they intend to apply for one within the next 12 months. This strong interest in obtaining concealed-carry weapon (CCW) permits could mean a real demand for training and CCW-related accessories and firearms in the coming year.
Indiana Expands Concealed Carry
From Evansville Courier & Press:
Hoosiers who have permits could take their guns to libraries, public hospitals and city council meetings under a measure the state Senate approved Monday.
“They are your first responder,†Tomes said, referring to those carrying concealed weapons. Senate Bill 292 passed on a 38-12 vote. It now moves to the House.

