Cars vs. Guns...

A common argument brought up by gun control (anti-Second Amendment) advocates is the false equivalency between the requirements to own a car and the requirements to own a gun.  I say this is a false equivalency because the Constitution specifically grants me the right to own a gun.  I've read it several times, and I have yet to find where it specifically grants me the right to own a car.  Just for fun though, I'll play along with this argument and present two sides:

If guns were treated like cars:

Well, as the gun control crowd points out, I'd have to take a test, get a license, and have insurance.  But as they seem to fail to notice, that's pretty much the end of the benefits they get out of that argument.  I'd get quite a few benefits though.  For one thing, I could now take my gun anywhere.  No more state by state restrictions on carrying my gun.  Nope, my Virginia permit is now valid in Massachusetts, California, and New York.  For insurance, no problem, I'll get a bare bones policy that just barely meets coverage requirements.  I could take my gun to school, church, federal buildings, pretty much anywhere.  I could legally buy a gun from a dealer at age 16.  I could buy a gun in any state, not just my home state, without having to mess with a dealer.  I wouldn't technically have to ever get a license either, so long as I didn't take the gun off of my private property.

Now, if cars were treated like guns:

Car laws would vary state by state.  Just because I have my Virginia driver's license doesn't mean I can actually take that car into another state, say California, Massachusetts, or New York.  If someone didn't want me to have my car around them, they could ban my car with nothing more than a sign.  Depending on the state, if my car was stolen and used in a crime, I could be charged with failing to properly secure my car, even if I had it locked in my garage.  I could also be charged with failing to report it stolen.  I could only buy a car from a resident of my own state or a licensed dealer, whose business is licensed by the Department of Transportation and whatever local entities may have jurisdiction.  To buy the car from a dealer, I would have to pass at least one, possibly two or more, criminal records checks.  In states with "universal background checks," I would be forced to by my car from a dealer, because only dealers have access to the background check database.  I could only buy certain types of cars at age 18, but would have to wait until age 21 to buy other types of cars.  If I wanted to buy more than one car at a time, I may have to jump through additional licensing requirements, and if I did so in certain Southwest states, my purchases would be required to be reported to the Department of Transportation for their records and possible investigation.  I would also be limited to the type of fuel I could buy.  I would only be able to buy the type of fuel that goes with my legally licensed car.  If I buy "unusual amounts" of fuel in a short time period, the gas station may be required to report me to the police.  Depending on the state, even though I legally own the car, I may not be able to take it off my personal property without acquiring additional permits or licenses.  I could be restricted from stopping at any way station during my planned driving route.  If I met any of the following criteria, I would not be allowed to purchase or even possess a car (and by possess, I mean I wouldn't even be able to sit in the driver's seat):

·                     Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

·                     convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

·                     who is a fugitive from justice;

·                     who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

·                     who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

·                     who is an illegal alien;

·                     who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;

·                     who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

·                     who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

·                     who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).

If I previously owned a car and then fell into one of these categories, the state could come and seize my car.  If my car were seized, I would have to navigate a confusing bureaucracy to attempt to get it back, even if all charges were dropped.  The state would have no obligation to return my car of their own accord.  When I applied for a license, I may be required to prove the reason I need to own a car, depending on whether my state is "shall-issue" or "may-issue."  I would have to justify why my needs for transportation couldn't be met by the many public options available.  I may have to wait up to 10 days from the time I buy the car until I can actually pick the car up, just in case I may have planned to use the car to commit a crime in the heat of the moment.  There would be limits on how fast my car could go - not just posted signs, but an actual governor that physically prevents my car from going over the speed.  Certain car features deemed dangerous would be banned.  I may be restricted to purchasing a car from an approved government list deemed to meet arbitrary criteria.  And the kicker, every time someone committed an egregious crime with a car (say, a drunken driving incident that kills a family of four), I would be crucified in the media as some sort of crazed psychopath for even wanting to own a car, my masculinity would be called into question (I must be compensating for something by owning a car), and more restrictions would be proposed to limit my ability to possess and operate my car.

So, please, explain to me again why you seem to think that my specifically enumerated Constitutional right hasn't been restricted?

