Second Amendment

The fight is far from over

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Gun rights supporters can definitely breathe a sigh of relief. The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 bill introduced by Senator Feinstein is out of the picture. For now.

This does not mean we can let our guard down. Far from it. There are plenty more parliamentary tricks that the Democrats can play to get what they want through the door. Namely the back door. They will continue to demonize gun owners and continue to assert that the blood of the Sandy Hook children and the Aurora theatre victims is on our hands.

Feinstein had been working on that bill for over a year before introducing it. The aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre was prime opportunity for her to introduce it, trying to use the blood of dead children to score political points. Despicable. And she had to have known that there were going to be reservations among the senior Democrats in the Senate, let alone the House, with trying to get that through. Many of them were around when her initial AWB was signed into law in 1994, and they remember what happened: the Republicans swept elections in both the House and Senate.

Feinstein has also said numerous times that she doesn’t want to stop with "assault weapons". She didn’t want to stop with them back in 1994 either. Her goal is and always has been a full-out ban of all privately-owned firearms:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in," I would have done it.

Now one idiot tried to claim in a YouTube comment that Feinstein was only referring to assault weapons without taking into account that Feinstein made these statements after the 1994 AWB was signed into law. But that’s not the only thing she’s said that shows her true goal with regard to guns and the Second Amendment:

Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.

But the battle for gun rights is far from over. Not when there are politicians in power or seeking power with a political goal of seeing guns banned in the United States.

While attempting to enact sweeping gun legislation has proven in the past to be political suicide – except for politicians like Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, that is – that won’t stop them from trying to go after gun rights. Their next move will be to take Feinstein’s bill and break it apart. From the pieces they will construct amendments and riders to be introduced to bills that would be politically risky for Republicans to oppose, such as the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2013, introduced as S.444 and currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Such a move will give them some political leverage which they will use to try to score political points.

And while the assault weapons ban might be out – for now – the magazine limitation might still be in play. And that would have far more devastating effects than the assault weapons ban ever could. This is especially true since Feinstein’s bill defines "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" as a

magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition

and further declares that

It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

And it exempts the government and law enforcement, but requires that all "high capacity" magazines made for law enforcement or the military to have a serial number. And also in compliance with the Constitution’s prohibition on ex post facto laws, the bill would also exempt the possession of "large capacity" magazines existing before the enactment of the legislation.

But all of that discussion is immaterial in the face of the possibility of the President going from President to dictator by using his executive order privilege to enact the magazine capacity limitation among other things. In other words, giving Congress a chance to give him what he wants before he does it himself.

By no means is the fight over. There are very dedicated people wanting to see the Second Amendment eviscerated.

We have to continue to be vigilant, because they will continue to be just as vigilant.

Letters to politicians/Second Amendment

Form response from Senator McCaskill

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

I ask a simple question, and I get a form letter in response that is more evasive than anything else. All I asked is how she’ll be voting on Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban bill. Simple yes/no question. Jesus Christ…

* * * * *

Dear Mr. Ballard,

Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control policy and gun safety.  I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you know, the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans the fundamental right to bear arms.  I strongly support legal and safe gun ownership by law-abiding citizens and have consistently voted to uphold this constitutional right.  I welcomed and supported the recent Supreme Court decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller case that made clear that the constitutional right to gun ownership is an individual one.

At the same time, we have to make sure that guns do not fall into the hands of individuals who should not have them.  We should have sensible, constitutional controls on gun ownership that address safety in our communities, like preventing the mentally ill and criminals from possessing guns.

Recent tragedies, such as the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, and the horrific events in Newtown, Connecticut, have made it clear that our nation’s current gun laws should be reconsidered.  Efforts to close the gun show loophole, provide for universal background checks on all guns sales, and to ensure that those with court-determined, dangerous mental health diagnoses do not get access to guns are being considered.  While I want to closely study any proposal before I vote on it, I welcome these initiatives, because they represent sensible steps to keep our communities safe while respecting gun ownership rights.  Importantly, legal experts believe each of these steps is consistent with the Second Amendment.

Knowing that those responsible for some of the most prominent mass shootings in recent history have suffered from mental illness, it is equally clear that we must also consider mental health services available to our citizens.  A more robust mental health care system may help identify and treat individuals who need help before they resort to violence.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as “Obamacare,” will substantially expand important mental health coverage when it is fully implemented in 2014.  I am hopeful that efforts to repeal these vital expansions in mental health care will come to an end, while new efforts will be undertaken to expand access to care.

