Re-training of firearms related information

Status
Not open for further replies.
True of course, re: the magazine ban. The injunction was salvation (in its absence that would've been devastating) but the unexpected overturning of the whole law, which sent the state scrambling for several days, was extra frosting on that cake. At least temporarily, we're good.
Actually we are way more than good.

During that week, not only did judge Benitez legalized purchase of new larger than 10 round capacity magazines, he also legalized countless (possibly millions) of larger than 10 round capacity magazine "repair kits" to be assembled into legal magazines.

With increasing number of Trump appointed federal judges, we may actually get 9th Circuit panel that may rule with judge Benitez's ruling that CA's ban on larger capacity than 10 rounds to be "unconstitutional". And if we get 9th Circuit panel make up that disagree, then the case goes to the SCOTUS with the possibility of ban on larger capacity magazines to be ruled "unconstitutional" for all 50 states.

The way I see it, it could be "win - win" for us either way.

Thank goodness the founding fathers chose to set up our government with 3 branches to check and balance other branches.

And as to antis using the federal courts to sway decisions their way over the decades, guess what? Elections have consequences and cuts both ways. It sure is nice to see president Trump appointing more conservative and pro gun/2A judges to federal courts. :thumbup:

(GEM, how's this post? Let me know if you see any issues with it.)
 
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011088912909

"BREAKING: the United States Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument in the NYSRPA v NYC 2A "bear arms" case for Monday December 2, 2019.

So the Court will not immediately dismiss the case on mootness grounds as NYC requested after it repealed the challenged laws. However, the Court will probably hear argument on both the mootness issues AND the 2A issue on 12/2/19, and could decide to dismiss the case on mootness grounds after that.

Otherwise we will likely get a ruling at the end of the Supreme Court's session in June 2020.

NRA is supporting this vital and potentially game changing case. JOIN NRA (and CRPA)!"


Believe me, gun owners and pro gun/2A organizations are FIGHTING BACK and winning! Support and donate heavily to your choice of organization to help the fight.

Current 9th Circuit legal cases (It's WAR!) - https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/California-Legal-Affairs-Report-December-2018.pdf
CRPA/NRA legal cases - https://crpa.org/news/litigation/
Calguns legal cases - https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/litigation
 
Lol, we have a whole lot of Liberals where I live. And you can bet one thing. They are the same ones that are on the BAND WAGON of their leaders bent on destroying the 2nd amendment. And every single Political Liberal politician is going over board against the 2A. It is down right disgusting. Virginia has become horrible with their leadership. Gov. Notham is so far left on guns, yet NOT one Pro Gun Group that are liberals have ever spoken out against him. And they won't. They prefer the free rides and free money given to them over any others rights to bear arms.
The bottom line? Talk is cheap for all these Liberal Pro Gun groups. But show me the money at the Democrat Rallies and at the voting Booth. Otherwise, just a bunch of people wanting a free ride.
 
New law allows Florida teachers to carry guns inside the classroom (Following several other states)

This is the commonsense, reasonable and appropriate "Do something" response to school shootings. Way to go Florida law makers in support of the Second Amendment! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: (Spread the word to your state law makers and pressure them to follow suit - That's OUR "Do something" in response to school shootings to protect our children/grandchildren)

Now, how about firearm/body armor discounts/vouchers for teachers who want to be guardians of our children and grandchildren? (This is one tax I am absolutely willing to pay for and perhaps "We the People" can set up local/regional/state GoFundMe :)). Spread this good news.

I bet this is the most effective option to reduce school shootings as "Teachers of this school are armed" signs all over the schools will discourage active shooters.

BTW, Angie Gallo in the video for gun control group response is off when she says teachers may not be "accurate" or "be able to shoot at all" as the expansion of the "Guardian Program" is voluntary and teachers go through training. To me, armed teachers shooting back and missing the active shooter but stopping the shooting is BETTER than unarmed teachers cowering with students and getting shot.

