McKinney Firearms Training offers Texas Concealed Carry (CHL) classes and Handgun Training in McKinney and Plano. Dr Sandy Keathley, Principal Trainer, is NRA- and DPS-Certified.
Well, not exactly new. In keeping with my collection of Soviet-bloc Cold-war weapons, I recently acquired a 1953 Romanian TTC military sidearm. It is a semi-automatic, chambered in an unusual caliber: 7.62x25, the so-called Tokarev round. This cartridge, and the pistols that fire it, were developed in 1930 by a Russian engineer named Fedor Tokarev to replace the aging Nagant revolver. The Tokarev cartridge contains a .30 caliber bullet (smaller than a .32), but is much longer than a 9mm. The result is a bullet that develops a muzzle velocity of 1500 FPS, which is considerably more than a .45, and comparable to a .357 Magnum. I wouldn't recommend shooting a burglar in your apartment with this beast, as the bullet would go through the burglar, and probably through the adjoining wall!
Those of you who have studied wound ballistics will know that the most important factor in stopping power is not the size of the bullet (caliber), but the speed it travels. That's why a .357 Magnum has greater stopping power than a .45, even though it is considerably smaller.
After WWII, with the new political alignments in Europe, the Soviets "encouraged" their partners (including Romania, Poland, Hungary, and later, China) to build their own weapons, but using Russian models. The Romanian TTC is an exact copy of the Russian TT-33. The Romanians wanted to chamber it in 9mm, as that had become the de facto standard, but political factors forced them to adopt the Soviet standard, 7.62x25 (Russian combat rifles had used the 7.62x54 for decades). Tokarev ammo generally can't be bought off the shelf, but it is still made by some major European manufacturers (Sellier & Bellot and Prvi Partizan), and is readily available by mail and at specialty dealers.
This pistol is incredibly loud, and has significant recoil, as it essentially fires a small rifle round from a pistol, but the long, all-steel gun balances that recoil well. The accuracy is very good, and it fired 30 rounds flawlessly, but the gun will require a lot of break-in, as it has been arsenal-refurbished, and the trigger pull is very stiff. This would have been a very stout officer's sidearm, and lethal at a considerable distance. It came with a 1950s leather holster, with space for an extra magazine.
POCATELLO, Idaho — Derek Sommer carries a concealed handgun almost
everywhere he goes these days, including onto the campus of Idaho State
University — an illegal act until recently.
Under an Idaho law that took effect July 1, nearly 3,000 Idaho
residents with enhanced concealed carry permits — people like Sommer —
can bring their guns on college campuses. Sommer no longer leaves his
gun at home or in his car's locked glove compartment.
Idaho became the seventh state to allow "campus carry" in a movement
gaining traction across the country, despite the often strenuous
opposition of other students, faculty and campus administrators.
Spurred by recent high-profile campus shootings, grassroots groups
like Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) are pushing for the right to
carry weapons on campus, sometimes with the backing of larger gun rights
groups like the National Rifle Association.
For Sommer, 23, a computerized machining student who founded Idaho
State’s SCC chapter, carrying his handgun means protection for himself,
his wife McKinley, and their 7-month-old daughter, Andi.
“It makes me angry; it really does,” he said. “I don’t like the fact
that there are places where it’s considered OK to tell somebody, ‘You
don’t have the right to protect yourself.’”
For others, like Boise State University student Angel Hernandez, the
new law means less focus on learning and more on worrying about who's
packing a gun on campus.
“I went to Boise State to get an education; I didn’t go to Boise to go to a gun show,” he said.
Opponents of campus carry laws have saw mixed success of late.
Arkansans Against Guns on Campus got state lawmakers to exclude students
from a law letting faculty and staff bring concealed guns on campus if
their college grants permission. Attempts to start a Colorado referendum
to end campus carry there ended in failure.
Groups like SCC, meanwhile, have active chapters in at least 30
states, mobilizing as many as 30,000 students and faculty to support
laws and court cases favorable to the cause, said group spokesman Kurt
Mueller.
The group occasionally makes local headlines when members gather to wear empty holsters to promote campus carry — from Washington state to Michigan to Florida.