Importantly, I firmly believe that an attempt to promote appropriate gun safety measures can be done without infringing upon law-abiding citizens’ right to own firearms or unduly burdening the hunting and sportsmanship culture of Missouri.

You may be interested to know that, in the past, my commitment to respecting the Second Amendment has led me to vote to permit residents of the District of Columbia to own and purchase firearms and to prevent funding for any international organization, including the United Nations, that places a tax on any firearm owned by a United States citizen.

While the debate over appropriate gun control measures is divisive, I believe there is middle ground here.  This nation can come together to support sensible laws that prevent the mass murder of innocent citizens — especially innocent children — while we continue to respect our constitution and its Second Amendment rights.  Please know that, as your United States Senator, I will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress considers gun-related legislation in the months ahead.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Claire McCaskill
United States Senator

Letters to politicians/Second Amendment

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013: Contacting Senator McCaskill

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Madam Senator McCaskill,

As you are likely aware, Senator Feinstein’s bill, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, has been recommended to the full Senate for a floor vote. Can I count on you to be a “No” vote on that bill?

Please bear in mind that the current market for firearms and ammunition shows clearly and without any doubt that the People of the United States, and most certainly your constituents in this great State of Missouri do not want this bill to pass, and do not want any additional gun control measures enacted. Please take their voices into account before voting on the Assault Weapons Ban.

Your vote is supposed to represent the constituency of Missouri at large. It is clear that Missouri does not want this, as can also be seen by the representation in Jefferson City in the Missouri legislature. Take that into account before voting on that bill and any other gun control measures. Please faithfully represent Missouri by voting No on Feinstein’s bill and any other gun control measures that come up for a vote in the Senate.

So I ask you again, can I count on you to be a vote of “No” on Feinstein’s bill and other gun control measures?

Thank you,
Kenneth Ballard
Kansas City, Missouri

Letters to politicians/Second Amendment

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013: Contacting Senator Blunt

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and will be brought to a floor vote. I didn’t have any doubts about it passing the committee. The Democrat members of that committee read like a "Who’s Who" on gun control in the Senate. However passing the full Senate isn’t so cut and dry.

Now is the time to write your Senators again and let them know how you stand. If you don’t want Feinstein’s bill to pass, you need to make your voice heard, Now!

I will post my message to Senator McCaskill after I’ve sent it.

* * * * *

Mr Senator Blunt,

As you are likely aware, Senator Feinstein’s bill — the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 — has been recommended to the full Senate for a floor vote. I have but one simple question: can I count on you to be a ‘No’ vote when that bill comes up for a vote?

Thank you,
Kenneth Ballard
Kansas City, Missouri

Debt/Mortgage

Hardly stern advice

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Reuters blogger Linda Stern recently wrote an article regarding financial decisions that can wait. Many of the items listed in the article are things beyond any person’s normal expertise, such as annuities and IRAs — i.e. things that would require a consultation with a financial planner to fully understand. But two items on the list are a little off, in my opinion: paying off your mortgage early and buying a car. Let’s go into both.

Should you hurry to kill your loan by paying extra principal every month? Not usually. Homeowners who have been able to refinance now are sitting on long-term loans at rates around 4 percent, 3 percent or even less. Hold that loan as long as possible, make the regular monthly payment and use extra cash to build a rainy-day fund or invest. At the end of the day you are likely to end up with more money than if you just paid it off early. And you’ll be able to use those emergency funds without paying higher interest to borrow new money next time you need to fix the roof.

This is a bit off the mark.

Now I’ve advocated on this blog and elsewhere that you should pay down your debts as quickly as you feel is feasible. After all, getting out from under your debt is always going to be better for you in the long run and save you money in the long run.

Should you pay extra principal every month? If you can afford to do so, then certainly. The term of a mortgage is typically measured in decades, so any extra cash you can put toward your mortgage payments will pay off in the long run. It need not be much. Round your payment up to the next fifty or hundred dollars, for example, and it’ll pay off by potentially taking a couple years off your mortgage term. Now if you’re in the final “trimester” of your mortgage (last 10 years on a 30-year mortgage, for example), then the gains may not be nearly as significant, but you’ll still come out ahead in the end.

