Figuring out which firearms are and are not legal to own in MA is pretty easy (albeit stupid). Figuring out which magazines are and are not legal to own in MA is much harder. Let’s start off with the easy parts:

1. Anything with a capacity of 10 rounds or less . . . → Read More: Gun Ban]]> JayG posts about the restrictions in Massachusetts:

Figuring out which firearms are and are not legal to own in MA is pretty easy (albeit stupid). Figuring out which magazines are and are not legal to own in MA is much harder. Let’s start off with the easy parts:

1. Anything with a capacity of 10 rounds or less is fine;
2. Anything with a “Law Enforcement Only” stamp is not fine;
3. Anything over 10 rounds that did not exist prior to 1994 is not fine (i.e. S&W M&P normal capacity magazines).

Anything outside of these parameters gets significantly more difficult. Take Glock, for example. The magazines they manufactured in 2005 look very similar to those manufactured in 1993. SigArms mags are very much the same. Ditto aftermarket magazines for the Ruger 10/22. There’s probably hundreds of thousands of magazines available for AR-15 and AK-47 based rifles that fall into the “pre-ban” category by several decades; heck, rifles like the M1 carbine haven’t had magazines made since well before the ban (not USGI at least). [click the link above for the full thing]

As we all know, that is pretty ridiculous. What difference does it make if the magazine (or the firearm) was made in 2005 rather than 1993? Is the 2005 model somehow more deadly or dangerous? I just don’t understand the way the anti-gun crowd thinks.

Oh and on behalf of JayG, let me say: go to hell Mitt Romney!

With this greater freedom however – there is a very important thing that should not be . . . → Read More: Training]]> Yesterday, Arizona’s Constitutional Carry law went into effect. This law reestablishes the right to keep and bear arms. It allows Arizonans who are lawfully able to own a firearm, to carry their firearm discreetly with out the need for a permit.

With this greater freedom however – there is a very important thing that should not be overlooked. Responsibility. Now, many Arizonans have been exercising their Second Amendment rights for some time, and are no stranger to the responsibility needed to go along with owning firearms – but there are many people who may now be carrying firearms who never did before.

Just this last weekend I was visiting a gun store in Payson Arizona when a couple came in asking “what will women be carrying in their purses now with this new law”. During their conversation with the shopkeeper it became very clear that while she had had experience with firearms – she had no notion of carrying one daily before now.

To get to my point: got a gun? Get some training. You owe it to yourself, and your neighbors to learn how to operate the firearm you are about to start carrying. Familiarize yourself with the gun laws in this state. Learn what you can and can not do and where you can and can not go.

There are many reputable training facilities and instructors in this state. Ask at your gun shop, or ask me.

From Fox News:

SEASCALE, England — British police say a taxi driver went on a shooting spree across rural northwestern England, killing 12 people and wounding 25 others before turning the gun on himself.

Obviously guns . . . → Read More: They Should Ban Guns in the UK]]> I know I am a tad bit late to the party with this one but I’m going to link it anyway.

From Fox News:

SEASCALE, England — British police say a taxi driver went on a shooting spree across rural northwestern England, killing 12 people and wounding 25 others before turning the gun on himself.

Obviously guns should be taken away from the citizens of that fine country.

Wait, what? Already banned you say?

Maybe if someone else was armed with something other than a stick, they could have stopped this jackass before he took out so many people?

Bah, I forgot – defending yourself in the UK will get you thrown in the clink.

Gloria DiCenco was chatting amiably with a few Italian speakers at Beyond Bread on North Campbell Avenue on April 20 when armed men began coming in.

First there were two, then more. Finally, maybe 20 people carrying holstered guns and, in some cases, ammunition, arrived and . . . → Read More: OMG THEY HAVE GUNS!?]]> Gunburger.com makes the local paper and the normal anti-gun panty wetting follows:

Gloria DiCenco was chatting amiably with a few Italian speakers at Beyond Bread on North Campbell Avenue on April 20 when armed men began coming in.

First there were two, then more. Finally, maybe 20 people carrying holstered guns and, in some cases, ammunition, arrived and ordered food, DiCenco said. A hush fell over the restaurant, she said, and her group’s happy mood turned tense. [Full Article]

Make sure you read the full article and the comments, if you can stomach it.

For those who have not heard of Gunburger.com: Gunburger is a website that was started by an Arizonan who wanted a database showing where gun owners were able and not able to exercise their rights. It has since gone national.

The War on Guns has a recent bit about it.

The Charlotte Convention Center does not allow the carrying of firearms, both . . . → Read More: The NRA Convention – No Guns Allowed]]> Random Acts of Patriotism points out that you can’t carry your firearm inside the NRA Convention this year, due to the policies of the venue it is being held in. One of the commenters there emailed the NRA and got the following in response:

The Charlotte Convention Center does not allow the carrying of firearms, both open and concealed.
The large size of our event and the fact that many of the largest convention centers are in some of the most restrictive cities leaves us with relatively few convention centers large enough to accommodate the Annual Meetings. In an effort to provide all NRA members a better opportunity to attend the Annual Meetings, it is important that we move the event around the country as much as possible. While we will not consider bringing the Annual Meetings to a city with gun laws we feel are restrictive, we must however deal with convention centers that have restrictions simply because there are so few convention centers that both allow conceal carry and are large enough to host all of the events that comprise the Annual Meetings.

I do understand that an organization as large as the NRA needs to try to be accommodating to all its members, and finding a venue that is large enough could be an issue in some areas of the country, however I believe that standing up for what you are fighting for should take top priority. This is a good example of why I have not renewed my membership to the NRA. Lately it seems like they’ve been picking and choosing the battles that are convenient for them, and will throw something else under the bus because its not easy.