Review of the Raven Concealment Vanguard Holster

So I've had the chance to utilize the Raven Vanguard 2 for about a month now, and I'm impressed.  You should seriously evaluate this holster if you are looking for a versatile system that allows for IWB, or off-body carry.

The Vanguard system is very different from your typical holster.  Really, you can hardly call it a holster - it's more of a trigger cover.  The molded plastic only covers the bare minimum needed, ie, the trigger and trigger guard.  It attaches to you in two possible ways: via a belt loop for IWB carry or via 550 cord or other lanyard.  This means that bulk is reduced to an absolute minimum.  When I wear my G19 IWB, it almost feels like I've just got the gun shoved in my pants.  The solid fit of the holster, however, means that it is far safer and more secure than if I actually just shoved it in.   Surprisingly it's still very comfortable, even more comfortable than some hybrids I've worn, again with significantly less bulk than your average IWB.

One of the biggest uses I think this system presents is for carrying off-body, especially for the ladies.  A lady I know used to carry a Glock in her purse.  Being a fashionable young lady, she wasn't really interested in buying a purse designed for carry, so she bought a cheap Uncle Mike's at the store, put the Glock in it, then put the whole conglomeration in her purse.  Couple of problems with that - draw time is dramatically increased and it takes up a whole lot more room.  The other option (or so she thought) would be to just place the gun in the purse bare.  I probably don't have to point out the issue with that, but I will; with a Glock (or some models of M&P, the other gun they make Vanguards for), the only thing between you and boom is the trigger safety.  Spend a little time on YouTube, and you'll see how well that works out for people.

The Vanguard answers that problem.  Simply place the Vanguard on your gun, run the lanyard (or a piece of leather, or a fashionable chain, whatever) through the grommet and a hard point on your purse, like where the straps mount, and you are ready to go.  Just make sure the lanyard is strong enough to take the pressure of your draw by dry firing at home.

There is one big disadvantage of the Vanguard - getting the gun in it.  Your gun has to be placed in the Vanguard before you put it in your waistline or your bag.  There is no re-holstering with this gun.  This could present an issue if you were to draw your firearm and then need to put it back for some reason.  A little bit of practice and problem solving ahead of time should easily mitigate that particular issue, but I do point it out for your consideration.

Overall, this is definitely a system you should consider if your needs call for a simple IWB or bag carry solution.  And at $35, it's a great solution at a great price.

Image copyright Raven Concealment

Train hard, train safe, do work.

-Woody

Raven Concealment

Reply from Sen. Mark Warner

Dear Woody,

 

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on legislative efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States.

 

On September 16, 2013, twelve innocent men and women lost their lives at the Washington, DC Navy Yard at the hands of a gunman who, reports show, had a history of violent tendencies and serious mental illness. This shooting was one of the latest in a string of recent gun-related tragedies that continue to shock our communities. In the aftermath of this recent shooting and tragedies such as those in Newtown, Connecticut and at Virginia Tech, we need to take meaningful steps that will help us best avoid these kinds of mass shootings in the future. The status quo is not acceptable.

 

I own firearms and am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. However, I also recognize that, like with many of our constitutional rights, our Second Amendment rights are not without limits. During the spring of 2013, the Senate considered the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (S. 649) in an effort to address issues contributing to gun violence. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) attempted to amend this bill with a reasonable, bipartisan proposal to strengthen background checks.  The Manchin-Toomey amendment would have closed the gun show loophole and prohibited the commercial sale of guns to those who are seriously mentally ill or have a criminal record while also upholding Second Amendment rights. I voted in favor of the Manchin-Toomey proposal but, unfortunately, the amendment received only 54 votes in support when it needed 60 votes for passage. Furthermore, its failure, which occurred one day after the sixth anniversary of the Virginia Tech tragedy, essentially halted consideration of the underlying gun safety bill, which included my bipartisan CAMPUS Safety Act.

 

There was also significant debate over proposals to ban certain types of weapons and magazines. I voted against those bans because, after talking to numerous experts, I believe the most effective action we can take to reduce gun-related violence and keep guns out of the hands of those prohibited by law from possessing them is to pass a strong background check law. This proposal is strongly supported by the American people and I believe that the Senate should continue to work to pass effective measures that will help to keep our children and communities safe and to improve our mental health system so we can provide help to those with dangerous mental illnesses before it is too late.

