The Legion

Removed

You will love your Glock 17 Gen 4.  I had one when they first came out, but sold it to fund another project.  I missed that gun and recently purchased another Glock 17 Gen 4 from another TGO member. Great gun this one will be a keeper.  Enjoy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/us/as-states-expand-gun-rights-police-join-opposition.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0     GULFPORT, Miss. — Guns in bars. Guns in airports. Guns in day care centers and sports arenas. Conservative state lawmakers around the country are pressing to weaken an array of gun regulations, in some cases greatly expanding where owners can carry their weapons. But the legislators are encountering stiff opposition from what has been a trusted ally: law enforcement. In more than a dozen states with long traditions of robust support for gun ownership rights, and where legislatures have moved to relax gun laws during the past year, the local police have become increasingly vocal in denouncing the measures. They say the new laws expose officers to greater danger and prevent them from doing their jobs effectively. “We are a gun society and we recognize that, but we should be writing gun laws that make us safer,” said Leonard Papania, the police chief in Gulfport, Miss., who opposes part of a new state law that creates exceptions to the rules for concealed-carry permits. “Do you want every incident on your street to escalate to acts of gun violence?” Mississippi’s measure, signed into law in April and pushed mainly as an effort to allow worshipers in church to arm themselves, is one of several that have passed in recent months. West Virginia and Idaho have approved laws allowing people to carry concealed handguns without a permit or firearm training — and, in many cases, without a background check. Texas has given residents the right to carry handguns openly. Oklahoma appears set to pass a similar measure in the next several weeks. During the past year state capitals have emerged as a fierce battleground when it comes to guns. Gun control groups have challenged and sometimes even outflanked the powerful National Rifle Association in the states, but gun rights advocates have won numerous victories in relaxing restrictions. There has long been a tension between the interests of law enforcement and the efforts to roll back gun regulations, but the conflicts are becoming more frequent as gun laws are expanded, particularly in states with permissive policies. Police officers in Maine and Texas have described coming across people displaying their weapons near schools and libraries, daring anyone to call the police and challenge their newly won rights.   Several states, including Georgia, Arizona and Michigan, have enacted laws that prohibit the police from destroying firearms that have been used in crimes. Instead, the weapons must be sold to licensed dealers or to the public at auction.   Despite the current conflicts, police officers and gun rights advocates have long been largely on the same side of the national debate over guns. But police departments have insisted that gun owners be required to receive training, as their officers do, and that people with violent histories, who are more likely to clash with the police, be blocked from obtaining weapons. The recent legislation, including “constitutional carry laws” — which typically eliminate the police’s role in issuing permits or questioning people who are openly armed — has frayed the alliance. “What is alarming to the police is that they have no power to ascertain the potential criminal background of an armed individual until a crime is committed, and by then it is too late,” said Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, an advocacy group. The objections to these laws are not only about officer safety. Law enforcement officials also argue that creating more exceptions to gun regulations will impede investigations. The discovery of an unpermitted weapon typically gives officers probable cause to conduct searches, but some of the new laws could take that option away. In some cases, this has upended longstanding political dynamics, with traditional law-and-order conservatives, who are championing the new gun laws, questioning the tactics of police officers as overly aggressive. “I believe they’ve got some merit to their concerns,” said Ken Morgan, a Mississippi state representative who backed the state’s new law, which allows people to carry holstered weapons without a permit. But Mr. Morgan, a Republican, added that the police were overstating how much the measures would affect the way they pursued investigations. “A lot of times they don’t consider their own discretion,” he said. The N.R.A., which supports the new laws, said opponents of the measures sought to harm people’s ability to defend themselves. “These laws simply protect and expand the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right to self-protection,” said Jennifer Baker, an N.R.A. spokeswoman. “Gloom-and-doom predictions of Wild West scenarios in states with strong gun rights have proven time and again to be nothing more than scare tactics.”   In Mississippi, law enforcement officials said that they had learned of the new law only when it was heading toward passage in the State House of Representatives, and that attempts to negotiate the language in the bill — particularly the section expanding exceptions for concealed-carry permits — had been mostly unsuccessful. The police said that N.R.A. members across the state had received fliers accusing law enforcement of allying with Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor who is one of the nation’s most visible gun control advocates. Another challenge for opponents was that the law, despite containing multiple parts, was widely identified as a church security measure. The success of such a law in a conservative state like Mississippi was practically preordained, they said. Law enforcement officials in the state said the political power of the gun rights lobby had overwhelmed their calls for caution. “We’re advocating the safety for our police officers, but on the other side you have the N.R.A. and other special interest groups that say, ‘If you’ll do this, we’ll endorse you and make you look good,’ ” Ken Winter, the executive director of the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police, said of his efforts at lobbying in the Legislature. “We don’t have anything to offer them other than good advice.” Local law enforcement agencies opposed to enhancing gun possession rights have generally lost the recent legislative battles. Maine enacted a law last year allowing people to carry concealed weapons without a permit or training, despite the objections of Michael Sauschuck, the police chief in Portland, the state’s largest city. “It is absolutely ludicrous to me that we require people to go take a test to get a driver’s license, but we are allowing people to carry a deadly weapon on their person without any procedures regulating it,” Mr. Sauschuck said. There have been some victories for the police, however. Law enforcement officials in California last year helped win approval of a law that allows the police to seize weapons from someone for 21 days if a judge determines that person has the potential for violence. And the police in Ohio have so far stalled a bill that would allow people to carry guns inside police stations, airports and day care centers.   In Texas, where concealed handguns will be allowed in university classrooms beginning on Aug. 1, law enforcement officials won a surprise victory last year after Art Acevedo, the police chief in Austin, held a news conference where he was flanked by law enforcement leaders from across the state. His message to conservative Republican lawmakers, who were seeking to limit police officers’ authority to question people with firearms as part of the state’s open-carry legislation, was blunt. “You can’t be the party of law and order and not listen to your police chiefs,” Chief Acevedo said. The Legislature ultimately approved the open-carry bill, which went into effect in January, but voted down the amendment curtailing the police’s power to ask questions.  

