California SB 249: I have no idea what a magazine lock is, but we must ban them!

A couple of weeks ago, the CBS affiliate in San Francisco ran a bit on the “bullet button” (correctly known as a magazine lock), and how it allows Californians to “circumvent” the state’s (full retard) Assault Weapons Ban.

Now, one man has decided that we must ban this terrible menace. Even if he doesn’t know what exactly it is.

California Senate Bill 249 purports to ban magazine locks in California, but what it actually does is… something else entirely.

I’m not even going to try to translate what the intent of this law is, here is the summary from the actual legislation:

This bill would, commencing July 1, 2013, and with certain exceptions, prohibit any person from importing, making, selling, loaning, transferring, or possessing any conversion kit, as defined, designed to convert certain firearms with a fixed magazine into firearms with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and other features making the firearm an assault weapon and would make violations subject to criminal penalties.

What? This is already illegal.

As far as I can puzzle out (because “conversion kit” is not defined anywhere in the legislation), this bill would apparently make it double super illegaller to manufacture an “Assault Weapon” in California.

Maybe we need some context here.

So San Francisco CBS affiliate runs a story on the “bullet button” (which is a brand name), and Yee gets his panties in a bunch. He responds by “introducing” legislature to ban… something. Here is a quote from the good “senator”:

“It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion,” said Yee.

Ok, I’m going to take major issue with that statement, but I’ll wait while he finishes:

“What I am proposing is to essentially prevent any mechanism that would allow the conversion of an assault weapon into a way that you can fire these magazines upon magazines without effort,” he said.

So, while he has just clearly demonstrated that he has no idea what a magazine lock is or does, we must ban… something.

Here’s a little history on the magazine lock:

In 1999 California passed a bill (SB 23) known as the “Assault Weapon Control Act”, which basically attempts to ban a class of firearms based on look. because it is a law, it attempts to define these firearms based on features, since banning by name (as had been done in 1989 with the Roberti-Roos “Assault Weapon Ban”) was injuncted by the courts. This led to a quagmire for California gun owners, who had to figure out if their firearms fit one of the convoluted definitions of a banned “Assault Weapon” in California.

So an enterprising California gun owner invented the “Bullet Button” magazine lock, which would allow certain firearms to comply with California’s convoluted Assault Weapons legislation. Basically this device alters the magazine release so that the firearm will accept a magazine, but to release the magazine you must use a tool (which could be the tip of a bullet on some models). This alters the rifle from having the “ability to accept a detachable magazine” to being a firearm with a “fixed magazine” which  is defined in California Law as requiring a tool to remove.

This contraption was invented to comply with California’s asinine firearms laws.

The California Department Of Justice has to date refused to issue a bulletin to the state’s 58 District Attorneys stating that this device makes the rifles compliant with California law, and legal. The CalGuns Foundation has filed a motion with the courts for this very thing, and it has so far been denied. However, as part of that case the California Department Of Justice has stated on paper and on record that an AR with a magazine release and magazine capable of holding 10 rounds or less is perfectly legal.

Yet, “senator” Yee seems to think that these devices allow one to “fire these magazines upon magazines without effort”, which is just plain wrong.

Now to his earlier gem of a quote.

“It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion,” said Yee.

I don’t know what country Yee thinks he’s in, but this is America jack. It is most certainly not important that individuals in California be barred these weapons, and for you to claim that no debate or discussion is allowed simply demonstrates that you do not understand the laws or customs of the country you are representing.

That statement alone should motivate people to vote this sorry excuse for a man out of office. You don’t get to dictate to us, you are nothing but a servant.

Now the CBS affiliate that ran the news story which “started” all of this is claiming that Yee has introduced SB249 because of the story they ran. I hate to disappoint you misguided liberals, but Yee introduced this legislation in February of 2011. It’s been voted on and rejected twice.

It’s a terribly written piece of legislation. The only thing it seems to do is create a situation where the state or local DA can declare your firearm a “public nuisance” and then confiscate and destroy it. It also creates a situation where you can be sued in a civil court by the state or DA for $300 for the first “conversion kit” and $100 per additional “conversion kit” rather than being charged criminally.

So it’s all about money then? Well that’s not altogether surprising, it usually is.

While I don’t see this “law” being passed any time soon (at least in its current form), or really doing anything if it is, the CalGuns Foundation has already set their sights on it should it be passed into law. If you’re a gun owner in California, and are unhappy with the firearms laws or potential firearms laws in this state, make a donation to the Second Amendment Foundation, or the CalGuns Foundation, they are the ones working to change things for you.

Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman: This is pretty much all I’m going to say about this.

Wall of text coming at you, feel free to skip it if you’re fed up with hearing about the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

I’ve tried really hard not to comment on this at all because, well we really didn’t know much of anything, and I wanted to see how things played out (poorly, apparently).

Ok, aside from all the crap that has been spewed by the Usual Suspects lineup of Race Baiters, I didn’t form any kind of opinion as to what happened until the 911 recording was released (edit, apparently the file has been moved on the Sanford site, a youtube version can be found here). This is the first real hard factual evidence that the public was allowed to see.

I want to make very clear right up front that I am of the opinion that Zimmerman acted incorrectly when he left his vehicle, which is not the same as acting illegally, but I’ll get to that later.

I don’t live in Florida (in fact, I’ve never been there). The only thing I know about Florida is that my dad was escorted across the state line by a State Trooper and told not to return in the mid 1970′s (he was ejected for living in a whorehouse. As a young man who’d just left the Navy after a trip to Vietnam, he protests to this day that he was just storing his clothes there. I worship that man). I’m not going to comment on the initial investigation of the shooting other than to say that as it has played out, it looks like the Sheriff was right not to press charges.

I’m not going to get into NBC’s “creative editing” of the 911 call, which plainly was done in an attempt to make the facts fit The Narrative.

I do think it is kind of telling that until the day Zimmerman was arrested the only photos we saw of him in The Media were 60 pounds heavier than he was on the day the shooting took place, and the only photos we saw of Martin were of a 13 year old, whilst current photos of both were readily available with just the slightest effort to find them.

Let’s take a look at an actual excerpt from that 911 call:

At 2:07 Zimmerman tells the dispatcher; “He’s running.”

At 2:09 you can hear a car door open and a chime begins that is plainly the “door is open, keys in ignition” warning on Zimmerman’s truck.

At 2:13 you can clearly hear the car door being shut, and the chime stops.

At 2:17 Zimmerman’s voice wobbles and he starts breathing heavily into the phone, indicating that he has started running.

At 2:22 without any prompting other than the aforementioned noises and breathing, the dispatcher asks “Are you following him?” to which Zimmerman responds, “Yeah.”

At 2:26 the dispatcher says, “Okay, we don’t need you to do that.” To which Zimmerman responds, “Okay.” Zimmerman proceeds to give the dispatcher his name. Then he says, “He ran.”

At 2:39 the heavy breathing into the phone stops (just 13 seconds after the dispatcher told Zimmerman “we don’t need you to do that.”)

At 3:35 Zimmerman says, “Oh crap, I don’t want to give that all out. I don’t know where this kid is.” (in response to the dispatcher requesting Zimmerman’s address)

So, let’s think about that for just a moment. Zimmerman can still be heard breathing heavily into the phone until about 2:39, when the heavy breathing stops. I would have to assume that indicates that Zimmerman has stopped running, and the 13 seconds of elapsed time since the dispatcher’s “we don’t need you to do that” comment would seem at first glance to indicate that Zimmerman took that to mean “stop following him”. Zimmerman then proceeds to give the dispatcher his own information, directions to and a description of, his location for another minute and a half or so.

That is the end of the facts that the public has been shown so far. Everything else is conjecture and hearsay at this point.

So what do we know? We know that George Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin while on the phone with the 911 operator, and it would appear that he stopped pursuit of Martin when told by the 911 operator that it wasn’t necessary.

None of that is illegal.

I’ve heard people say that Zimmerman following Martin would be illegal under Florida’s Stalking laws, but this is just not the case. Do a bit of research, and you’ll find that even trying to stretch the Stalking laws to fit the situation fails.

The only other thing we know as a fact is that at some point in the few minutes following the 911 call Zimmerman and Martin had contact, which ended in Zimmerman shooting Martin in the chest once with his carry firearm, resulting in Martin’s death.

That is right now the sum total of the facts that the public has been shown. Everything else is only conjecture at this point.

Martin’s version of the events following the 911 call are that Martin approached Zimmerman, asked Zimmerman “do you have a problem” or something similar, to which Zimmerman replied “no” or something similar and turned around to return to his truck. Martin stated “you do now” or something similar, and punched Zimmerman knocking him to the ground. Martin then mounted Zimmerman and began slamming Zimmerman’s head into the concrete.

