SB 229 passed in the conference committee, the Senate 38-10, and the House 75-24, and now goes to Governor Mike Pence for his signature. Yesterday was the last day the legislation could be passed, so it went right down to the wire. The substance of the bill is fairly straightforward and consists of three reforms. The first removes traps in existing law for legal gun owners, things like “roaming gun free school zones” that were created whenever school children went for an official function . . .
Second, people who legally have guns with them in their vehicle may pick their children up at school without breaking the law. They aren’t allowed to take their defensive firearms with them into the school, but if the bill becomes law they’ll be able to drive through or leave their gun in the car without committing a felony. The law would fix that by defining “schools” as the school buildings, excluding the parking lots.
The last reform concerns gun turn-in programs, commonly called “buy-backs” even though the people buying the guns never owned them in the first place. The law would prohibit public money from being used for the turn-ins. Also, if firearms come into the custody of a public entity, the entity must sell the guns (or parts), not destroy them wasting valuable assets. This reform has been vigorously opposed in the old media.
Update: the bill was amended to add the option of destroying firearms as a method of disposal of firearms that are confiscated.
Governor Pence hasn’t yet indicated where he stands on the bill. Stay tuned.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch
We need to get TTAG into every public school in the country, now. “For the children”.
I’ve read this phrase too many times in the past year, but this time it actually makes sense.
I have stated as much ever since I started researching firearms and training videos a year ago. I have no military experience. No law enforcement experience. No firearms training. I rely on common sense which I believe I have more of than 90% of the population. I am not against enrolling in a “combat” or “tactical” firearms class. I plan to do it and I look forward to it, but for the past year, I have been training myself and I go over scenarios and think about how I would react. I use logic, which in my case is the same as common sense. In a stressful situation, I feel that I will default to my natural reaction to a situation rather than react in a way that I was taught in a class. This quick no peek holstering technique that EVERY instructor that I have seen on the net teaches has been a hot topic with me. Being brand new with a gun, I still am very cautious with it. I hope this never wears off. Part of that respect for the destructive nature of my pistol, compels me, naturally, to holster my gun slowly, deliberately, carefully and if I need to, take a peek down at my hip to ensure that I don’t put a hole in my leg. These people (everybody) that say “keep your eyes on the target when you holster your pistol” are just looking for another “thing” to teach. To me, if you are holstering then the fight is over. It doesn’t take any more time to glance at your holster than it does to do a slide lock mag change and in that case, you are assuming the fight is still ongoing.
Caveat: Moose Cock. Pat Rogers is the man.
EDIT: For those who do not know what Im talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUHm34hksac
.177? “But, its all about shot placement” 🙂
I’m voting for Rob… and I’m extremely supportive of Open carry and I understand the case law behind it, the so called “loopholes” in many states like NV, NE, MI, OH etc. I’m also happy for the unintended positive reinforcement that has been done to the 4th Amendment (another endangered right) due to open carry.
If it’s fair to blame OC’ers and lump them all in the same basket then one must agree that AK-47’s have no place in California or society because of what Patrick Purdy did. It’s amazing how people view things in a collectivist lens when they don’t like something, but when they do like something, they are as individualistic as possible (ie. not all gun owners are criminals or killers etc.)
How many MRAPs does Litchfied, PD own?
I really like the idea of being able to notify your attorney, friends, news media, etc., with a pre-recorded message announcing a SWAT attack. It says in the post it’s not available for I-phones. What DOES it work on? Just academic for me, since all I have is a stupid phone, but something like this might be enough to drop a few bucks, if it does become available for phones. It’s not that useful if you have to turn on the lights and locate and boot up your main computer to use it. You need to be able to snatch up your phone from the bedside table and push that button in seconds.
Pardon my un-techie old-fartedness, but can the “authorities” really kill cell phone service that easily?
When you are confronted with an officer of the government you have only two options. One: You can work within the guidelines of the system. You can obey, and petition for the redress of grievances, you can pursue all the legal and non-violent options open to you. Two: You can reject the system, remove yourself from it’s confines, and through violent means attempt to replace it with one you approve of.
The thing to be aware of, is that as long as you remain within the system, you retain the option of choosing the other option in the future. But it doesn’t work the other way.
The moment you step outside the system, you cannot choose to return to the process. You are no longer a citizen of the United States. You do not any longer have legal protection. Your right to take this step is affirmed in the Constitution, but this is where the Constitution ends. There is no more Constitution for you. This is the “Nuclear Option.” You are a traitor now. There is no such thing as “unreasonable search and censure. You do not have any property rights. If you succeed in you endeavor you may set up whatever new system you choose. Until then, you are not within any system.
This is why, as the Founders said, it is the nature of humanity to endure the system as long as possible. Because as long as you do, the choice of escalation is in your hands, and you can achieve an end short of the destruction of the current system, and the establishment of a new one.”
There. Better? Or shall we do the mutual growling about who “really” believes in liberty again? Sheesh.