 
Last edited:
The presence of armed personnel at banks, jewelry stores or sporting/concert venues doesn't even evoke a second thought from most. But the second it's suggested we guard kids with as much vigor as we do money and entertainment, everyone freaks out. That's the part that has me scratching my head most days. However, I try to keep my mind open and considering the fact that a lot of schools won't even allow staff to put antiseptic on a kid's booboo, the issue with armed teachers all comes down to liability. And I get that. I have no problem with allowing teachers who are inclined to carry to do so, but I can certainly see why not everyone is on board with the concept.

More importantly, I see it as counterproductive for us gun folks to insist this is *the* solution because doing so tends to defeat our most common refrain regarding school shootings, that is that they are exceedingly rare (and they are). The same thing goes for the deterrent suggestion. Sure, it might change a person's choice of target if they think they're going to face returning gunfire. Then again, it might just change their tactics and methods instead. Once more, this is one of our common refrains, isn't it? Something along the lines of determined criminals will find a way to do evil even if they can't get their hands on firearms. Food for thought.
 
More importantly, I see it as counterproductive for us gun folks to insist this is *the* solution because doing so tends to defeat our most common refrain regarding school shootings, that is that they are exceedingly rare (and they are).

However, it is the only method that has been proven to work.


Then again, it might just change their tactics and methods instead.

It hasn't with trained terrorists,(they choose other targets instead) why do you think it would with maladjusted kids and adult loners? There are indeed more effective methods to accomplish mass murder, but not in a way that assures one will posthumously live on in infamy. If terrorists, who have other responsible for claiming responsibility for their crimes, and are willing to die for their cause, do not resort to such methods, why do you believe an infamy seeking individual will?
 
school shootings ... they are exceedingly rare
But if you are a teacher or a student, fear of school shooting IS REAL where school shootings can take place anywhere.

The presence of armed personnel at banks, jewelry stores or sporting/concert venues doesn't even evoke a second thought from most. But the second it's suggested we guard kids with as much vigor as we do money and entertainment, everyone freaks out.
And just like bank robberies will continue to occur even though banks are heavily armed, school shooting will continue (despite various anti-gun measures taken already) because just like violent adults exist, younger versions of violent adults also exist.

I see it as counterproductive for us gun folks to insist this is *the* solution
However, it is the only method that has been proven to work.
+1. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
I have no problem with allowing teachers who are inclined to carry to do so ... it might change a person's choice of target if they think they're going to face returning gunfire
You are correct.

New study done by Crime Prevention Research Center shows from 2000 to 2018, there has not been a school shooting at schools that allow teachers/staff to carry guns - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...llow-teachers-and-staff-to-carry-guns.857580/

"Schools that Allow Teachers to Carry Guns are Extremely Safe: Data on the Rate of Shootings and Accidents in Schools that allow Teachers to Carry

... if attackers don't know who is carrying a concealed firearm, they won’t know whom they need to attack first.

... There hasn’t been a single mass public shooting in any school that allows teachers and staff to carry guns legally. Since at least as far back as January 2000, not a single shooting-related death or injury has occurred during or anywhere near class hours on the property of a school that allows teachers to carry."

Spread the word and pressure your state law makers with this new study data.
 
Last edited:
It hasn't with trained terrorists,(they choose other targets instead) why do you think it would with maladjusted kids and adult loners? There are indeed more effective methods to accomplish mass murder, but not in a way that assures one will posthumously live on in infamy. If terrorists, who have other responsible for claiming responsibility for their crimes, and are willing to die for their cause, do not resort to such methods, why do you believe an infamy seeking individual will?

How many guns were used in the 9-11 attacks or against the Murrah building?
If I missed your point, please feel free to clarify.

The refrain in the gun community is that when you take away one means of committing violent acts, the individual will simply adjust technique. I think there's plenty of examples of this phenomena to be found which is why I agree with it. I'm not sure how you're arriving at your conclusion that terrorism isn't actually a great example of this diversity of means.
 
New study done by Crime Prevention Research Center shows from 2000 to 2018, there has not been a school shooting at schools that allow teachers/staff to carry guns

I can't read the study because the link sets off my antivirus. But judging just by your summary, the conclusion sounds rather specious. There hasn't been another 9-11 attack since the Patriot Act has been instituted. Cause and effect?
 