But here’s the caveat: “if you can afford to do so”. This certainly does not mean you should sink all extra cash into your mortgage payment, and you should be putting cash aside for unexpected situations. But if you are already saving up money, or already have a good cash savings built up, then you certainly should be putting extra money toward your mortgage. You will, in the end, save thousands of dollars across the term of the mortgage by putting extra money toward it.

The beauty of this, as well, is that you will still be gaining in the long term even if you have to back off to your typical monthly payment for a short period.

Unless your car is actually rusting out from under you and costing you thousands of dollars a year in maintenance, there’s little harm in replacing it later. Otter tells readers to defer the car purchase and use the extra cash to take a vacation. While that may sound like a questionable financial decision, it isn’t. There’s solid research behind the idea that people are happiest when they spend their money on experiences, instead of things, so don’t put off that family trip. It’s a limited time offer.

Back in 2005, I purchased my first car. It was a brand new 2005 Kia Optima. Silver.

Before I purchased that car, however, I created a spreadsheet and ran some numbers across all of the various models that were available. I looked at estimated fuel economy, and I got insurance quotes for the various vehicles and ran some comparisons, along with looking at the cost of the car per month on a loan.

This is called “total cost of ownership” or TCO.

Before deciding to purchase a new or newer car, you need to take a look at the current total cost of ownership for your vehicle. Maintenance need not come into this, as the cost of routine maintenance on a vehicle won’t change much between vehicles. Your annual taxes, however, should be included.

So do the math on the total cost of ownership for your vehicle. A new car will cost you more in some areas. Property taxes will be higher. You may be taking on a monthly payment again. But the fuel economy will likely be significantly improved if you go with a similar class to what you’re driving now, and you’ll probably have a better insurance rate. Speaking of, if you’re considering purchasing a new vehicle, consider also shopping around for a new insurance policy as well, as you may find some savings there.

But there are other “costs” to consider. For example if your car regularly leaves you with a sore back just driving back and forth to work, a more comfortable vehicle can pay dividends in ways that don’t register in your bank account. If you moved out to a more rural area but still drive a sedan, moving up to a vehicle better equipped to handle the road to and from your residence can give you peace of mind.

There is a lot that goes into the decision to buy a new car. Putting it off may or may not cost you. It all depends on how the math works out, and what other intrinsic benefits you might obtain by buying a newer vehicle as opposed to sticking with your current one.

Capitalism/Charity/Socialism

The socialist parking lot

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Here in Kansas City we recently had a snow storm come through that dropped nearly a foot of snow on us. As such, for much of today, people were taking time clearing the snow as best they can. I live in an apartment complex without assigned parking, meaning the parking space I clear out to get my car out might not be available when I get back.

And so was the case. Not just once, but twice.

This afternoon I went out to my car at about 11:30am to dig it out… from behind about 18 to 24 inches of snow. I was out there for about an hour doing this. Because I had done this around high noon on a sunny day, it didn’t take nearly as long as it easily could have.

Then in the afternoon, my wife and I left to go take care of a few things. We came back about 3 hours later and the parking spot I spent an hour clearing was occupied by someone who didn’t bother to clear their space before leaving.

Later in the evening, my wife and I needed to go to the grocery store to get a few things we forgot during our first outing. Because my initial spot was taken when I returned initially, I needed to dig out the car again. And when we got back from the store, not a half hour later, the spot I had dug out — not completely cleared, mind you — was again taken by another person who again had not bothered to clear out the parking space they were originally in at the start of the day.

Parking lots for apartment buildings are a clear example of socialism in action. The only competition is to see who can get to the best parking space first. But when snow falls and parking spots need to be cleared out, those who do the least amount of effort to get out of the parking lot will be the ones to benefit from those who expend effort, sometimes considerable effort, to clear the way for their vehicles.

Now there are canopied parking spaces available that are assigned to those willing to pay for them. If I had one of those spots, then all of my labors this afternoon clearing away the snow from around my car would not have been in my own vain. Instead I would be parked in my spot that I cleared, and no one else would be able to take it from me. And that would be capitalism, folks, with protection for property rights.