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/02/california-lt-gov-newsom-lawmakers-on-collision-course-over-gun-control.html?intcmp=hpbt2   Published May 02, 2016 FoxNews.com California’s Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Democratic lawmakers appear to be on a collision course over a new round of gun control measures. Newsom, claiming lawmakers are dragging their feet, is collecting thousands of signatures in pursuit of a gun initiative ballot measure in November. But lawmakers say they’re planning to address these issues via legislation, and the initiative could hurt what they’re doing. Critics also say the proposed California ballot initiative contains a wide variety of restrictive, costly and unreasonable gun and ammunition control measures. The proposed “Safety for All As of 2016” initiative has 600,000 signatures from California residents, nearly double the number required to be included on the November ballot, Newsom told the Los Angeles Times. He added that what the initiative proposals have in common is “that over the past number of years they have suffered the fate of either being watered down or rejected by the Legislature.” The signatures still must be validated. But leading lawmakers, including Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon, say they are working to address these issues legislatively. In addition, the mandate is extremely difficult to change and will be the subject of a hearing at the Capitol in Sacramento Tuesday. “California's legislative leaders are busy considering crime bills, while Newsom is circumventing them,” said Michele Hanisee, president of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, in a written statement and interview with FoxNews.com. “The only way we're going to make progress against violence is through a cooperative effort of law enforcement, legislators, the private sector, and individual citizens who can take some responsibility for their own safety. Self-serving political schemes like Newsom's initiative will only set us back.”  The initiative “carries multiple proposals that were either killed by the Legislature as not workable or vetoed by the governor,” Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, told the LA Times. “Newsom has collected failed policy issues from the Legislature and put them up as an initiative. It’s going to be a massive effort to defeat him,” Paredes said.  Local law enforcement, including Hanisee and the California Sheriffs Association, claim law-abiding gun owners and law enforcement will suffer if the initiative passes, while criminals will be empowered. “California's law enforcement officers and prosecutors responsible for fighting criminals and terrorists need more tools to fight crime. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom's new ballot initiative gives us less,” Hanisee said, adding the proposal is a “rehashed patchwork of impractical, tried and failed ideas that will not help law enforcement to combat crime or terrorists.”  Last year, crime in Los Angeles rose by more than 12 percent, and while law-abiding citizens are limited in protecting their families, the lieutenant governor travels with armed bodyguards, Hanisee noted. California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, but Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told FoxNews.com that California lawmakers appear to be in a contest to determine “who can be the most anti-gun rights.”  “California Democrats will not be happy until there is total firearm prohibition," Gottlieb said.  The ballot initiative, according to its website, would make five major changes in California’s gun laws if approved by voters. These include prohibiting possession of large-capacity military style magazines. But Hanisee said the only way to enforce this law is by “pulling police from the streets and putting them into the homes of people who pose no threat.”  The initiative would also require ammunition sales to be treated like gun sales, requiring the seller to conduct background checks for all ammunition purchases.   “The centerpiece of Newsom's proposal would require a license to sell, and a background check just to buy, a box of ammunition,” Hanisee said. “This would require the creation of another complicated, expensive and inevitably flawed database, which California officials will be unable to effectively maintain. New York already tried this approach, abandoning it after wasting millions of public dollars.”  Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., an economist and world recognized expert on guns and crime who founded and heads the Crime Prevention Research Center, a research and education organization dedicated to conducting academic quality research on the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns, crime, and public safety, called the initiative “racist.”  “The question is who are you stopping from owning a firearm or getting hold of ammunition – in this case it is law-abiding, poor blacks and Hispanics who won’t be able to afford the cost of ammunition, which will rise with the cost associated with required background checks for ammunition purchases.” Another provision would require law enforcement to collect firearms from those who were convicted of felonies or violent misdemeanors, and to share data with the federal systems related to anyone prohibited from owning a firearm. And yet another provision requires lawful gun owners to report their lost or stolen guns.  Evan Westrup, spokesman for Gov. Jerry Brown, maintained the governor has not taken a position on this initiative and generally doesn’t comment on pending ballot measures. But in 2013 the governor vetoed a proposed reporting of stolen or lost firearms, saying he was “not convinced that criminalizing the failure to report a lost or stolen firearm would improve identification of gun traffickers or help law enforcement disarm people prohibited from possessing guns.” Brown added, “I continue to believe that responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not."   Lott said many of the claims by Newsom and the Safety for All ballot initiative website are inaccurate, something that also drew the attention of Politifact, the independent fact-checking organization that won a Pulitzer Prize for calling out politicians' false claims. “Politifact called Newsom's rhetoric "mostly false” and said he used “pseudo data” that is “out of context and is done in a way which is calculated to cause confusion,” Hanisee said.   Many campaign organizers claim Newsom is heading up the effort because of political ambition.  "Newsom has resurrected failed policy initiatives in a too-obvious resume-builder for his governor's campaign,” said Willes Lee, president of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies.   But Newsom maintains on the initiative’s website that changes are needed to keep Californians safe.  "With 150 school shootings since Newtown and many more mass shootings devastating communities across our state and nation, it is time to say enough is enough," Newsom wrote. "The Safety for All initiative will save lives by making it much harder for dangerous people to get guns and ammunition in California."