If that is accurate, Martin would have been the aggressor. Once Martin threw the first punch Zimmerman was justified in defending himself. Once Martin escalated the violence to a level where serious injury or death was a distinct possibility (slamming someone’s head into concrete makes either event likely), Zimmerman was justified in using lethal force to stop the attack.

Also consider that the Sanford Sheriff’s department has said that Zimmerman had wounds to his face and the back of his head consistent with his version of events leading up to the shooting. There are groups claiming that the Sheriff’s department is lying about that in order to cover up Zimmerman illegally “executing” Martin, but I’ve found reports from three of George Zimmerman’s neighbors which stated that the day after the shooting George Zimmerman had butterfly bandages on his nose and the back of his head and looked “pretty beat up”. All of whom said they spoke to both the FBI and Sanford Sheriff’s department about this, but none could recall talking to any investigators from the office of the Special Prosecutor assigned to the case. So is everybody lying then?

I don’t know, and neither does anybody else at this point.

What I do know is that the affidavit which resulted in Zimmerman’s arrest is a joke.

As I stated earlier, I believe that Zimmerman acted incorrectly. In my opinion his mistake was getting out of his vehicle. I believe this was incorrect for three reasons:

1. As someone who carries a firearm for self defense, he gave up his primary tool of self defense when he pursued Martin: avoidance.
2. Zimmerman is not a sworn Peace Officer, he had no duty to do so.
3. Zimmerman gave up an enormous tactical advantage when he got out of his truck.

These actions are incorrect because they resulted in Zimmerman being in a situation in which he had to use his CCW firearm. As someone who carries a firearm for self defense it is a weapon of last resort, to be drawn when all other means of self defense have failed. A human’s primary tools of self defense are avoidance and deescalation. As true as those statements are, they do not make any of George Zimmerman’s actions illegal. Incorrect action and bad decisions led George Zimmerman into a situation where he shot an unarmed 17 year old. That’s a bad deal whatever circumstances led up to it.

This is why I’m disappointed in the people running this country:

Despite no evidence of a crime being committed (and even with minor exculpatory evidence existing), look at what has been done to George Zimmerman:

• “Religious leaders” Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakonvict (I just can’t resist taking a shot at that asshat) have all manipulated The Media into pushing a story of a “White Hispanic” shooting a black kid in cold blood. They have stirred up such public outrage (despite not having any of the actual evidence outlined above) to the point where Zimmerman and his family have had to go into hiding in fear that they will be assaulted.
• The “New Black Panther Party” placed a $10,000 bounty for George Zimmerman’s “capture”, dead or alive.
• Spike Lee retweeted an address that he thought was Zimmerman’s home address to his approximately 250,000 followers. The home actually belongs to an elderly couple, one of which currently suffers from a heart condition. Fox news has reported that the couple have received threats and hate mail, which has gotten so bad they’ve temporarily moved to a hotel.
• Mike Tyson tossed out this gem of a quote: “It’s a disgrace that man (Zimmerman) hasn’t been dragged out of his house and tied to a car and taken away. Forget about him being arrested—the fact that he hasn’t been shot yet is a disgrace.”

At this point, it doesn’t really matter what happened that night, George Zimmerman’s life is over. He’s already lost his job because he’s had to go into hiding. Even if he’s acquitted, he’s going to have to go into hiding. If he wants to live for any significant amount of time, he’s going to have to disappear and cut off all contact with his family and friends. Trying to get a job in America? Not likely after the kind of publicity this has gotten and besides, how would he stay in hiding with coworkers? No trial, he hadn’t even been charged with a crime at this point, and look at the level of punishment that has been visited upon him.

The government has not done one single thing to put a stop to this. You know how I know this is unjust? Make Trayvon Hispanic, or Asian, or White. Leave the four bullet points above (but change the names to their other racial equivalents), and tell me that the government would not have been arresting people, and that The Media would not be in the midst of an orgy of applying the term “racist” to all of it.

Now that is some racist bullshit right there.

And based on the affidavit, it would appear that the Special Prosecutor has now charged Zimmerman with second degree murder with almost no evidence to back that up. I’ve heard it theorized that the decision to charge Zimmerman was politically motivated, or an attempt to stave off rioting. If either of those is the case I sincerely hope that Angela Corey is charged with Prosecutorial Misconduct.

I’m not a lawyer but I do understand the basic idea of an affidavit, and the one which was submitted in this case is something that I would expect to see from a first year law student, not a Special Prosecutor’s office. The affidavit is supposed to give a Judge facts and evidence supporting the prosecutor’s assertion that the subject of the affidavit should be arrested and prosecuted, while explaining how those facts are known, as well as when and where that evidence was collected so that the Judge can make an informed decision. Specific facts and evidence.