After all if I clear out a parking spot, it would be considerate for everyone else to not take it. After all they didn’t expend the effort to clear it, and they know they didn’t expend the effort to clear it, so they should leave it be and let the person who did clear it have the spot back when they returned.

If we were to be getting regular snowfalls, I have no doubt the pattern experienced today would repeat itself over and over. The reason is quite simple: most people, it seems who live in apartment complexes don’t bother buying snow shovels for their own use. Instead they’d rather rely on others who do have them, and steal the cleared-out parking spots when not looking.

Now I can hear the argument already: what about those who can’t use a snow shovel? There is one such person in my apartment building, but she lives with people who can. They just choose to not and instead were trying to dig their car out this morning using pots and pans. But if such a person was living alone in my building and I knew who they were and what car they drove, I would’ve happily dug out their car without being asked. That is called charity, folks.

Now I’m not one for revenge, so while the thought of burying in the other two cars did cross my mind, I think I’ll let this one go. Just this time.

Debt

"Good debt" is an illusion

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Over the last several years that I’ve been working to get out of this ginormous hole created by my lengthy unemployment back in 2008 into early 2009, I’ve had a lot of time to reflect on debt, debt collections and the like, and I like to think that I’ve gained a lot of wisdom in that time. As such, when I come across articles talking about debt, I tend to wonder whether the people writing it have been in the same hole… I mean chasm into which I and many others have fallen.

This chasm is, of course, a chasm of debt.

As such, one fallacy that I continuously see flung around on the Internet is the classification of debts as "good" and "bad". The latest incarnation of this to cross my path is from Manilla LLC, which is New York-based company providing a web-based organization system for accounts and bills. According to the New York Department of State, the company has existed since about 2009.

In a recent blog article called "Is Your Debt Normal?", Manilla LLC marketing manager Caroline Wright also falls into the fallacy of categorizing debt as either "good" or "bad".

Let’s clear the air first. There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" debt. There is just debt and the obligation to pay on your loan and credit contracts. There is nothing good about debt, and certainly plenty that is bad, yet many still refuse to see that. It boggles my mind how people advocate putting extra money into investments instead of into paying off your debts.

Yet many people justify "good debt" by calling them "investments", and Ms Wright is no different:

Although not fool proof, investments in education, retirement, or home ownership are all considered good debt — if you can afford to pay it off. These are typically low-risk investments that tend to yield high ROIs.

Except debt is not an investment. Well for you it isn’t. You aren’t the one making the investment. The bank that loaned you the money is the one making the investment in you and is putting a lien on your future. What you get out of the deal is debt and an obligation to pay back what you borrowed and then some.

When you acquire a mortgage, it isn’t you investing in a house. The bank or mortgage company holding the note made the investment. Don’t kid yourself into thinking otherwise. The only thing you have is debt and an obligation to pay back upwards of three times what you borrowed across the life of the loan or whomever holds the note will seize your house to sell it off and you’re left with nothing.

Debt is an obligation where you owe back to the creditor more than you borrowed. The technical term for this is usury, and it is a concept long condemned as sinful under today’s prominent religions, yet I see many religious individuals talking about debt in terms of "good" and "bad". That is blatant hypocrisy.

The fact that virtually all debt today is usurious means that you cannot classify any of it as good debt. But even if debt weren’t usurious, it still lacks sense to classify any debt as "good debt" because any debt for which you fall into default can ruin you, even those debts that many seem willing to classify as "good".

To call any debt "good debt" requires saying that there’s a such thing as "good slavery" and "bad slavery", because debt is slavery. It is financial slavery, as you agree to commit part of your future earning potential to pay off your debts. This means someone else has a claim to the fruits of your labors. There is nothing good about that, and the negatives of "bad debt" apply to all debt:

Interest rates on credit cards are considerably higher than the rates on loans, meaning you will pay more over time, and payment schedules are set to maximize the profit for the creditor. Also, missing or paying late on a credit card payment results in high penalties and can seriously impact your credit score.

Interest rates are higher on credit cards because credit cards are unsecured, revolving loans. This means that if you default on your credit cards, such as by missing a payment or stopping payments altogether, there is nothing the creditor can immediately seize and sell to recover the due amount. Unsecured debt is riskier debt, and interest rates reflect the risk.

