In Tucson, Guns Have a Broad Constituency

In Tucson, Guns Have a Broad Constituency

TUCSON — “I have a Glock 9 millimeter, and I’m a pretty good shot.”

The quip, by Representative Gabrielle Giffords, was made in an interview last year with The New York Times, when tensions were running high in her district. It speaks not only to her ability to defend herself but also to the passionate gun culture in Arizona, which crosses political lines and is notable for its fierceness, even in the West.

Indeed, the federal judge who was killed on Saturday in the shootings here, John M. Roll, had his wife and many people who worked with him take lessons at the Marksman Pistol Institute, an indoor range downtown. One of the doctors who operated on Ms. Giffords after the shooting rampage was a member of the Pima Pistol Club, an outdoor range where federal and local law enforcement personnel were practicing on Monday.

Arizona’s gun laws stand out as among the most permissive in the country. Last year, Arizona became only the third state that does not require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The state also enacted another measure that allowed workers to take their guns to work, even if their workplaces banned firearms, as long as they kept them in their locked vehicles.

Full Story Here:
In Tucson, Guns Have a Broad Constituency

Anyone that has read my blog more than once or twice already knows, I am a gun owner, a gun user and I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

For those few that may not be familiar with the Second Amendment, it reads;

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.

The PEOPLE, as in We, The People. That’s us, you and me, and every other law abiding citizen of these United States of America.

Laws have been written that prohibit certain individuals from owning a firearm, starting with those who are convicted felons.

Anyone who has been convicted of a felony is banned by federal law from ever possessing “any firearm or ammunition.” Specifically a person “convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” cannot possess any firearm in any location. 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home. The federal punishment for felon gun possession is up to 10 years in prison.

There are many other federal gun ownership restrictions. For example, a conviction for a misdemeanor domestic battery results in a loss of gun rights. A person who is the subject of an order of protection may not possess a weapon. In light of the 2008 case of District of Colombia v. Heller, such restrictions may now have Second Amendment implications. A good summary is available from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. SOURCE

I won’t begin to list ALL states and their various prohibitions regarding gun ownership by those that exhibit some form of mental illness. Here in Texas, there is criteria found referencing prohibition of gun ownership for those judged to be mentally ill.

Texas law prohibits the ownership and carrying of guns by those with certain psychiatric diagnoses, including schizophrenia, delusional disorder, bipolar disorder, chronic dementia, dissociative identity disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. In addition, gun restrictions are in place for five years following an involuntary psychiatric hospitalization, inpatient or residential treatment for substance abuse, diagnosis of alcohol or drug dependence, or diagnosis of mental illness by a licensed physician. SOURCE

That all seems pretty straightforward and easily understood. Right?

So, given the rather well written laws on the books that restrict felons and the mentally ill from owning a gun, how then, do so many of them have guns in their possession? Especially the mentally ill, or borderline insane?

Felons don’t BUY a gun, they STEAL a gun, it’s that simple. With the mentally ill it’s quite different, take Jared Loughner and the recent shooting he is accused of for instance.

Loughner is said to have exhibited some sort of mental imbalance, he was advised to seek the help of a mental health professional. Had he done so, he would have, in all probability, been on the registry for those prohibited from gun ownership because of there mental state.

Loughner did NOT seek that help, and apparently, his family and friends didn’t pursue the issue regardless of the signs he (Loughner) may have been exhibiting.

The system didn’t fail here, Loughner’s friends, family and the college official that recommended he seek help didn’t follow through and get him the much needed help he required. Those are the people that failed Loughner, and by doing so, failed the public as well.

I know, Jared Loughner was the shooter, I know, he bears full responsibility for his actions, that is not at all what I am trying to say here. I am simply saying that those who knew Loughner failed to respond to his mental instability. Perhaps, had they done so, Loughner would not have been able to obtain a gun, at least, not legally.

Now we see another example of the ignorance of the media, the New York Times in particular.

Gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds were banned under the federal assault weapons ban until the statute expired at the end of 2004. Today, just six states and the District of Columbia limit the sale of such magazines.