To reiterate, I'm not against the concept of having some staff be armed on campuses, but there's more to a security plan than just that. For instance, just limiting access points alone would greatly increase safety. Schools in my neck of the woods are fenced and gated to keep people from slipping onto campus undetected. It's not all that different than locking your doors at night, rather than just resigning yourself to have to shoot any unwanted intruders who effortlessly wander into your living room.
 
Indeed you mentioned two methods that are much more effective to use to commit mass murder. However, they involve planning and rehearsal (and often multiple individuals) to pull off successfully, plus as I mentioned, the psychology is very different. Terrorists (the political kind) are not after personal glory (at least in this world, some want a reward in the afterlife), active shooters are. They want their names plastered all over the news, terrorists don't care whether it is or not, as long as their political aims are furthered. Since it is not going to happen that a news vacuum surrounding such incidents is going to happen, terminating the attack ASAP with violence of action is going to be the only method of getting the point across that they will not rack up the body count, but only end up dead. Some "suicide by cop" types might possibly still try, but is it better to reduce their body counts, or hope it doesn't happen?

To reiterate, I'm not against the concept of having some staff be armed on campuses, but there's more to a security plan than just that. For instance, just limiting access points alone would greatly increase safety. Schools in my neck of the woods are fenced and gated to keep people from slipping onto campus undetected. It's not all that different than locking your doors at night, rather than just resigning yourself to have to shoot any unwanted intruders who effortlessly wander into your living room.

!00% agree. Controlled access, student drills, concrete barriers, etc. all have to be a part of a comprehensive plan to protect the future that is our children. Restructuring the curriculum is included in this strategy, as a real and ongoing threat to our children is the hijacking of the education system by progressives in the last fifty years.
 
New study done by Crime Prevention Research Center shows from 2000 to 2018, there has not been a school shooting at schools that allow teachers/staff to carry guns
judging just by your summary, the conclusion sounds rather specious ...I'm not against the concept of having some staff be armed on campuses

!00% agree. Controlled access, student drills, concrete barriers, etc. all have to be a part of a comprehensive plan to protect the future that is our children. Restructuring the curriculum is included in this strategy, as a real and ongoing threat to our children is the hijacking of the education system by progressives in the last fifty years.
FYI everyone, intent of this thread is to provide positive/pro-gun rights and pro 2A information and update news to "retrain" THR members and guests.

Really would appreciate continuing the arming of teachers/staff and school shooting discussions in my new thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...llow-teachers-and-staff-to-carry-guns.857580/

I will respond later this evening on the other thread as I am doing a "honey project" for wife this afternoon.

Thank you in advance!
 
Last edited:
There are some teachers in almost every school that would love to carry, but the people you have to convince are District administration and School Boards. These are usually well infiltrated by progressives who have been entrenched, often for generations.
 
Repost from another thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/‘take-weapons-of-war-off-our-street’.858098/#post-11271086


Let's not allow the antis to fool or trick us. ;)

The term "weapons of war" essentially means ALL GUNS as every type of firearm has been used in "battlefield": Musket, revolver, bolt action, lever action, magazine fed semi-auto, etc. :rofl: So whenever antis mention banning "weapons of war", they ultimately mean banning all guns, regardless of what they "claim" for the moment. :D

Think about it - End game for antis is to ban our liberty, starting with banning of all guns. Let's not forget that.


As to our judicial reality, since the legislative and executive branches have failed to uphold the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights "for the people" over the decades, it's the judicial branch, particularly the US Supreme Court, that has started to ENFORCE the Second Amendment "for the people". As justice Gorsuch clearly stated in this interview, it is the JOB of the SCOTUS to ENFORCE the Bill of Rights, "All of them" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/


With DC v Heller, the Supreme Court has already ruled "that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

And now we get to address the "Common Use" issue that includes auto loading firearms such as AR15, AK47, Mini14, etc. along with large capacity magazines originally and currently "commonly used".

Here's Cornell Law School explanation of 2A "bearing arms" post DC v Heller (As with US Constitution being "updated" with amendments to reflect modern times, so should our "arms" be updated to reflect modern/improved technologies as expressed in Caetano v Massachusetts) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2

"The Second Amendment ... civilians ... were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time... the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory. Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars—that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals ... Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.