I appreciate you contacting me. I will keep your opinion in mind should the Senate address this issue or other relevant legislation. For further information or to sign up for my newsletter please visit my website at http://warner.senate.gov .

 

Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator

 

Dream rifle

My Dream gun as I imagine it.  Now to start saving...

Upper:
Faxon Firearms 12.5" complete upper w/BCM flash suppressor
Aimpoint Micro T-1 2MOA w/Larue mount
Aimpoint Magnifier w/Larue mount
AN/PEQ-15
Surefire Scout light
BCM Gunfighter Foregrip
Troy fixed front sight
Troy folding rear sight
Gem-Tech HALO suppressor

Lower
Rainier Arms lower
Colt small parts
Geissele SSA trigger
KNS trigger pin set
BAD safety lever
BCM Gunfighter grip
MagPul trigger guard
Mil-spec receiver extension and castle nut
MagPul CTR stock with 1/2" - 3/4" riser
MagPul mags

Reply from Senator Kaine

March 24, 2014

Dear Woody:

Thank you for contacting me to share your views on proposals to reduce gun violence. I appreciate hearing from you. 

No one can deny that gun violence is a serious problem in this country today.  We owe it to the victims of the growing number of mass shootings to vigorously debate specific and comprehensive proposals that can keep our communities safer.  The right approach focuses on many issues - improvements to the mental health system, better security protocols and common sense rules about gun use, including keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals.

When I was on the Richmond City Council in the 1990s, our city was mired in an epidemic of gun violence that included the city having the second-highest homicide rate in the United States.  The most successful step we took was implementing Project Exile, a program that involved federal prosecution and tougher penalties for gun crimes that were previously treated more leniently in state courts. Celebrated by diverse groups engaged in the gun violence debate - including the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign - the program helped drive down Richmond's homicide rate by nearly 60 percent within a few years.

In 2007, the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech revealed glaring weaknesses in campus security protocols at colleges and universities, in our mental health system and the gun background check system for gun purchases. In a bipartisan spirit, I worked with then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell to immediately improve our background check system and issued an executive order ensuring that those adjudicated to be mentally ill and dangerous would be entered into a national database and barred from purchasing weapons. We also changed standards for mental health treatment and increased funding for community health programs while dramatically improving campus security and efforts to assist college students suffering from mental stress.

On the sixth anniversary of the horrible shootings at Virginia Tech, I took to the Senate floor to remember the 32 Hokies who lost their lives. The tragedy happened after a dangerous young man illegally purchased weapons due to flaws in the background records check system. I was pleased to cast my vote on April 17, 2013, in support of S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act legislation, which included tougher laws on gun trafficking and straw purchases, and ways to improve safety in schools. I also voted in support of a bipartisan proposal to expand background checks on gun laws, but unfortunately a filibuster of this measure prevented it from passing. I also voted for a ban on large-capacity magazines, and for a proposal to ban combat-style weapons. I am disappointed a minority of the Senate chose to use the filibuster to block common-sense reforms.

As your U.S. Senator, I will continue to work to bring that kind of comprehensive approach that will strengthen the safety of our communities, while protecting our Second Amendment rights. As a gun owner who worked with others to constitutionally guarantee Virginians the right to hunt, I know that you can be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment without tolerating the gun tragedies that are too often a part of our daily lives.

Thank you once again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Tim Kaine

Letter to my Senators

Dear Senator Warner (and Kaine),

I respectfully ask that you decline to sign the letter currently being circulated by your fellow Senator Dianne Feinstein urging President Obama to use his Executive Authority to ban import of certain classes of firearms in common usage.  Senator Feinstein attempts to portray these firearms as not suited for a sporting purpose.  I disagree.  These firearms are commonly used in many sporting events throughout the country, such as 3 Gun Competition.  Also, as has been shown time and time again, banning a firearm based on its cosmetic features accomplishes nothing.  Senator Feinstein seems to believe that these imports are fueling the drug violence in Mexico through smuggling.  I struggle to understand how an international crime syndicate, who is capable of acquiring hand grenades, rocket launchers, and military grade weaponry from arms dealers around the world, or capable of acquiring the weapons needed from government armories or corrupt soldiers, needs civilian firearms to supplement their arsenal in any meaningful way.