Mr. Loughner was carrying two extended magazines that held 31 rounds each, as well as two “regular” magazines that were not high-capacity, when he opened fire with a semiautomatic pistol on a crowd outside a Tucson supermarket on Saturday, said Deputy Erin Gibson, a spokeswoman for the Pima County Sheriff’s office. She added that deputies later recovered 31 shell casings.

The magazines that Loughner had in his possession were NOT 31 round magazines. The MSM, in their ignorance, and lack of gun knowledge, doesn’t know that the 31 rounds mentioned is from a fully loaded magazine in the pistol and 1 round chambered in the pistol itself.

Thus, in reality, and in proper gun vernacular, it’s a 30+1 weapon, NOT a 31 round magazine. I also know that the anti-gun folks will call this simple semantics, but it’s not, it’s a statement of facts, and facts are something the MSM seems to leave out of their articles all too often.

Yes, a 30 round magazine is indeed a high capacity magazine, and I have a difference of opinion with a few of my gun owning friends and colleagues regarding 30 round magazines for general use. I personally see NO NEED for a private citizen to have a 30 round magazine in a pistol, but that’s just me. I also fail to see the need for a private citizen to own fully automatic weapons, but I have friends and colleagues that do own them, and take them out to a gun range and shoot them from time to time.

If that’s what these folks WANT to have, fine, I am all for it, for them, it’s just not MY thing. I must also point out, the people that I know who actually OWN fully automatic weapons, own them legally.

Now, here’s another point of contention between gun owners like myself and the gun grabbers, by definition, I own high capacity magazines for my pistols.

By the standards of the now expired Assault Weapons Ban, a firearm was not to have been capable of holding more than 10 rounds total in ammunition. California still has that law in effect. But, what some call high capacity, I call a good fit for a great pistol.

My Springfield XD-45 Tactical has a 13 round magazine, and with a round chambered, and a full magazine in place, I am carrying a pistol that has 14 rounds, in hand. That is why I stated that if my friends want, or feel they need a 30 round magazine for their pistols, it’s OK by me, I just don’t need one for any of my weapons. High capacity is a matter of choice.

The argument over high capacity magazine, gun ownership, mental illness and all other factors being brought to light by this tragedy in Tucson have NO easy solutions. The gun grabbers can, and will make a renewed effort to limit magazine capacity, and if possible, ban ALL legal gun ownership in America. Legal ownership.

Here’s what the gun grabbers, the libber left, the bleeding heart ‘if no one had guns, we wouldn’t need guns’ moonbats don’t seem to understand; they can take ALL legal weapons out of the hands of the American citizen, they can close every legal gun outlet in America, they can ban high capacity everything and force ammunition manufacturers to shut down. Third world nations will still be making guns and ammo. Guns will NEVER go away.

And for what it’s worth, I can take the most radical anti-gun moonbat to South or East Dallas and show them that for $500 I can walk away the proud owner of a full auto-loading AK-47 with 30 round banana magazines and all the ammo I can carry.

So much for banning guns, magazines and ammo…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This entry was posted in America 1st and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to In Tucson, Guns Have a Broad Constituency

  1. minuteman26 says:

    The lefties are scared Fred. They know the public despises their political agenda. They are all wondering which one of us is next? If they get some sort of gun ban done, they will try to ban knives next. Will be a civil war before any tampering gets done to the 2nd Amendment. Commies will be Commies.

  2. Steve Dennis says:

    WHy is it that the left just can’t get it through their heads that people who commit these crimes are going to be able to get their guns no matter what laws are on the books? It really is maddening sometimes!

  3. Stormwarning says:

    I don’t see the purpose of a civilian needing a 30 rd mag.

  4. extex_cop says:

    Well said Fred….the only thing I have to add is this quote…

    “Those who hammer their guns into plows… will plow for those who do not.”
    ~ Thomas Jefferson

  5. minuteman26 says:

    Stormwarning – A 30 round magazine gives you the chance to hit 30 targets of your choice. If your a poor shot and only have 10 targets, you get three shots for each instead of one. Have 30 round mags for most of my rifles. If you don’t have the need don’t buy them. When the shit hits the fan and Obama will insure it will, what capacity magazine do you deem appropriate?

  6. Stormwarning says:

    I have two Glocks & 6 mags. Just don’t see a need for a citizen to have a 30 rd mag.