... Subsequently, in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Court emphasized that, under Heller, the protections of the Second Amendment extend to firearms that were not in existence at the time of the Framers."

And to me, this means, for self defense against multiple armed intruders, the protections of 2A extend to firearms in common use like AR15s (which is the most popular long gun currently) using 30+ capacity magazines to reduce/eliminate the "lethal pause" that judge Benitez pointed out.


Here are two recent thread discussions why citizens need "modern" and "improved" technology arms:

As to nonsensical magazine capacity limit, with "common use" argument and CA failing to provide sufficient justification for "arbitrarily" picking a limiting number of 10 rounds (It could have been 7, 5, 3 or even 1, take your random pick. :eek:) prompted judge Benitez to write, "So, how did California arrive at the notion that any firearm magazine size greater than a 10-round magazine is unacceptable?

It appears to be an arbitrary judgment ... The State does not ... say why California (or any jurisdiction, for that matter) place the limit at 10 ... The significance of 10 rounds, however, is not addressed

... Federal law has no limit on permissible magazine size. In U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for firearm offenses ... a 'large capacity magazine' is defined for purposes of sentencing as a magazine 'that could accept more than 15 rounds of ammunition.'

A reasoned explanation or a considered judgment would tend to demonstrate why the 'fit' of a total ban on magazines larger than 10- rounds is reasonable or how the ban is narrowly tailored ... Surly, Turner deference does not mean a federal court is relegated to rubber-stamping a broad-based arbitrary incursion on a constitutional right founded on speculative line-drawing and without any sign of tailoring for fit
."


And judge Benitez calling magazines "arms" throws a big wrench in the states' push to limit magazine capacity for law abiding citizens when he wrote:

"... from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a 'lethal pause,' as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.

In other words, the re-loading 'pause' the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are DISABLED, or who have ARTHRITIS, or who are trying to HOLD A PHONE IN THEIR OFF-HAND while attempting to call for police help.

The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show ... lack of reasonable fit.
"


And I am dying to hear how CA state will respond when question is asked why the state government is not working to protect disabled, elderly citizens protect themselves from being victimized.

Government provides wheelchair ramps and large print publications etc. to help the disabled and elderly citizens. Limiting magazine capacity is not helping the disabled or elderly. Government should be helping the disabled and elderly citizens better protect themselves from victimization by providing even greater capacity magazines and higher rate of fire devices like binary triggers along with noise suppression devices.

"The district court in [Fyock v. Sunnyvale], found that 'magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds are in common use, and are therefore not dangerous and unusual.' ... The district court found that the large capacity magazines qualify as 'arms' for purposes of the Second Amendment." and ruled with judgement concluding, "Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are 'arms.'"

So, since the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written by the founders to ENSURE the RIGHTS of the MINORITY, yes "we, the gun owners" are the minority in need of protection by the government; it's high time all branches of the government work to protect the physically disabled/weak, smaller stature, elderly citizens, female, etc. defend themselves instead of banning guns.

And IMO, all this talk of gun ban is actually bringing gun owners from all walks of life together to vote against the antis in 2020 to ensure the judicial future of our gun rights/2A for decades and generations. :thumbup:
 
NONSENSE.

I used to be a Democrat. The Democrat party is now all in for racially invidious gun controls.

It would be simply ASININE for the NRA (and any thinking adult gun owner, for that matter) to support the lockstep, fanatically anti-gun Democrats.

I wouldn't support a party calling for the repeal of the 13tth Amendment. I'm sure not supporting one calling for repeal of the 2nd (and all too often the 1st, 4th, and 5th).

A gun owner voting for Democrats is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
 
Can we stop the click bait links!!

We want discussion and not media replays. Pure links will be deleted and warnings given.

Take this strong suggestion.
 
With Biden now leading the primary and his recent unscripted thoughts expressed during an exchange with a pro-gun/2A union worker, gun rights/2A could fast become front and center issue for 2020 presidential election.

Share this with everyone you know to pass onto other gun owners who will vote this year that are not Trump supporters, especially if they own AR15s, PCCs and other semi-auto carbines/rifles.