There will be an IDPA and Classifier Match at Memphis Sports Shooting Assoc. this Saturday (4/9).  The classifier will be shot as a second gun.   Walk Through at - 9:30am   $10.00 - For MSSA Members $12.00 - For Non-Members   There may be a cost for the Classifier also.  I will check and post later.  Thanks

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/24/this-double-barreled-handgun-folds-up-to-look-like-smartphone.html?intcmp=hpff Published March 24, 2016 Digital Trends Created by a Minnesota company called Ideal Conceal, the first product created by the startup is a handgun that can be disguised as a smartphone inside a case. Built into a single frame, the grip of the double barreled, .380 caliber pistol folds down and locks into place when opened. When closed, the trigger and trigger guard are completed covered by the grip, thus offering up the appearance of a standard smartphone case. There's also a clip to attach the handgun to a belt, but in the disguised smartphone form. Similar to the size and shape of a smartphone, the folded Ideal Conceal can be easily slipped into a pants pocket or purse when not in use. Of course, anyone carrying the pistol will need to check state and local laws related to concealed carry regulations. All 50 states have passed regulations regarding carrying concealed firearms, some of which require a permit from the government. Detailed on the company site, the creator of the pistol writes "The idea for Ideal Conceal follows the present-day demand for handguns that people can carry on a day to day basis, in a manner that makes carrying a gun easy to do. From soccer moms to professionals of every type, this gun allows you the option of not being a victim." At this time, the pistol is still being developed by Ideal Conceal and isn't in production as of yet. The creator of the smartphone-styled handgun, Kirk Kjellberg, believes the the pistol will be available by mid-2016 and has set a $395 MSRP for the weapon. Detailed within an interview with CNNMoney, Kjellberg has already received roughly 2,500 emails from people that want to purchase the pistol. Assuming all interested parties purchase at least one pistol, that would generate nearly one million in sales for the company in 2016.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/03/21/supreme-court-stun-gun-second-amendment/76313848/     WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously reversed a Massachusetts court that had upheld banning stun guns, giving proponents of gun rights at least a temporary victory. The justices ruled that the state court's reasons for upholding the law conflicted with the Supreme Court's 2008 decision upholding the right to bear arms for self-defense -- a ruling written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in 2008. The challenge, filed by a woman who was arrested for carrying the weapon in her purse for protection, now gets new life. But rather than hearing the case themselves and potentially striking down the ban, the justices sent it back to the state's Supreme Judicial Court. They reasoned that their own landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were meant to protect even firearms "that were not in existence at the time of the founding." However, they stopped short of a blanket endorsement of stun guns. That did not satisfy Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who complained in a 10-page concurrence that the court's "grudging" decision to send the case back may not be enough to save Jaime Caetano and citizens like her "who must defend themselves because the state will not." "If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe," Alito wrote.   The high court ruled in Heller that Americans can keep handguns in their homes for self-defense, and it made clear in McDonald that state and local governments cannot stop them. But the court limited its initial ruling to weapons that were commonly used at the time the Constitution was written. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously in March that stun guns didn't fit that definition. It noted the first patent for a stun gun was filed in 1972, and the weapons were not sold commercially until the early 1990s. "We therefore conclude that stun guns were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment," Justice Francis Spina wrote. "Without further guidance from the Supreme Court on the scope of the Second Amendment, we do not extend the Second Amendment right articulated by Heller to cover stun guns." The case dates back to 2011, when Caetano was arrested in a supermarket parking lot. She said she carried the stun gun for protection against an abusive former boyfriend who she previously had sought to avoid through restraining orders. In seeking the high court's intervention, Caetano's lawyers argued that stun guns and Tasers are not lethal, unlike the types of firearms already permitted under prior Supreme Court rulings. They noted that Scalia's 5-4 ruling in Heller specified it could be applied to modern weapons. "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way," Scalia wrote. "The Second Amendment extends ... to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." Caetano's petition also contended that just seven states ban stun guns, while hundreds of thousands have been sold to private citizens across the United States. A Michigan court, it noted, ruled in favor of possession in a 2012 case. Although Caetano was carrying the weapon in a parking lot, she was homeless at the time. For that reason, the case was unlikely to resolve the next major question on gun rights -- whether those permitted in the home can be carried in public.