But if you miss a payment or fall behind on any debt, your credit score and future ability to obtain credit will be negatively affected, and the situation becomes more bleak when foreclosures and repossessions become involved. Interesting how Ms Wright classifies mortgages as "good debt", or at least considers them good debt while you’re still making your mortgage payment.

But it gets worse:

If you feel comfortable with your current level of debt and have no issues making your monthly payments then taking on more debt may be an option for you. Note, your total amount of debt does not matter as much as your ability to make monthly payments.

Taking on more debt requires you plan for it. The statement that your ability to pay your debt matters more than your current debt load is only partly true. The one thing you need to bear in mind is that if you lose your source of income, regardless of how that happens, all of that debt will come crashing down around you.

Debt is in many ways like a commercial aircraft. So long as the engine is running, the aircraft will stay aloft and make it to its destination. In this analogy, the engine and fuel running it is your current income stream. If the engine dies or the plane runs out of fuel while it is still aloft, it won’t remain that way for long. If your income stream goes away, your debt comes crashing down around you. And when that happens, you have the potential to lose nearly everything.

This is why I say there is no such thing as "good debt". There is only debt, and so long as you can keep that debt plane aloft, you’ll be fine. But just as commercial pilots plan and prepare for contingencies, so must you.

But this doesn’t mean you cannot use debt to your advantage. It all depends on the costs you are taking on versus the costs you are avoiding. Everything has a cost, and you need to do a cost/benefit analysis before you take on any new debt.

But avoid the mindset that certain debts are good and others are bad. That is a fallacy. What you’re financing matters nowhere nearly as much as the fact you are financing it. Debt means you owe part of yourself and your future to someone else, and it almost always means you will end up owing to your creditors more than they lent to you. So long as you keep that in mind, you should be able to maintain the proper perspective with regard to your financial outlook.

Firearms and Ammunition/Second Amendment

An incompetent vice president

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

The Vice President recently held an online town hall organized by Parents Magazine. One participant asked how he can reconcile an assault weapons ban against the guns already in the hands of criminals. The implication here is that gun control laws only inhibit the law-abiding, not the law-evading. The Vice President’s response is right out of the anti-gun playbook:

How can I say this politely? The Constitution does allow the government to conclude that there are certain types of weapons that no one can legally known. Now, if that were not the case, then you should be able to go buy a flame-thrower that the military has. You should be able to go, if you’re a billionaire, buy an F-15 loaded with ordnance. You should be able to buy an M1 tank. You should be able to buy a machine gun. You should be able to buy a grenade launcher. And you can’t do those things.

Let’s look at a few details. First this is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

“Shall not be infringed” is the key phrase here. The government may not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Arms means any weapon that can be practically carried and maintained by an individual. Often in discussions like this, someone will jump to the extreme and ask if someone should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. If you take practicality into account, it is not practical for the private individual to own nuclear weapons. Should it be illegal? That’s a discussion for another day.

But getting back to the Vice President, he seems to be presuming that just because the laws are still on the books and being enforced that they are de facto constitutional. This is not the case. But it doesn’t end there. It’s as of the Vice President is completely unaware of what the law actually does and does not do…

Flamethrowers are not restricted by any Federal law or regulation, though they are restricted in some States, such as California. In California, you need a license issued by the State fire marshal. I can hear the question: “Why would anyone need a flame thrower?” Actually here in the Midwest, flamethrowers are one of the instruments used when farmers torch a field to prepare it for tilling and farming. They can also be effective at clearing away snow and ice, though they are certainly more costly to use for that purpose than common salt and sand.

Plus the military hasn’t used flamethrowers since Vietnam and voluntarily removed it from its arsenal in 1978.

As for the F-15, as far as I’m aware there is no law or regulation prohibiting private ownership of that, or of any other fighter jet. What prevents it is a deal the Defense Department has with the manufacturers to only sell those jets to the Federal government. The FAA may or may not have something to say on that, but I’m not well-versed on what regulations are involved with regard to aircraft ownership.

There are also tanks in private ownership. The MythBusters featured one such person with a private collection of tanks when tackling regarding phone books – the episode aired September 10, 2008. Now I’m not sure whether he had the ordnance to go with it and whether the tanks are functional with ordnance. I think the ordnance would be covered under the National Firearms Act.