Fact Check: Joe Biden Claims He’s Not for Gun Confiscation calls Auto worker "You are full of Sh*t ... That's right, So AR-15s are Illegal!"



And remember when he said, "Bingo ... They should be illegal. Period."?

And during upcoming Trump vs Biden debates, this video along with a host of other anti-gun/2A videos will surface and Biden will have to explain what he said to a nation of angry gun owners.

What will he say to a rape victim who wants to protect herself at home with an AR15, PCC or semi-auto carbine/rifle like Ruger PC9?

 
Last edited:
A gun owner voting for Democrats is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
That may change for many voters this year.


Now even people who never owned a gun in their lives are buying guns during the coronavirus panic and they will quickly realize (Maybe even while they are filling out the paper work to buy the guns as told by gun store staff/other customers) that in order to keep their guns (AR15 and "ANY" capacity magazines, etc. they are buying), they must now choose law makers/presidents who are pro-gun/2A. :D https://www.yahoo.com/news/buyers-virus-fears-priority-isnt-184327709.html
  • He had never bought a gun before ... [and bought] two of them: 9mm Taurus handgun and AR-15 semi-automatic rifle
  • His motivation: the coronavirus
  • ... he fears that the virus could lead to a breakdown of public order, with looting and robberies
  • ... and "everything shutting down ... where society just won’t have any sense of lawfulness anymore"
  • Gun and ammunition dealers ... seen an influx of customers with similar concerns in recent weeks, creating a spike in sales as coronavirus anxiety spreads
  • Reports of firearms and survival gear flying off the shelves have been widespread, including in California, New York, Washington state, Alabama and Ohio. Photos on Twitter over the weekend showed lines around the block at one Los Angeles gun shop
  • Some dealers said an unusually high proportion of sales have been to first-time gun buyers
  • “People have a little lack of confidence that if something big and bad happens, that 911 might not work. We saw it with Katrina ... People haven’t forgotten that a disaster happened, and the government didn’t come.”
  • Checks through the FBI system leapt 36% in February compared to the same month last year, to a total of 2.8 million nationally - the largest year-over-year percentage increase in any month since July 2016.
  • Agency processed more background checks in February than it had done in all but two other months since it started performing the queries in the late 1990s.
When law enforcement and Nation Guard cannot provide law and order, like in so many previous natural/man made disasters (hurricanes, floods, fires, riots, etc.), people had to provide their own protection. And seeing viral videos of people becoming violent over toilet paper will make increasing number of voters, even Bernie Bros, become swing voters to vote for gun rights and the Second Amendment in November and beyond.


During the LA riots when law enforcement and National Guard were unable to provide law and order, many had to exercise their 2A rights to defend themselves - https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/koreatown-twenty-six-years-ago-the-guns-of-the-l-a-riots/

And there are many untold stories like this where even sympathetic police went against orders and allowed people to defend themselves - https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/...ho-confiscated-his-rifle-during-the-l-a-riots

"When he asked if [police] would be protecting the shop, they said no. 'Then you can’t take our weapons ...You’ll leave us sitting ducks.'

After looking him in the eye for a long time ... the policeman handed him back his rifle without saying a word."​


Many women surly armed themselves to protect themselves after recent hurricanes (Like Andrews and Katrina) having seen looting that followed along with rape and robbery when it took law enforcement and National Guard several weeks or more to re-establish law and order - https://journalistsresource.org/stu...crime-disaster-hurricane-earthquake-research/


And many store owners likely armed themselves after the Ferguson riot when police response was not readily available - https://m.riverfronttimes.com/newsb...-business-owners-some-armed-survey-the-damage


But the tide turned against the looters after hurricane Harvey as armed victims of hurricane rose up to exercise their 2A rights to defend themselves when law enforcement/National Guard could not provide law and order - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/43750...ms-stop-looters-impersonating-rescue-workers/


And we now have coronavirus with uncertainty of how things will play out.


One thing is certain, when law enforcement/National Guard cannot provide law and order, it is up to individuals to exercise their 2A rights to defend themselves and their families.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top