http://www.gunowners.org/alert03172016.htm John Kasich: Anti-gun “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” Comes word, from the Center for Responsive Politics, that Leftist billionaire George Soros, through his Soros Fund Management, is one of John Kasich's top financial contributors. This can hardly be a surprise. Kasich and Soros share two important traits: (1) their desire to mess up the Republican selection process for devious motives, and (2) their absolute hatred for the Second Amendment. Kasich’s antipathy towards gun rights is no secret to anyone who’s watched his career. Make no mistake about it: When we are winning by a large margin -- when we don't need John Kasich’s vote -- he's usually there to give us a big, wet “Don Corleone kiss.” But when the vote is close and the future of the Second Amendment is at stake, “Godfather John” usually leaves us a severed horsehead in our bed. Thus, Kasich famously joined a gaggle of fellow-RINO’s and cast the deciding vote to impose a ban on semi-auto firearms. For this, he received a personal letter of thanks from a gun-hating Bill Clinton. Kasich voted for background checks in 1993, a system where roughly 95% of denials are “false positives.” Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department has, since November, shifted FBI employees to insure that, if you’re illegally blocked by NICS from purchasing a firearm, you can never get your record corrected. In 1999, Kasich voted to retain restrictive gun ban in Washington, D.C. Not only that, Kasich joined the effort to pass 90% of Clinton’s anti-gun agenda as a form of “gun control lite.” Elements of the Kasich/Clinton agenda included: (1) Provisions making it virtually impossible to legally teach kids how to use firearms; (2) A gun show ban (masquerading as a gun show Instant Check); and (3) Mandates to require you to “lock up your guns.” Had Clinton been successful in passing his post-Columbine anti-gun agenda, it would have provided a legislative platform which could easily have eviscerated the Second Amendment over the last decade-and-a-half. But Kasich's efforts to outlaw guns -- drip-by-drip -- continues to this day. Kasich continues to be a chief advocate of actual or de facto amnesty, claiming that enforcing our immigration laws would be “inhumane.” Of course, if Kasich gets his way, the legalization of 11 million illegals will have the same effect on the American electorate that the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty had on California. The country as a whole would become deep “anti-gun blue.” And, of course, Kasich was one of the first RINO’s to legitimize the anti-gun ObamaCare program by bringing its massive Medicaid segment into his state. Now, all it will take is for Obama to do a computer search of Kasich's Medicaid beneficiaries for “PTSD,” “Alzheimer’s,” and other “mental defectives,” and the gun rights of tens of thousands of law-abiding Ohioans could be jeopardized. And all of this was done by Kasich’s particularly nasty form of politics which he is now trying to morph, incredibly, into his “Mr. Nice” act. These actions, of course, reflect the hatred for guns by Kasich’s patron, George Soros. You may remember that, when Soros launched his campaign of “exposes” designed to destroy the conservative movement piece-by-piece, his first target was Gun Owners of America -- which Soros viewed as even more dangerous than the Koch brothers. But perhaps as bad as Kasich’s anti-gun record is his determination to destroy the GOP selection process for personal gain. Surely, even the vainglorious Kasich understands that, the longer he stays is the race, the longer the “divided field” makes it easier for an establishment candidate to hijack the process at the convention. Polls have shown -- here and here -- that Ted Cruz would beat Donald Trump in a head-to-head matchup. But by becoming the REAL “chaos candidate,” Kasich helps destroy the Republican Party by throwing the nomination to someone who is despised by the grassroots. In so doing, Kasich does the bidding of his master, George Soros. Ted Cruz would be the natural one to aggressively call out anti-gunner John Kasich for his anti-gun record. Please contact Ted Cruz and urge him to expose Kasich. Let’s not let Kasich pull the wool over the eyes of American voters. Sincerely, Tim Macy Chairman Gun Owners of America P.S. While you cannot use GOA’s Legislative Action Center to email Senator Ted Cruz -- unless you are a constituent of his -- you can easily contact him through his webform. So simply copy-n-paste the pre-written letter below into Senator Ted Cruz’ webform and urge him to expose Senator John Kasich’s anti-gun record. ----- Pre-written letter for Sen. Ted Cruz ----- Dear Senator Cruz: Thank you so much for your strong defense of the Constitution -- and in particular, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Gun Owners of America has informed me that John Kasich has a long record of supporting gun control, including the following: 1) Kasich cast the deciding vote to impose a ban on semi-auto firearms, and for this, he received a personal letter of thanks from a gun-hating Bill Clinton. See: tinyurl.com/hp4ucsp 2) Kasich voted for background checks in 1993, a system which is now blocking a percentage of legal gun purchases. Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department has, since November, shifted FBI employees to insure that, if someone is illegally blocked by NICS from purchasing a firearm, they can never get their record corrected. See: tinyurl.com/hp4ucsp 3) In 1999, Kasich voted to retain restrictive gun ban in Washington, D.C. See: tinyurl.com/zyljbep 4) Also in 1999, he voted for provisions making it virtually impossible to legally teach kids how to use firearms; for a gun show ban (masquerading as a gun show Instant Check); and for mandates to requiring people to “lock up their guns.” See: tinyurl.com/jq84rcd With John Kasich deciding to remain in the presidential race, I think it’s important for someone on the national level to expose his anti-gun votes. I hope you will continue to point out Kasich's anti-gun positions. Sincerely,