It operates with little funding, relying instead on volunteers and
social media for recruitment and chapter operations, Mueller said.
“We don’t have professional lobbyists,” he said. “We don’t pay
anybody to lobby. People do it for free because it’s what they believe
in.”
Victory in the West, Battles in the South
A News21 analysis of on-campus shootings found 87 of them, or 60
percent, have happened in the past decade. Campus carry supporters
nationwide said in interviews that the increase in shootings partly
influenced their desire to bring concealed guns on campus.
SCC formed after the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, the deadliest mass
shooting in U.S. history. Mueller argues an armed student could’ve
stopped the shooter without waiting for police to arrive.
“The confrontation would have ended a lot sooner,” he said. “Lives would have been saved.”
Campus carry supporters point to the legal doctrine of preemption,
which says only the state legislature can regulate guns in the state. No
other government in the state, such as cities and counties, can make
gun rules. Many states exempt K-12 schools and some public buildings
from concealed carry of guns.
Oregon, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi and Wisconsin — and now
Idaho — have laws on the books that allow students to conceal weapons on
campus.
The first state to finalize campus carry was Utah in 2006. University
of Utah continued banning guns on campus despite the state’s 2004 preemption
law. Two years after the law passed, a lawsuit against then-state
Attorney General Mark L. Shurtleff led to colleges allowing concealed
guns.
A 2011 lawsuit by a division of the Oregon Firearms Federation led to
a state court striking the Oregon state education board’s ban against
guns on campuses.
The victories are not complete. As in other campus carry states,
Oregon universities insist they can limit guns in buildings, and the
Oregon state board bans guns in event centers, classrooms and dorms.
In Utah, students may ask not to live with gun owners in dorms, and universities can ban guns from certain meeting rooms.
Kansas' 2013 campus carry law included an optional four-year delay
before licensees could bring concealed guns on campus. Arkansas’ law
allowing only faculty and staff to carry requires colleges annually
renew any on-campus bans.
The laws on campus carry in other states vary, from letting students
store guns in their cars to leaving policy decisions to the schools.
Colorado courts sided with SCC in 2010 and 2012, ruling the state’s
public universities and colleges must allow concealed weapons permit
holders to bring guns on campus. The courts said college gun bans
violated a 2003 state law giving the legislature sole gun regulation
control.
Colorado colleges still regulate guns in dorms, dining halls and
event centers. University of Colorado, Boulder, designated dorm space
for gun owners, but no students have requested it, said campus spokesman
Bronson Hilliard. In Colorado, concealed carry licensees must be at least 21.
SCC’s focus next year is Texas, Mueller said. As of September,
students could store guns in cars on campus. The group plans to have
members write and call state lawmakers to demand more places on campus
that allow concealed guns.
The law shouldn’t block licensed gun owners — including college
students — from carrying on campuses, Mueller said. In some places,
crossing the street could mean a law-abiding gun owner is now on campus
and breaking the law.
“If you’re responsible off campus, you’re going to be responsible on
campus,” Mueller said. “Likewise, bad people don't change. They’re bad
off campus, and they’re bad on campus.”
“We’re not interested in every college student carrying,” he said.
“There might be a lot of people who might never want to use or bring
their firearms. If that’s the case, that’s cool. We don’t think anyone
should have to exercise rights they don’t want to. But on the other
hand, we don’t think they get a veto over the rights of others.”
Encouraging students to own guns raises questions for some firearms researchers.
Crime research consultant Tom Gabor said he believes letting students
possess guns in more places is too risky and goes against dozens of
public health and criminal justice studies.
People in the 18- to 24-year-old age range are more impulsive and at
greater risk for suicide, said Gabor, who taught criminology at the
University of Ottawa for 30 years and studied firearms for 20 years.
Gabor cites statistics from a 1986 New England Journal of Medicine article —
an article contested by gun rights groups — that said for every one
time someone shoots and kills another in a home in self-defense, about
43 other home gun deaths result from suicide, murder or accident.
“People will thwart an attacker, but I imagine many more reports of death and disabling injuries,” he said.
He sees campus carry as a gun industry move to gain customers.