Speaking of, it is legal to acquire a fully-automatic firearm – i.e. a machine gun. To do so, however, requires a lengthy process under the National Firearms Act and the firearm can only be provided by certain specially-licensed firearms dealers. Same thing with grenade launchers. Both are considered Class III firearms under the National Firearms Act and are legal for private parties to own, assuming all necessary regulations are followed.

So while there is significant impediment to your ability to own the many things that Biden and many others think you cannot own, there is actually no law forbidding ownership of them. There’s just significant overhead to acquiring such things, overhead that does deter most who want to acquire such items. Are these impeding regulations a violation of the Second Amendment? That’s a debate for another day.

Firearms and Ammunition

High vs standard capacity magazines

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

There is only one definition for high-capacity magazines. It isn’t the definition our politicians are attempting to set, attempting to define all magazines greater than 10 rounds (7 in New York) as “high capacity”, especially since for most semi-automatic handguns, 10 rounds is sub-standard.

With regard to magazines, high capacity means only one thing: a capacity that is greater than what is standard for a given firearm. The manufacturer defines what standard capacity means for the firearm in question.

For examples, let’s look at the most popular civilian, law enforcement, and military handguns.

Beretta M9, Beretta 92 and variants

The Beretta M9 is a 9×19 parabellum (a.k.a. “9mm”) handgun that is standard issue in the United States Armed Forces. When initially released back in the mid 1980s, it had a standard capacity magazine of 15 rounds. Today’s magazines, however, have a standard capacity of 17 rounds, which puts it on par with most other 9×19 full-size handguns.

The Beretta 92 is the civilian version of the M9. Taurus Arms manufactures the Beretta M9 “clone” called the PT92, which has a standard-capacity magazine of 17 rounds.

Glock 17 and 19

The model 17 and 19 are the two most popular handguns that Glock makes, and they are used not only by civilians, but also by law enforcement agencies across the United States and Europe. The Glock 17 has always had a standard capacity magazine of 17 rounds. The Glock 19, on the other hand, has a standard capacity that is slightly less at 15 rounds. The model 19 does accept the model 17 magazines.

1911 style handguns

The 1911 was first introduced in… 1911. Originally designed for the military, the 1911 is one of most popular handguns in the civilian market. Standard capacity for a 1911 is typically 7 rounds of .45 ACP, though there are 8-round magazines for 1911s as well.

Glock 18 and high-capacity magazines

The Glock 18 is a special consideration. It is available only to the military and special divisions of law enforcement for one simple reason: it is a select-fire handgun capable of fully-automatic fire. As such it is illegal for any civilian to own unless that civilian has gone through the necessary ATF process, which is a long and arduous task.

The Glock 18 brought with it a high-capacity pistol magazine carrying 33 rounds of 9×19 parabellum. At full-auto a Glock 18 can still burn through all 33 of those rounds in just a few seconds. Because Glock designed the model 18 to be very similar to the model 17, with some changes to accommodate the full-auto firing mode, the 33-round magazine can also be used with the models 17 and 19, and even the sub-compact model 26.

But the 33-round magazine is only considered “high capacity” when referring to the model 19 and model 17 Glock handguns. For a model 18, it is still considered standard capacity.

Why more than 10 rounds?

The question needs to be asked: who needs magazines with more than 10 rounds? The answer is simple and straightforward: anyone who needs to fire more than 10 rounds for personal defense, which is probably anyone who needs to fire a handgun for self defense. And we cannot know how many rounds will be necessary to neutralize a given threat until faced with such a threat.

The only limitation on magazine capacities should be practicality.

Most advances in magazine capacities occur at the request or direction of military or law enforcement agencies. Rather than manufacture different magazines for civilians, firearms manufacturers will use similar capacity magazines for their civilian models as well.

In fact it is also our right under the Second Amendment to have magazine capacities similar to that of law enforcement and the military rather than magazines whose capacities have been neutered. Again, only practicality should be the limitation.

And it is very practical to conceal a firearm with a magazine capacity of 15 or 17 rounds, as demonstrated by the numerous people who carry concealed a Glock 17 or 19 pistol. Is it practical to carry a 33-round magazine concealed? No. But do those magazines serve another practical peaceful purpose? Yes.

One practical purpose is home defense wherein your home has been invaded by several perpetrators. Not only will the magazine serve as an intimidation factor to those who invaded your home, it will also ensure you don’t need to reload nearly as often should you need to discharge that many rounds to defend yourself and your family.