PS: Mr. Wayne LaPierre: Stop sending me letters asking for money. You’ll get it when I feel the NRA is worthy again.

Jim Gibbs with Shooter’s World worries that if this law passes, there could be a whole group of people carrying concealed weapons who may not use them responsibly.

“Now all of a sudden you have a bunch of people carrying guns and they are . . . → Read More: Another Industry Guy Against Constitutional Carry in AZ]]> An article out of Phoenix has some statements from Jim Gibbs at Shooters World:

Jim Gibbs with Shooter’s World worries that if this law passes, there could be a whole group of people carrying concealed weapons who may not use them responsibly.

“Now all of a sudden you have a bunch of people carrying guns and they are going to be carrying where they are not supposed to be,” says Gibbs.

News flash, Arizonans might have already been carrying guns openly with out any training, what difference does covering it up make?

Add another to the list of gun stores I wont visit.

- Why shop where you and your family must be disarmed?

- Why remove your firearm, and put yourself and your family at risk, for the privilege of dining or shopping in another person’s business?

- WHY?

Gunburger.com is a website dedicated to informing its users what local restaurants and other businesses allow . . . → Read More: Gunburger.com]]>

- Why dine where you’re not wanted?

- Why shop where you and your family must be disarmed?

- Why remove your firearm, and put yourself and your family at risk, for the privilege of dining or shopping in another person’s business?

- WHY?

Gunburger.com is a website dedicated to informing its users what local restaurants and other businesses allow or don’t allow a patron to carried concealed in their building. It currently has listings for Phoenix and Tucson Arizona, as well as Wichita Kansas, Minneapolis Minnesota and Pasco Washington. There is also an opportunity to add your city to the database on the site provided you can moderate it and its associated facebook page.

Check em out.

If you have been following the progression of this bill, you would have . . . → Read More: Another Firearms Instructor Throws the Constitution Under the Bus]]> As you may know, the Arizona State Legislature has passed a bill that allows people in Arizona to carry a concealed weapon with out a permit. This bill is now sitting on the governor’s desk and will likely be signed in the coming week.

If you have been following the progression of this bill, you would have seen that this has quite a few folk scared. There have been comments about our state returning to the “Wild West”, and others comment about blood running in the streets. There has been the normal “but what about the children!?” arguments as well. But, there is one thing that I never thought I’d see, and that is people in the gun industry, speaking out against the bill.

You may recall a post here about the Insight Firearms Training School, and their campaign to get no votes on Constitutional Carry. Now it seems that The Marksman Pistol Institute is following in similar suit. From an article talking about carrying on college campuses and the Constitutional Carry bill:

Universities and community colleges do not like the idea of a faculty member, with very little training being put in a dangerous position.

Plus, they warn of the danger for police.

“And the last thing they need to do is come through the door and not know who the bad guy is,” says UA Police Chief Anthony Daykin.

Daykin testified against the bill before an Arizona Senate Subcommittee Wednesday.

“We’re not against people carrying their weapons. We’re not against CCW (concealed carry weapons ). We’re not anti Second Amendment. We are pro safety,” Daykin says.

But there are people who think faculty carrying concealed weapons in classrooms is a good idea.

“Why should it be just professors? Why not everyone out there who has the right under the state constitution and federal constitution to carry a firearm,” says Marksman Pistol Institute Chief Instructor Jim Stover.

But, Stover has a major concern.

“I’d like to see at least 40 hours of training,” he says.

Right now Arizona’s concealed weapons training requirement is only eight hours.

Both Stover and Daykin say that’s not nearly enough.

Both are worried Arizona may lose even that requirement under another bill going through the legislature.

The bill would not require any training at all to get a concealed weapons permit.

“That’s going a bit too far, in my book,” says Stover.

“Somehow there is an expectation by sponsors of bills and supporters of these bills that those people are now somehow magically capable of defending themselves and others in a very critical situation,” says Daykin.

But people were magically capable of doing it as long as the weapon was worn in plain sight? I think you are going a bit to far, Mr. Stover. Now I agree that training is vital, but the way our laws are written is asinine. As long as I can pass the NICS check, I can go out and by a pistol legally. I can wear that same pistol on my hip in plain sight with no training requirement – but if that pistol becomes covered up by my shirt or a jacket, all the sudden I need training? Why weren’t you pushing for training, regardless of carry method?

Now in another article that was just published yesterday, Mr. Stover has more to say:

State lawmakers have passed a new gun bill that could soon allow you to carry a hidden gun without a concealed weapons permit. But not all gun rights advocates support this gun rights law. Jim Stover says, “would I say to a police officer here’s your badge here’s your gun go out and defend my life without any training, absolutely not.”

Under the new gun law, gun owners would no longer have to complete the mandatory eight hours of safety training. Stover, a gun safety instructor says, “I’m now unsafe because if somebody is out there who is untrained with a firearm takes a shot at a potential bad guy and misses I may be the target that that bullet hits. Training is necessary.“

Once again I must reiterate that I could walk into Mr. Stover’s store, buy a gun and walk out with it on my hip in plain sight with no training. My shirt covering the gun puts you in no more danger than if its not covered.

It seems to me that the real outcry is coming from a fear of less revenue due to the possibility that less people will come take your class – but what you’re playing with here are peoples rights. The Constitutional Carry bill is one more step forward in restoring our right to keep and bear arms as it should be. Please don’t get me wrong, I believe in the free market, making money, and getting the proper training to handle a firearm – but I don’t believe its you or anybody else’s place to require that training. Rather than decry this bill, why don’t you support it – and then ramp up your marketing efforts to show the importance of getting inside your facilities to get the proper training? As it is now, I wont set foot in your facilities ever again, nor recommend your services to anyone. There are many other stores and instructors in this town who believe in the Constitution and our right to keep and bear arms.