“It’s very mercenary, in my view, to profit at any cost and put young
people at risk in school,” Gabor said. “More people carrying, bringing
guns on college campuses, in public venues, grocery stores, makes people
feel more afraid than providing them security.”
Capitols and courts
Marion P. Hammer calls opposition to campus carry “nothing more than
an attempt to make gun-free zones, where murderers come on campus and
kill kids."
Hammer, a former NRA president and the organization's longtime
lobbyist in Florida, said that NRA will use the state’s preemption law
to push state legislators to authorize concealed carry on campuses.
“Students can't (carry) right now, but we’re going to fix that," said Hammer, one of 76 NRA board members.
On July 30, the Florida Carry lobby lost its suit against the
University of Florida over the university’s guns-in-cars policy and
whether colleges must let guns in campus-owned housing statewide. The
lobby will appeal, according to its website.
Florida Carry, which is unrelated to SCC, has a reputation for using
the preemption law to successfully sue cities, counties and colleges
over their gun bans. Last year, the lobby successfully sued the
University of North Florida to get guns allowed in cars on college
grounds.
The NRA led the campus carry effort in Idaho, where the NRA state
lobbyist was a regular at bill hearings. Though the NRA has been a major
player in Idaho and Florida, it usually takes a supporting role on
campus carry, NRA board member and former lobbyist Todd Rathner said.
“The NRA is a huge organization, and second to none in protecting gun
rights. It gets spread thin,” Rathner said. “There’s a need for these
(single-issue) groups. They help maintain focus.”
SCC and a grassroots group called Ohioans for Concealed Carry cited
Ohio's pre-emption law in a July lawsuit against Ohio State University
that seeks to allow campus carry there. The trial is expected to start
next year.
SCC has also threatened to sue Georgia after a letter from the state
attorney general’s office declared campus carry still illegal, SCC
Southeast Director Robert Eagar said.
The groups say campus carry is allowed by Georgia’s Safe Carry
Protection Act, which critics have called “guns everywhere.” The law,
which took effect July 1, allows permit holders to bring concealed guns
into K-12 schools, bars, churches and more.
Colleges fight back
For Hernandez, the Boise State student, campus is no place for guns.
“School should be a place where you learn, where you make something
better with your life," said the 24-year-old Hernandez, who wants to
teach civics when he graduates in two years. "It shouldn’t be a place
where you deal with the stress of a gun in the classroom.”
He is a member of the student government who joined other Idaho students to protest the campus carry law.
The students and other Idaho activists received guidance from Andy Pelosi, who challenges campus carry on a national level.
Pelosi, who is not related to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, started the anti-campus carry group GunFreeKids.org in 2008.
A series of campus carry bills following Virginia Tech and the 2008
Northern Illinois University shootings — in which 27-year-old former
student Stephen Kazmierczak killed five people and wounded 18 — caused
Pelosi to focus on higher education.
His group focused on Idaho and Georgia this past legislative year, he
said. Next year, he expects to help coordinate resistance to campus
carry in Texas.
Colleges that side with Pelosi fear on-campus gun theft, threats with guns and accidental shootings, he said.
“We really believe that college campuses are safe environments,
certainly safer than places off campus,” he said. “The educational
environment is very different than people’s homes, and that’s not a
place that guns should be carried.”
In Idaho, students and faculty who protested when Gov. C. L. “Butch”
Otter signed campus carry into law, said lawmakers ignored them and
listened instead to lobbyists and Idahoans who don’t work and live on
campus.
Boise State student body
President Bryan Vlok said he faced an uphill battle fighting campus
carry. Still determining what the law means for Idaho students, he joked
about putting bulletproof vests in the student government budget.
Student leaders organized a rally at the state Capitol, arranged
automated phone calls across the state and met with the governor’s staff
to say students overwhelmingly fear campus carry.
The new law only applies to holders of enhanced concealed carry
permits, not regular permit holders, who require less training and can
be 18 to 21 years old. But Vlok believes the requirements to get the
enhanced concealed carry permit are not enough to make someone
responsible or accurate.
Created last year, the license requires applicants take an eight-hour
class on gun use and fire 98 rounds in front of an instructor.