  7. With regard to mentally incompetent fuckers, the system fails. It simply FAILS.

    NO ONE wants to make ANY kind of decision.

    In ANY state.

    BZ

  8. BobF says:

    I was wondering something about Loughner. It’s said he’s had numerous run-in”s with the law. Law enforcement was even called to his college class where he was a disturbance. With all these run-in’s with the law, wouldn’t something be reported to the national database that’s checked when a person buys a handgun? People have been denied handgun purchases without ever being convicted of a crime. The gun shop owner made the phone call and was given the green light to sell this person a handgun. I’m wondering if erratic behavior like this individual demonstrated on numerous occasions to law enforcement is required to be reported to the system?

  9. sdkar says:

    So what are you saying…you don’t see a need for a civilian to have a 30 round magazine? Or you don’t think any civilian should be allowed to have a 30 round magazine?

    Well, one reason to have a 30 rd magazine would be if you were surrounded by 30 raving lunatics and you had no time to swap mags. Your inability to see a need for a citizen to have a 30 rd magazine simply shows that you just aren’t thinking creatively enough. I can think of a thousand reasons for needing a 30 rd mag.

    Reminds me of the saying from the movie “Field of Dreams”. Build it, and they will come. Someone made a 30 rd mag for the Glock, and people bought them. I suppose if one day, the SHTF, and I had time to prepare for that day, I might want to buy a 30 rd mag for my Glock. Heck, maybe even two.

  10. MissBeth says:

    Fred, overall an excellent article.

    Allow me to add another person of responsibility, who had extensive knowledge of Loughner’s instability and chose to turn away from the problem saying there was nothing HE OR HIS DEPARTMENT could do, despite repeated calls from HIS CONSTITUENCY–our dear, beloved, asshole of a sheriff himself. Yep, dear old “mecca of bigotry, I’m not going to enforce the law” Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.

    He WAS reported to the system, often, by many. Dupnik chose to turn the other way, and by doing so, kept this jerk out of the system. His mother works for the county as well.

    And as an added treat, we get to entertain Ovomit coming here tomorrow to attempt to chastise us. We don’t want him here. We really need to hide the ice cream from Mrs. Ovomit (“Mobomba”) while they’re here…

    just sayin…

  11. To those who might question “WHY” do I need a 30 rd. Mag? If the bad guys have it, then I need it too. You always want to be better prepared than the Bad Guys.

    I often use the analogy of a conversation between a local sheriff and a liberal lady at a fancy schmancy upscale fundraiser.

    She asked the sheriff why he had his pistol on his hip at the country club. He stated that he always carried protection because you need to be prepared. She asked if he was expecting trouble that evening— he replied “No Ma’am, If I was Expecting Trouble, I would have brought a Shotgun or my AR.”

    Respectfully submitted by SD2010.

  12. TexasFred says:

    I don’t see the purpose of a civilian needing a 30 round magazine either, BUT, I don’t have an objection if YOU have one…

    That’s the price we pay for equal freedoms for ALL Americans, and to restrict ANY LEGAL GUN OWNER, and Loughner was indeed a LEGAL gun owner, would restrict ALL of us…

    Personally, I have no use for a 30 round mag for a pistol and I have no need for a full auto military rifle, but, if you have one and you want to BURN ammo, by all means, do so, and I’ll help you too, but I don’t want one… That’s just me…

    One shot, one kill… That training NEVER leaves you…

  13. Bob Mack says:

    I don’t care if a law abiding citizen has a 30 round mag or wears crossed bandoliers around his shoulders while waving a cavalry saber. If he’s trained and responsible, I want him armed. The life he saves just may be mine…

  14. Stormwarning says:

    @sdkar – Apparently you missed what I wrote: “Just don’t see a need for a citizen to have a 30 rd mag.” There it is, the words are plain and simple. As for being surrounded by a crowd of angry people and not having a 30 rd mag., well I guess I cannot picture myself being in a situation where I’d need it.

  15. mrchuck says:

    The perp is a full-blown 5150.
    We now know that the Pima County Sheriff’s have visited his home multiple times. He is a known nut-case to them.
    I WANT to see those reports.
    I expect a partial cover-up due to the absolute fact that his mother WORKS for the Pima County Board of Supervisors!!!
    Yes, a Pima County employee that has be protecting her “uncle fester” baby boy all his protective life.
    That’s where it’s at for me.
    All Sheriff Offices have their own lists of known nut cases.