Senator Feinstein's arguments do not withstand careful scrutiny, and far more real evidence is needed before making an end-run around the Congress's authority to legislate and using Executive Action to go against the will of the United States People as expressed through their elected representatives such as yourself.

Very Respectfully,
Woody

Rhetoric and the armed citizen (this may get long and rambling)

There is no doubt that recent events in Connecticut, New York, and California have raised questions in the minds of gun owners across America.  Rightly so, as many of the actions taken by the federal, state, and local governments are clearly a violation of Constitutional rights, no matter if they are "duly passed laws" from the legislature.  Many of these laws were passed with little to no time for public debate or scrutiny and with backroom negotiations, which creates (at the very, very least) an appearance of impropriety, and should prompt a reaction from armed citizens across the nation.

The issue I raise this evening is with the reaction I have seen.  You will never find me opining loudly on Facebook, Google, or Instagram for an armed confrontation with the government.  It is not because I don't believe that our rights are worth fighting for, but because at my heart I am an idealist.  I was raised on John Wayne and apple pie, and I've seen enough of the world to believe that the United States has the greatest system of governance ever devised by mankind.  Our Founding Fathers spent a great deal of time, and shed their blood, to ensure that the noble experiment they devised would last, and that freedom would persevere, so long as the people were good stewards of, and active participants in, the process of governance.  I'll try not to go too far into political ramblings here, but the adage of "people get the government they deserve" is old, but true.  If you are an armed citizen, I don't care if you've taken forty classes from high-speed instructors, have stockpiled enough ammo to survive the zombie apocalypse, and carry every single day.  If you do not vote, you are useless to me.  If you do not get educated on what is going on in government, you are useless to me.  If you do not contact your representatives about issues that you care for deeply, you are useless to me.

If you sit behind your keyboard, and endlessly type MOLON LABE while talking about shooting it out with government agents and calling for armed revolution, you are just as useless to me as the hipsters in their Che shirts.  First, most of the guys I know that have actually fought, watched their brothers die, and killed in the service of their country don't speak of violence lightly.  So if all I hear out of you is about how you can't wait to get the shooting started, I get a very strong feeling that you don't know what you are talking about, and when the shooting does actually start, you'll need a change of pants, if you bother to show up at all.  Second, you are doing a massive disservice to armed citizens everywhere.  Gun control advocates have a well-oiled public affairs machine, and they have very few morals about using it when and how they feel necessary.  They mine bulletin boards, pro-gun discussion groups, and citizens on the street (read: surveys) for quotes that they can use to paint the picture of armed citizens as angry, violent extremists.  The worst part of it is, they don't have to look hard.  We give them all the ammo they need to shoot us in the foot.  Then we limp around trying to explain our side of the argument to a public that already has a negative perception, and an extreme one sometimes.  Any good firearm instructor will tell you that those who go armed have an even greater responsibility than your average citizen to avoid letting a situation devolve to where force is the only option.  I would submit that the same applies to their rhetoric.

So what am I asking of you?  Shut your mouth.  Take a minute to think about what you are going to say before you jump into a heated discussion on Facebook.  Stick to facts.  There are loads of solid, factual articles out there (John Lott jumps to mind as one author) and good studies that you can use to make articulate arguments.  Don't hand the anti-Second Amendment crowd any more than they have already.  And participate.  The Colorado recall was an outstanding example of what can be done by ordinary citizens who are willing to fight for what they believe in.  Contact your representatives and let them know what you think (remember, articulate arguments, not angry rhetoric).  If your representative does not believe in what you believe, or ignores the voices of his constituents, remove them.  There are processes in place for recalls, and elections are held every two years.  Support pro-Second Amendment candidates, not a party line, even if they "don't have a chance."  Recruit others to vote, educate your friends and families.  If you feel led and are willing to bear the consequences, civil disobedience has shown in the past to be an incredibly effective tool.

Maybe it's just the idealist in me, but I believe that we can still win this fight without having to resort to violence.  It will not be easy, in fact, it will be extremely hard.  It will interfere with your life.  It will pull you out of your comfort zone, and it may end some friendships, even when you speak with the best of intentions.  It's worth it though.  The rights protected (not given) by our Constitution must endure for future generations.  Our children deserve no less.