“The sad reality is … you don’t have to be accurate,” Vlok said. “In a situation like that, police officers are only 30 percent accurate in shooting. What does that make us? What does that make a student?”
Ross Perkins, a Boise State associate professor in educational
technology, criticized the campus carry movement in an opinion piece for
a local newspaper. He recalled witnessing the aftermath of the shooting
at Virginia Tech, where he worked and studied for about nine years.
Perkins can picture the school’s grounds that day. He felt the heavy
wind, heard the sirens and watched as responders rushed the first
victims out of Norris Hall. He was 38 at the time.
About once a year, he said, he visits the Virginia Tech memorial at night, when it’s quiet. He walks the semicircle of Hokie Stones,
rocks mined from Blacksburg quarries, reading the names of the 32
people murdered. He tells each person his or her life mattered.
“It’s also important for us never to forget, not just the names, but
the individuals who are behind those names and understand who they could
have been; who they were,” he said. “It’s something we all need to take
account for every day, just to remind us that life is a precious thing,
and for whatever reason it can go away.”
“I hope that it never happens again. But I said that in 2007, and how
many incidences can we now count that have happened since then,” he
said. “It’s stunning.”
But supporters of campus
carry say the Idaho opposition is a vocal minority led by Boise State
administrators. Idaho state Rep. Judy Boyle, a Republican and one of the
law’s sponsors, hopes to amend it to stop the university from exempting
the student union building.
“We’re talking about a Second Amendment right, a right to protect
your life or the life of someone else,” Boyle said. “That’s why we felt
it was important to give someone that ability.”
Now that Idaho State student Derek Sommer has that ability, he said
he wonders if he could use his weapon should someone attack him.
“In my dream world, we could help these individuals before anything
like this ever happens,” Sommer said. “Would I ever want to draw a gun
on somebody? I would hate that. I don’t know if I could live with myself
if I ended up taking somebody’s life, especially if it was somebody
troubled.”
While some people buying a first handgun may have learned to shoot without owning one (in the military, with family, or just taking a pistol class), it is likely that the majority of people shopping for their first gun are new to this world. The challenge for them is deciding what to buy, from the thousands of models available. They read articles, ads, and reviews online until they're cross-eyed, go to a gun shop or a gun show, and talk to friends. Everyone they ask, friend or dealer, has a different opinion. The dealer may recommend what he has in stock; the friend will recommend what he shoots, but he may not have shot that many pistols. They are all different; all have upsides and downsides. What to do?
Why do you want a gun? Many people will recommend that you first decide the purpose for a gun. Common answers are "home defense", "car/truck gun", "concealed carry", or even "protect sheep from wolves". One lady told me she liked to hike in rough country, where she might encounter wolves or even bears. Those are mostly good candidates for a handgun. Protecting sheep from wolves, not so much. I would get a stout 30 cal bolt-action rifle with a scope for that. Actually, I would use a 1943 Soviet sniper rifle, but that's just me.
Leaving that aside, the other reasons would steer you (or me) to different guns: a .357 Magnum revolver for the hiker, a 9mm or .380 sub-compact semi-auto for concealed carry, a .45 for the home, etc.
Learn to shoot first. I'm going to offer another, perhaps controversial, opinion. Small guns are more difficult to shoot for a beginner, for a variety of reasons. Light-weight guns, ditto. Larger calibers, like .40 cal or above, same answer. I would rather see someone get a full-size, fairly heavy 9mm pistol, maybe a 1911-style, one that is easier to shoot well. Learn to shoot it well, then, if the size is not appropriate for your purposes, get another. Does that mean getting two guns? Eventually, yes, I'm afraid so. The fact is, very few people have just one handgun, and many of the ones who do, have the wrong one (for them).
Over-achiever. Call me an over-achiever, but being able to hit a man-sized target at 5 yards is not good enough for me. My goal was to hit a paper plate at 15 yards, and a man-sized target at 25 yards. Once there, with longer guns, then time to reset that goal with shorter guns.
Larger guns help smaller guns. Having recoil problems with your pocket .380? The best answer is to borrow or rent a .45 for an hour. Then the .380 will seem easy. That is the whole point of this essay. Learn to shoot first, with a gun that helps you, even if it is not suitable for your purposes. Then leverage that experience on to a gun that is. You will find it a much flatter learning curve.