That is exactly what I am afraid of happening.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/16/obama-supreme-court-pick-faces-conservative-heat-on-gun-votes.html?intcmp=hpbt3   Published March 16, 2016 FoxNews.com The NRA and other pro-Second Amendment groups came out strongly Wednesday against President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, warning that Judge Merrick Garland would threaten gun rights while citing his role in a landmark firearms case.  “President Obama has nothing but contempt for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners,” Chris Cox, head of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement.  Senate Republican leaders already have said they don't plan to consider Garland's or any nomination. But conservative groups pressuring lawmakers to hold the line largely are focusing on the D.C. appeals court judge's votes related to the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which weighed D.C. residents’ right to keep handguns in their homes. The case reached the high court after a three-judge panel of the District’s U.S. Court of Appeals struck down parts of D.C.’s handgun ban. The heavily Democratic D.C. government opposed the decision and asked the full appeals court to reconsider. But the request was denied in a 6-4 vote. Merrick was among the four on the full court who voted to re-hear the case, though he took no formal position on the merits. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the individual right to self-defense, in an opinion delivered by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whom Garland is seeking to replace. Still, critics saw Garland’s earlier vote to re-hear as a signal that Garland backed the D.C. gun restrictions. Cox said his group “strongly opposes” the Garland nomination “on behalf of our five million members and tens of millions of supporters across the country.” “There is no longer a majority of support among the justices for the fundamental, individual right to own a firearm for self-defense. Four justices believe law-abiding Americans have that right and four justices do not,” Cox also said. Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, argued Wednesday that Garland’s roughly 19-year record as a judge supports the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Scalia’s most important opinions. Beyond Garland’s 2007 vote on D.C. gun ownership, Severino points to his 2000 vote on the appeals court to allow the FBI to continue to retain gun-sale records to help with criminal background checks on firearms sales. The decision was a defeat for the powerful NRA, which filed the lawsuit. Severino argued Wednesday that while two cases might appear like too small of a sample, such gun cases rarely reach the D.C. court. “They are two good indicators, telling examples and adequate evidence,” she told FoxNews.com. “It’s impressive enough to have two cases that squarely address the Second Amendment.” Severino’s group says it will spend at least $2 million on advertising to oppose the 63-year-old Garland’s nomination, whom it says “has a very liberal view of gun rights.” Other conservative-leaning groups also have joined in opposing the appointment of Garland, who was appointed to the appeals court by President Clinton, then served during the Bush and Obama administrations. “We are one liberal Justice away from seeing gun rights restricted,” said Michael Needham, chief executive for Heritage Action. The group, the policy advocacy group for the influential Washington think tank the Heritage Foundation, is also backing the GOP-led Senate’s decision to hold no confirmation hearing. He argues that Americans in just seven months will pick a new president, who should make the decision about replacing Scalia, a leading conservative voice on the high court. Brian Rogers, executive director for the group America Rising Squared and a former spokesman for Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, said Garland’s vote to re-hear the D.C. gun law case “is deeply concerning to all who care about our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”  Obama, meanwhile, urged Republicans to reconsider their opposition.  “I hope they’re fair. That’s all,” Obama said Wednesday. “To give him a fair hearing and up or down vote.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/11/guns-in-america-know-case-for-background-checks-is-weak-if.html?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obnetwork     Published March 11, 2016 FoxNews.com Academic advocates of gun control apparently need to manipulate the data in order to argue for background checks on private gun transfers.  Even the prestigious medical journal, the Lancet, does not seem to be above publishing junk science on gun control.  There has been extensive, glowing media coverage from the Los Angeles Times, CNN, Reuters, and US News & World Report. Currently, background checks must be performed when a gun is purchased from a dealer.  “Expanded” background check laws would require that checks also be conducted on private transfers of guns (say between a father and a son or with a neighbor). These laws exist in 19 states.  Of course, previous public health researchers simultaneously carefully pick one state at a time to examine (Missouri or Connecticut), which years to look at, and what types of crime to study.  To do the matter justice, a researcher really must look at all of the states that passed the laws, and then compare the changes in crime rates between those states that passed the laws to those that didn’t.  Using data from 2010, the new Lancet study claims that these background checks on private transfers will reduce state firearms deaths (homicides plus suicides) by 57 percent.  Yet, few researchers would look at firearm deaths across states in one year. To put this in perspective, let’s look at another simplistic comparison.  A lot of people like to point to the UK’s lower homicide rate and fewer guns and attribute this to strict gun control laws. Many cite this as proof that gun control reduces homicides.  But there is a problem. The UK had an even lower homicide rate before the country banned handguns.  After the ban, homicide rates rose by 50 percent over for the next 8 years.  The point is that homicide or suicide rates can differ for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with gun control, and that simply looking across countries or states is often quite misleading. The most accurate option is to see how a place’s crime rates change after new laws go into effect and then compare that change with the changes that occurred in places where the laws didn’t change. Again, the cherry-picking of numbers is outrageous.  Gun laws for 2009 are used to evaluate firearms deaths in 2010.  Then 2013 is chosen as the year that firearm ownership is looked at.  No explanation is offered for why these different years are used.  The normal approach is to use all the available years of crime or suicide data.  One must have a very good reason for omitting certain years data, and there really is no good explanation for what was done in the Lancet study. There are many other problems with this study, such as looking at the impact of the different gun control laws in separate regressions instead of studying their impacts all at one time. When I did my own study in the 2010 edition of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press), I used data for all the states from 1977 to 2005. I found that these expanded background checks were associated with a very small and statistically insignificant 2 percent increase in murder rates. Expanded background checks have become this year’s hot political issue for Democrats.  After every mass shooting, President Obama has called for these new checks. Strangely, the recent shootings in Oregon, Colorado, California, and Paris are being used to push gun-control laws that already existed in those places and that evidently failed to prevent the attacks.  There’s already evidence that these attacks don’t decline in frequency as a result of expanded background checks. Public health research has become completely corrupt.  Too often, the conclusions seem to be more important than the accuracy of the research.  With money flooding in from Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and others, we are unfortunately going to be seeing a lot more of these types of studies in just the coming year.