It is at the range that the 33-round magazine shows its practicality in the clearest of terms. And it is for the range that people own the 33-round magazines. Almost no one uses the 33-round magazine for anything else except range fire. Jared Loughner was the first case of which I’m aware where a civilian used the Glock 33-round magazine in such a detestable manner.

But again, only practicality should be the limitation. Any attempts to limit magazine capacities through legislation will instead limit those carrying firearms for self defense than those carrying firearms to commit crimes.

Concealed carry/Driving/Law Enforcement/Police

Stopped by police while carrying

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

The Internet is alight with discussion of a police stop involving a person with a concealed carry permit and a weapon on his person. Everyone is, of course, deriding and attacking the cop without once considering that things could have come out differently. They’re calling for the cop to be fired without putting themselves in the officer’s shoes.

No one seems to want to consider that the driver being pulled over may have actually done something wrong. Oh no, he’s in the clear. The cop is entirely at fault. Okay, let’s look at this.

WJHG7, an NBC affiliate out of Florida, describes the situation:

17 seconds after getting out of the car, he is asked for his registration and insurance.

As he turns, something is slightly visible in his back pocket.

“Why do you carry a gun for?” asked Deputy Cox.

Ten seconds later, he is being held at gun point.

The driver’s name is Joel Smith, and the officer is Deputy Alan Cox. To anyone familiar with police stops and how a person should conduct themselves when detained, it should be clear that Joel Smith set himself up for problems from the get go.

First off, when you are pulled over by an officer, never leave your vehicle unless you are ordered to do so or you have received permission to do so. A lot of people who get out of their vehicles when pulled over by the cops do one of two things: run or hostilely engage the officer. When Joel left his vehicle, he already upped the officer’s alert level because Deputy Cox is not sure what Joel is going to do, and cooperation is now lower on the list of things to expect.

Second, if you have a concealed carry permit and you are also armed, you must inform the officer up front. Now I know a lot of people will come back and say “well the law says…” and I couldn’t care less. The last thing you want to do during what should be a routine traffic stop is surprise the officer as it could easily become the last thing you ever do.

And when Deputy Cox sees the weapon that Joel did not voluntarily disclose existed, how is Deputy Cox supposed to react? Remember the fact that Joel left his vehicle at the start of the encounter has already heightened Cox’s alert level. Seeing the weapon only raised it even higher.

So when you are pulled over by an officer, turn on all the lights, get and keep your hands completely visible and let the officer do the initial talking. When he or she is done, inform the officer that you have a concealed carry permit and that you have a weapon in that order. Again this is about removing surprises from the picture. If you inform the officer up front about the weapon and give the officer the opportunity to secure it, things will go much smoother than if you fail to disclose you have a weapon and the officer discovers it.

After you inform the officer that you have a permit and a weapon, again in that order, the officer will give you a series of instructions to follow. The officer’s intent at that point is to secure the weapon for their own safety. Every instruction should be followed to the letter. If you cannot follow a particular instruction, say so. Remember, you’ve just now informed a law enforcement officer that you are armed. Cooperation is your only option at that point.

So what immediately set things on a bad path for Joel was simply leaving the vehicle without being ordered out or given permission to exit. Then what upped the ante was failing to disclose up front that he had the weapon. Had he disclosed that he had the weapon and cooperated when the officer attempted to secure it, things would have turned out much better for Joel.

There’s a saying you’ve probably seen on Facebook and in other venues: “That police officer that you just called a jerk for writing you a ticket, just spent three hours on the scene of a wreck where a drunk driver killed a family of four.” I’ve seen variations on it, such as: “He delivered two death notices that morning.”

Unless you are former law enforcement, it is often difficult to put yourself in the shoes of a police officer. I think a lot of people forget that the person who pulled them over is someone who treats every encounter as if it could be their last. It isn’t asking much that you do everything in your power to make their encounter with you as smooth and nonchalant as possible. And that starts with eliminating any possibility of surprise as quickly as possible.

This means that, regardless of the laws of your State, treat every police encounter as a “must inform” situation if you are carrying. Things will go smoother for you if you do.

For more information on how to conduct yourself during a police encounter, I suggest watching the video “10 Rules for Dealing with Police” by the non-profit organization Flex Your Rights.