Texas is one of the more gun-friendly states in America (despite not having open carry), and the laws are probably very similar to many other states, but it may be useful to the traveler from outside Texas to have a quick synopsis of things of which you should be aware.
1. Weather
In the summer, it can be very hot. 105 is not unusual, and temperatures above 110 have been recorded. In 1980, Dallas had 40 days in a row that hit over 100 degrees. Wearing a suit or coat is insane, so have a backup plan for concealment. In the winter, you might expect (and get) temperatures in the 20-30 range, yet even in Feb you might see a sudden unseasonable warm spell of 75 degrees. When traveling, always have a backup plan.
2. Vehicles
Texas does not require a license to carry a gun in a vehicle, but with or without a license, it must remain out of sight. It does not have to be in a lock-box, but out of sight.
3. 30.06
This curiously numbered statute is the part of the Penal Code that allows any private business to declare themselves a gun-free zone. As to why anyone with a brain would do that is beyond me, but they exist. Almost all hospitals and surgery centers do post this notice, as well as Cinemark Theaters, Chuck E. Cheese restaurants, and a few others. Otherwise, it is not really common. Signs are sometimes seen that do not contain the exact verbiage required by the statute (sometimes not even close), but it is not well-advised to try to split hairs with police over this. Due to the way the law is written, you will probably still go to jail, at least overnight. Note: gun shows are almost always posted.
4. 51%
Any business that receives 51% of their revenue from the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption must post this sign. Carry is forbidden there, whether or not you are drinking. This is mostly bars. Some restaurants fall under this category, but most do not. Note that liquor stores, grocery stores, and convenience stores also do not, as their sales are not for on-premise consumption. They have to post a sign stating that unlicensed carry is a felony, etc., etc., but that does not apply to a license holder.
5. Off-limits by statute
These would be locations that are automatically off-limits, with no posted notice required. Some are mandated by Federal law, while others are state law. This includes
All schools and colleges, all levels (except parking lots, for non-employees)
Any location where school athletic events are staged, all levels
Federal buildings and Post Offices
Courthouses and court rooms (state or Federal)
Secure areas of airports
Places of execution (on execution days)
Voting locations (on election days)
Horse/dog race tracks that allow pari-mutual betting
Sporting events
Note that facilities owned by state and local government (other than courtrooms) CAN NOT be off-limits (the State Capitol, convention centers), except that government meetings can be posted by request.
Like most communities of like-minded individuals, the gun community has its own rules of protocol and accepted behavior. For obvious reasons, much of that revolves around shooting, much of which occurs at shooting ranges. While a range will always have a list of its rules for visitors to read, the legalese doesn't always translate well to the standards of behavior expected by many more experienced shooters. Range etiquette is not just rules, but behaviors that will help you avoid the disdainful glances from other shooters. After all, there are many things that are not illegal, yet are considered gauche.
There are some differences between indoor and outdoor ranges, so let's look at standards that are common to both, then break out the variances.
Always point the gun downrange.This is Job 1, but it's not always clear what it means. Of course, point it downrange when shooting, but also when not. Treat the muzzle like a needle on a compass that always points to magnetic North. Never allow the muzzle to point anywhere else, even when casing, uncasing, loading, unloading, racking, etc.
Keep your finger off the trigger. The big one. I see people at the range all the time (not just new shooters), racking the slide with their finger inside the trigger guard. That is dangerous, and perhaps the biggest mistake on the range. It can get you ejected.
Bring the gun to the range unloaded and cased. It won't go off in your range bag, but a mistake while uncasing a loaded gun could be a tragedy. Wait until you are on the line to load it.
Always use eye and ear protection. If you think this needs explanation, you are not ready to go to a range.
Keep all your stuff near you. If your range bag is several feet behind the line, you may end up carrying a gun to or from the bag. See the next item.
Never carry a gun away from the bench uncased. If trading guns with someone, leave the guns and trade lanes. In case of a malfunction, clear and case the gun before leaving with it. People do not want to see someone wandering around the bay with a gun at their side.