  16. sdkar says:

    Stormwarning…I understand that you don’t see the need for yourself to have a 30 rd mag. However, your statement that “you don’t see a need for a civilian to have a 30 rd mag” is what I wanted to address. I am hoping to change your statement. You see, I am a civilian and I may one day find myself surrounded by 20 to 30 or more people who want to do me or my family harm. My Glock holds 16 rds currently. Let’s say that 27 people surround me and I had only my Glock and a single mag. Well, in my current setup, I at most, will only take out 16 bad guys and then I have to go hands on. for the remaining 11 people. However, if I have a 30 rd mag, I now can address the concerns of all 27 people and still have three rounds leftover to dissuade another 3 people who may have wanted to jump in and help the bad guys.

    Is this situation far fetched…absolutely. But it now shows you that there can be a need for a 30 round magazine. Thus, you can no longer stand by your statement as you have been enlightened as to why one would need such an item.

    Is my circumstances a little far fetched…yes. But so is any gov’t response to any crisis. I don’t want you, or anyone else to say they do not see a need for a weapon or any accessory and use that statement to hinder my right to purchase such item. Just because YOU don’t see a need doesn’t mean there isn’t one. The fact that 30 round mags exist prove that others DO see a need.

    Also, I too believe in one shot one kill. However, sometimes, 30 kills may be in order and necessary. After all, who wants to stop and reload when you have a lot of necessary killin to do. The 30 rd mag sounds great. I can’t wait for the Glock drum magazine…100 rounds of Glock fun.

  17. Stormwarning says:

    sdkar, I won’t quiblle with your thoughts on this subject. My only point was my response to your question.

    So what are you saying…you don’t see a need for a civilian to have a 30 round magazine? Or you don’t think any civilian should be allowed to have a 30 round magazine?

    I wrote nothing about being allowed

  18. sdkar says:

    Stormwarning – Thank you for your response. I asked for clarification and it is why I asked the question in my first response:

    “So what are you saying…you don’t see a need for a civilian to have a 30 round magazine? Or you don’t think any civilian should be allowed to have a 30 round magazine?”

    When people with the power to make laws read statements like yours, they may agree and use your statement to bolster thier argument and want to make a law. When I read you statement it scares me a little. I don’t know you, but if I heard a lawmaker make the same statement you did, I would be terrified as we can all assume what the next step would be. It would be to make a law keeping EVERYONE from owning a 30 round mag. Like you, I don’t have one either. I have seen them for sale and agree they seem to be nothing but a novelty. However, once these get banned, the slippery slope has been stepped on. Next, its 15 rd mags, then 10…until finally we all have single shot 22 long rifles with serial numbered ammunition and the need for a permit to fire a single round.

    This is what our govt does…all the while saying that they are not taking our 2nd amendment rights away, they are simply making a few rules to keep us safe. They use the justification such as “I don’t see the need for a civilian to own a 30 rd mag”.

    I can’t help but feel our founding fathers wanted us on a even keel with those that would rule us. I am sure they did not intend for progress to occur in weaponry and for we the people to be allowed to own nothing more than a simple musket. I believe the second amendment has been whittled away too much already. Anything that lends teeth to a govt that can chisel away our rights do not sit well with me.

    Thus, I myself do not see a reason for ME to have a 30 rd magazine at this time, but I can certainly see why a 30 round magazine would be invented and why a civilian might want and/or need a 30 round magazine.

    I am not trying to be argumentative with you or anyone. If you are here, then I have a good idea on your views of the 2nd amendment. It’s not you specifically that I am worried about. Its your statement when it is made by someone that may not believe as strongly in the 2nd amendment as you and I do. That’s way scarier to me than a psycho with a 30 round magazine.

  19. NativeSon says:

    Hold on Fred, I’m reloading…

  20. TexasFred says:

    NativeSon – Yeah, no shit, speaking as guys who have actually been IN a gunfight, and lived to tell the tale, we carry an ample number of fully loaded XD mags.. :)

Leave a Reply