I have several different guns I use for carry depending on were I am going or time of year.  My rotation consist of :   Ruger LCR .38 + P Glock 26 Gen 4 9mm Sig Sauer P226 Legion 9mm Glock 20 Gen 4 10mm

It is pretty bad in some areas around here. 

IDPA match has been canceled due to Flooding.

The crime is slowly moving into Bartlett.  We had a neighbor robbed in their driveway as they came home from the grocery store.

That is something you don't see everyday.  Great picture.

http://www.localmemphis.com/news/local-news/proposed-crime-plan-would-arm-residents   MEMPHIS, TN   After a spike in recent break-ins and other crimes, a neighborhood leader in Raleigh is unveiling a bold proposal--arming and training neighbors to defend their properties. Members of the Twin Lakes Neighborhood Association will talk about the idea at their monthly meeting Thursday night. There's a mix of opinions on this idea, which depending on perspective, would either enhance the neighborhood's sense of security or put it at risk for unintentional gunfire. “There was a time when Raleigh was very quiet, a very nice place to live in, but that crime has picked up," said Twin Lakes Neighborhood Association president Charles Henderson. The growing concern of people breaking the law is why Henderson wants more of his law abiding neighbors to legally carry a gun and be trained to use it if necessary. "Before it gets out of hand any further it's responsible for each household to take care of what's theirs," said Henderson. Crime statistics in Twin Lakes back up neighbor’s concerns to defend their homes at any cost. Within a half mile of the neighborhood entrance, reported crimes jumped from 52 this time in 2015 to 153 so far this year. That's a 194% increase. “Neighborhood is kind of going down. They put some low income housing in the neighborhood and that really brought the neighborhood down," said resident R.L. Powers. But not everyone believes more guns equals more security. "I don't know about that. Probably have enough guns already. I think just watching the neighborhood would be better than just having guns myself," said resident Mack Campbell. The meeting gets underway at 6:00 p.m. six tomorrow at the Cunningham Community Center. A shooting range employee will also be there to discuss gun training safety.

There will be an IDPA Match this Saturday (3/12) at Memphis Sports Shooters Association in Lakeland, TN. Walk Through at 9;30AM $10 Members $12 Non-Members

There will be a USPSA match at Memphis Sports Shooting Association this Sunday (3/6). Walk through at 9:30am. $10 Members $12 Non-Members