Never draw from a holster. Some ranges have special facilities for this, but most don't allow it. It can be dangerous, especially when re-holstering. Go out in the country to practice that.
Never shoot at someone else's target.Does that really have to be said? Evidently so.
Never shoot at the device that holds the target. Ditto. Paying for those repairs makes range fees go up.
Never bring to the range tracer ammo or ammo with steel cores.These are fire hazards, and have started major fires at ranges. Many Safety Officers check for this, but sometimes they get busy. Don't be an idiot.
Do ask for help.If you have a malfunction or jam, trouble with the target trolley, or just need to ask something about how your gun works, range personnel will always help. More than that, the shooter on the next lane will probably help. Gun people are very willing to assist others, to the extent that they can. By the same token, don't be offended if another user points out that you are doing something dangerous. Everyone needs to watch out for others on the line, in the absence of a Safety Officer.
Outdoor ranges.
While indoor ranges typically have targets that can be moved individually, on a trolley system, outdoor ranges generally have targets that have to be moved or replaced manually, by going ahead of the firing line. For safety, you must wait until the RSO (Range Safety Officer) calls a periodic cease-fire. At that time, you are expected to remove magazines, lock the action open, lay the gun down (pointed downrange) and step back several yards while the RSO inspects each weapon. Once that is done, the range will be declared "cold", and you can move downrange to replace or move targets. On returning, you have to stay away from the bench. When everyone is back, the RSO will declare the range "hot", and firing can commence. It is important to follow the RSO's instructions carefully and literally, else you will be corrected. That is embarrassing.
Range etiquette not difficult, and it is part of the discipline that is required to shoot safely among a group of people, and have fun at the same time.
I had a pistol class the other day. We spent time learning about handguns, how they work, safety rules, ammo, loading, cleaning, stance, grip, etc. After some dry-firing, we went to the range. There was a young woman in the class, who had never even held a gun, much less fired one, but she was given a semi-auto for her birthday, and wanted to learn about it the right way. I give her credit for that, as many people just go to a range, point, pull the trigger, and hope for the best.
Her gun was a polymer 9mm, so muzzle-flip was expected, especially for a new shooter. She was nervous, and intimidated by the range noise (indoor range). I was right at her elbow the whole time, and that helped. The first time she fired, she almost jumped out of her skin. The next few shots were trepidatious, and she was ready to go home. I let her sit out while someone else shot, then made her shoot again. The third time she came up, I gave her a choice of shoot one more time, or go home. She said "let's shoot!".
By the third time, she could shoot a 6-inch group at 3 yards, which, in my view, is pretty good for a brand new shooter.
She left feeling pretty good about herself, excited by the experience, and wanting more. Her comment, though, common for new shooters, was, "it wasn't what I expected." I told her, it's not like it looks on TV.
Thinking back on it, I can see how intimidating the first range experience can be. It was busy that day, crowds of people, some of whom knew where they were going. You have to go through several doors to get into the shooting bays. It was dark in there, and hot, and very loud. People were hammering away with all kinds of guns, brass was flying, the floor was littered, there were no RSOs evident. I'm surprised anyone would go to a range the first time without a guide to show them the ropes.
If you are a shooter, you know that shooting a gun is very empowering. It requires responsibility, and accurate shooting requires controlling all those factors that would distract from the goal: stance, grip, control, breathing, visual focus, mental focus. When you get all those ducks in a row, you feel that you have succeeded in controlling a device of unimaginable power, like defeating the dragon. With a high like that, who needs drugs?
A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned
the city’s total ban on residents being allowed to carry firearms
outside their home in a landmark decision for gun-rights activists.
Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. wrote in his ruling in Palmer v. District
of Columbia that the right to bear arms extends outside the home,
therefore gun-control laws in the nation’s capital are
“unconstitutional.”
“We won,” Alan Gura, the lead attorney for the Second Amendment
Foundation, told Fox News in a phone interview. “I’m very pleased with
the decision that the city can’t forbid the exercise of a fundamental
constitutional right."
Gura said he expects the District to appeal this decision but added, “We’ll be happy to keep the fight going.”
The decision leaves no gray area in gun-carrying rights.
Judge Scullin extensively referenced the Supreme Court decisions in
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) to
concluding “there is no longer any basis on which this court can
conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public
carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional
under any level of scrutiny.”
The court ordered the city to now allow residents from the District and other states to carry weapon within its boundaries.
Judge Scullin wrote that the court “enjoins Defendants from enforcing
the home limitations of [D.C. firearms laws] unless and until such time
as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent
with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second
Amendment right to bear arms.”
The defendants are the city government and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier.
This case has dragged in the courts for five years. Gura has twice
asked the federal appeals court to force Judge Scullin to issue a
decision. The five plaintiffs filed in 2009, and the case was argued
twice, most recently in Oct. 2012.
George Lyon, a D.C. resident and registered gun owner is one of the plaintiffs in Palmer.
“I am gratified that after a long wait our right to protect ourselves
and our families has been vindicated,” Lyon, a lawyer, said Saturday.
He urged Mayor Vincent Gray, a Democrat, and the Democrat-controlled
City Council to “swiftly enact a concealed carry law that protects the
rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves.”
Gray did not respond to request for comment.
A 20-year-old Dartmouth student says she may have to give up her Ivy
League dream and drop out of school because the prestigious college
won't allow her to carry a gun -- to protect herself against a predator.
Taylor Woolrich, a junior, says Dartmouth administrators told her
they won’t let her carry a gun on campus, even though she lives in fear
of a man who has been stalking her since she was a high school student
in San Diego.
“It’s absolutely unfair,” Woolrich said about her attempts to have
the school make an exception to its weapons ban. “It’s one of the
hardest things I’ve had to deal with.”
She filed a restraining order, but it did little to keep Bennett
away. Woolrich says he constantly harassed her during her first two
years at Dartmouth, stalking her on social media and sending messages in
which he “promised” to fly across the country to see her at college.
“I thought they were empty threats, but when I came home from school
last summer, he was at my front door within eight hours of my plane
landing,” she said. “That’s when I realized how serious it was.”
Woolrich and her family called the police, and Bennett was arrested. A
search of his car uncovered a slip noose, a knife, gloves and other
items.
Bennett is currently in jail in San Diego County, accused of
violating the restraining order and felony stalking, as well as other
charges. His next court date is Aug. 20. If convicted, his maximum
sentence would be four years.
Woolrich says she inquired about obtaining a permit to carry a
concealed weapon in California and learned that the minimum age to get
one is 21, though exceptions can be made under special circumstances.
She says the Sheriff’s Licensing Division told her she could qualify,
and she learned the same exception can be granted in New Hampshire,
where Dartmouth is located.
But Dartmouth administrators told her she was “absolutely not”
allowed to carry a weapon on campus. She says she tried to plead her
case and was told to speak with several campus officials, all of whom
provided little to no help.
“There’s no option. There’s no one to go to. They don’t want to hear my case,” she said.
Many colleges across the country have banned guns on campus to
prevent mass shootings and accidental shootings by irresponsible or
inebriated students. But the pro-gun rights Crime Prevention Research
Center, in a study published
on Monday, said there have been no reported problems or issues with
college-age permit holders on campuses in the nine states – Colorado,
Florida,Wisconsin, Utah, Pennsylvania,Oregon, Mississippi, Kansas and
Idaho – whose laws mandate that students and others be permitted to
carry concealed handguns on public college grounds.
“There’s this fear about the possibility of students causing
problems, but people talk about these things without actual examples,”
the center’s president, John Lott, told FoxNews.com. “By far, the safest course of action is to carry a gun for protection, especially for female victims.”
“[Woolrich] has legitimate concern,” he added. “There’s only so much a restraining order can do.”
Shooting a pistol accurately requires not only practice, but the right kind of practice. The fundamentals (stance, aiming, breathing, trigger work) still apply, but the type of target is also important. Any bullet that misses the exact bullseye is traveling at an angle to the desired plane; the further out the target, the greater the arc of that angle, and the greater the error. In basketball, a person might shoot better from the 3-point line than from the free-throw line, but that doesn't work with firearms. It is necessary, instead, to master the fundamentals at a short distance, and achieve consistently small shot groups, then move the target a little further out and repeat.