http://wreg.com/2016/02/27/battle-rages-over-florida-law-limiting-doctors-gun-speech/   MIAMI — As a pediatrician, Dr. Judith Schaechter can ask parents of her patients all sorts of questions regarding their safety and well-being: what the child eats, whether there’s a backyard pool and whether the child gets enough sleep. Yet the question of whether there is a gun in the home is generally off limits. A Florida law bans routine gun questions even though eight children or teenagers are killed every day in the U.S. with guns, according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Doctors such as Schaechter believe a discussion about guns is essential to child safety. “A doctor has to be able to ask,” said Schaechter, who is chair of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. “We do this for so many issues. This is but one. Yet it is an extremely important one, for when we don’t discuss prevention, the results can be lethal.” Schaechter is among thousands of physicians, medical organizations and other groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union that challenged the law, formally called the Firearm Owners Privacy Act, in a lawsuit known popularly as “Docs vs. Glocks.” The law, passed in 2011 amid strong support from the National Rifle Association, is the only one of its kind in the nation, although similar laws have been considered in 12 other states, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. The legal battle, which has raged since the law’s inception, is a clash between the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms, amid a national discussion about the role and availability of weapons across the U.S. The lawsuit is now pending before the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals following conflicting earlier rulings on its constitutionality — and the case could wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court. Supporters in the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature and the NRA say the law became necessary when, in their view, doctors began overstepping their bounds in the examination room by pushing an anti-Second Amendment, anti-gun political agenda. The NRA cites several examples of doctors telling patients they’d have to find a new physician if they refused to answer questions about gun ownership or telling parents they should get rid of any guns in the home. The law, supporters point out, permits doctors under a “good faith” provision to ask about firearms if the questions are deemed “relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety” or the safety of other people. “These provisions target discrimination and harassment, not speech, and they do nothing to impair doctor-patient discussions of firearm safety,” NRA attorney Charles Cooper said in court papers. “Even if viewed as a speech regulation, the (law) is a reasonable regulation of speech incidental to the practice of medicine.” The law also has some teeth: doctors who violate the law could face professional discipline, such as a fine, or even lose their medical licenses. The state Department of Health would investigate any complaints, although the law has never been enforced because it was blocked in 2012 by a Miami judge’s decision that found it an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights. Since that decision by U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, the law has been entangled in an unusual web of appeals brought by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Republican. The same panel of three 11th Circuit appeals judges has overruled Cooke on identical 2-1 votes — but in three separate opinions, each replacing the one before. Most recently, in December, the panel found that any free speech concerns were outweighed by Florida’s interest in preventing doctors from using their so-called “power disparity” over patients to chill exercise of their Second Amendment rights. In other words, the three-judge panel found that doctors had a First Amendment right to talk to patients about guns but couldn’t use it most of the time, said attorney Doug Hallward-Driemeier, who represents the physicians and their allies. The law, he said, “singles out doctors’ speech about guns for restriction because the government disagrees with their message. That is precisely what the First Amendment protects us against.” After that December opinion, the full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in to take up the case, tossing out the decisions by its own three-judge panel. The court’s 11 judges in coming months will likely hold oral arguments, followed by a decision that could be appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court, Hallward-Driemeier said. Schaechter, the pediatrician, said she views concerns about Second Amendment violations as misguided. With a nation awash in guns — the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service pegged the number at 310 million guns in 2009 — it’s simple common sense for a doctor to question patients about them, she said. “This isn’t about the Second Amendment. It’s about speaking up to save lives, and that’s my right and it’s my patients’ right to hear what I have to say,” she said. “I trust if they don’t want to answer my questions, they will tell me. So far, none of them have done so.”

There are Indoor IDPA Matches at TWRA (Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency) in Bartlett, TN every 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month.   TWRA Cost $10.00 Shooters Cost $1.00 to cover targets, tape, and target stands.  No $1.00 cost for people shooting their first at TWRA.   The match begins at 6:00pm sharp.    

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/31321756/bill-could-make-parents-responsible-for-kids-finding-guns   MEMPHIS, TN (WMC) - Multiple stories have been reported where children have gotten their hands on loaded guns and it has turned out tragic.   Loaded guns easily accessible to children have become a problem, and now a new bill might make parents think twice about where their loaded guns are stored. The bill is calling for criminal charges when loaded guns are left out where children can pick them up. There are 27 states with similar legislation, and now the bill is headed to the senate judiciary next month. For many people, they agree parents should be held more accountable if they choose to own guns with children in the home. "If you're going to have a gun, you should be held accountable for what's done with the gun," Talisha Ingram said. Two Democratic Tennessee state legislators have proposed have proposed the idea. Representative Sherry Jones from Nashville and Senator Sara Kyle from Memphis are behind the bill that seeks a criminal penalty for an adult leaving a loaded gun unattended and accessible to a child under 13 years of age. Even 9-year-old Zoe Ingram knows what the rules should be when it comes to guns. "I think they should, because they shouldn't even have a gun when the kids are around," Zoe said. The bill comes as several young children have died or been injured after picking up a gun in their own home or a relative's home. Last year in Shelby County, 4-year-old Aabriel Jones Jr. died after finding a gun in his house and accidentally shot himself. In 2014, a 6-year-old found a gun and shot a 4-year-old girl. She survived the shooting. In 2012, a 10-year-old was accidentally shot and killed by his 12-year-old brother. Those are just a few of the accidental shootings when children found guns. The bill would also require licensed gun dealers to post signage warnings. It is a criminal offense to leave a loaded gun accessible to children.

I could not resist.  I became a Life Member.

I carry mine on occasion in a crossbreed holster.

There will be a USPSA match at Memphis Sports Shooting Association this Saturday. Walk through at 9:30am. $10 Members $12 Non-Members