I often see shooters (sometimes new, sometimes not) at a range, shooting at a large zombie target at 5 yards. They put 20-30 holes in the target, and never have one closer than 3 inches to another hole. It looks like a shotgun pattern. They're having fun, and that counts for something, but the only thing they're getting better at is spending money.
If your goal is home or personal defense, then realize this: the odds of you ever having a crisis requiring a gun are slim, and if it does happen, it will only happen once. When and if that time comes, nerves, fear, and adrenalin will cause you to only perform at 70% of your ability, perhaps less. If you doubt that, ask any musician about their first recital! And that wasn't a life-or-death situation (although it seems so).
Consequently, your training needs to lead you to be an over-achiever. Use a bullseye the size of a paper plate, and work to get a small, consistent 3-5 shot group at 3 yards. Start there every time, then move out to 5 yards, 7 yards, 10 yards. That should be enough, but keep going anyway, to 15 yards. Once there, move the goal again, to 25 yards.
Why? If the biggest room in your house is 21 feet across, why would you need to be able to hit a 9-inch zone at 45-75 feet? Because if you can do it at all, then even under pressure, 21 feet will be easy. It's all about training.
I have said before, that many homeowners buy a gun (often without knowing what they need), shoot it twice at the range, then put it in a drawer and leave it for a year (or three). They think they are ready for an emergency. They're not.
If that SHTF (look it up) moment ever arrives, you have to have the attitude, and some of the training, of a combat soldier. That means automatically taking the stance, aiming quickly, squeezing, and taking multiple shots, without thinking too much about it. If you follow this training plan, you will be there. It's not a matter of days, but months, but you will be there.
I was going to write about target shooting today, but came to realize that today, gun owners are the targets. Consequently, I will have to stray off-topic again.
An editorial writer in the New York Times today suggested that, 100 years ago, the automobile (or horseless carriage) was a major public safety issue, and that the problem was mitigated not by banning cars, but by making them safer. Speed limits, driver's licenses, driver training, seat belts, and air bags all came into play to make cars safer through regulation. He would think that; liberals always want more government interference in our lives.
I am reminded that the great political philosopher Charles Krauthammer said, "liberals are in favor of letting you do whatever you want, as long as it is mandated."
The NY Times writer believes that making guns, like cars, safer, only requires benign actions like
requiring a type of background check that will, of necessity, require national registration
trigger locks
"smart" guns, that only respond to the owner's thumbprint
and, inevitably, home inspections by a Federal police
Here is my suggestion for additions to the Penal Code:
PC 101.635{5}{c} Upon suffering a home invasion, the homeowner or legal occupant of the premises will loudly announce to the alleged criminal(s), in both English and Spanish, the following disclaimer (verbatim):
You have illegally entered my domicile. Please wait while I find the key to my trigger lock. At that point, we may both begin to shoot. As you are the visitor, you may go first. What the editorial writer seems to have missed from his 9th grade Civics class, is that the Founders gave us the right to be armed, not primarily for self-defense, or even hunting, but as a defense to a government gone wild. They had already gone through that, with a British government that was out of control, led by a King who was widely believed to be mad (late in life, King George III did, in fact, descend into literal madness). Anyone who reads the history of the Constitutional Convention, and/or the Federalist Papers, will understand that the American colonists would never have ratified the 1787 Constitution unless it included a safety valve against government over-reach. That safety-valve was, in fact, the existence of an armed population. That has never been necessary, and I hope it never is, but it cannot be dismissed out of hand as a deterrent to an out-of-control Executive branch (don't get me started on the current administration).
I don't expect to ever have to take up arms against the government, simply because they reasonably believe there to be 100,000,000 guns in America, and they don't know where they all are.
In Germany, in the 1930s, the government asked for gun registration, "so we will know where they are in case of a national emergency." Once they knew where they were, they confiscated them in midnight raids. That was followed by making Jews wear a star so they could be identified. That was followed by putting them on trains to the death camps.
Every country in world history that has enacted gun registration has followed that with confiscation, so that only police, military, and criminals had guns. Look up Australia, Canada, and Cambodia.
The 2nd Amendment is not now, nor has it ever been, about hunting or sport. It is about keeping freedom.