Let me give an example of what an affidavit should contain:

At 1:43pm on 4-17-2012 Mr. Jones entered the Bank of Money located on the corner of Zee Street and Here Way. At 3:50pm on 4-17-2012 the affiant (this is the person presenting the facts) spoke with Ms. Doe who is a teller at this bank, who told the affiant that Mr. Jones proceeded to urinate in one of the potted plants in the bank, while waving at her. She also stated that Mr. Jones said something about some ugly plants outside just prior to commencing the urination.

At 2:05pm on 4-17-2012 Officer Friendly responding to the 911 call made by the bank manager Mr. Cash, spoke to the owner of Irish Bar across the street who told Officer Friendly that Mr. Jones had been drinking in the bar for approximately an hour prior to the incident. Officer Friendly related this information to the affiant upon the affiant’s arrival at the Bank of Money.

That’s a great affidavit. It presents the facts of the case as known by the investigators, as well as how and when the information was discovered by the investigator, but does not make any inferences or draw unsupported conclusions.

Here’s what a bad affidavit looks like:

Mr. Jones walked into the Bank of Money Tuesday afternoon and peed in a potted plant while waving at a teller. The teller was on the phone with a friend, who said the teller told her that she felt that Mr. Jones wanted to rape her. He was drunk because he had been drinking at the bar across the street all afternoon. Mr. Jones profiled the plant because he mentioned that he hated ugly plants.

I mention this, because the second example is pretty much exactly what the State of Florida vs. Zimmerman Affidavit of Probable Cause looks like. It’s terrible.

If it should turn out that Zimmerman did illegally execute Trayvon Martin, and evidence can be shown to a level that he could be rightfully convicted, it still would not justify the way this case has been handled. Innocent until proven guilty? Not in this case.

Oh, it’s definitely possible.

I keep finding people on the internet debating if this is possible: Man drops dumbbell on bullet, shoots self.

Ok, dammit this is embarrassing, but I can say with the authority of first hand experience that this could definitely happen.

If you’re feeling particularly suicidal, you too can replicate this phenomenon (don’t do it, this is one of the most stupid things I’ve ever done).

When I was about 13 (I can’t remember exactly how old I was, it’s been too many years ago now), I decided it would be a good idea to put a .22lr round on the garage floor and whack it with a hammer.

To be fair, the garage door was open, and there was about 5 miles of untouched field on the other side of the street (all houses now, but it was my shooting range back then).

I don’t really know what possessed me to do this, it just seemed like the thing to do on a hot summer afternoon.

So I put the bullet down pointing across the street, told my two friends (who both thought this was a banner idea and were cheering me on in the name of SCIENCE I’m sure) to stay behind me, and gave the rim a good whack with a 16oz Estwing framing hammer (which I still own).

It fired. The bullet struck the field across the street throwing up a nice puff of dust, the point of impact was probably 60-80 feet away, and the time from when I hit the round with the hammer to the impact of the bullet was virtually instantaneous (so I’d assume it was moving at a pretty good clip).

The casing was still sitting right near where it started out, only one side was blown out.

The missing pieces of that case were embedded in the fingers of my right hand. At the time I thought they’d hit my hand and just torn the skin as they blew past. Fast forward about 8 years to a wrist injury at work, and a very curious doctor asking me how I got metal embedded in the fingers of my right hand. It took me a minute to put two and two together, but the doctor agreed that is most likely exactly what the metal on the xray was, and not to worry about it if it had never bothered me as my body would eventually either break it down or reject it (since it had been like 8 years he thought it would just stay there and be broken down).

I don’t know if it’s still there (haven’t had to have my hand xray’d in the last 10 years), but I do most certainly know that you can indeed cause a .22lr round to “fire” with enough force to break human skin by hitting the rim with something heavy at the right angle, assuming that the round is sitting on something solid (I’m thinking that a dumbbell dropped onto a carpeted floor with a thin pad would just about cover it).

God I feel stupid every time I have to explain to someone why this story is fully plausible.

 

Is everyone asleep at the wheel?

First we have a US Congress that passes a bill allowing the indefinite detention by the US Military of anyone suspected of being associated with terrorism (with language that allows them to hold you in any other country no less), without being told what you are charged with, with no right to a lawyer, with no due process.

Then we have a President who signs it into law.

How much worse does it need to get?

How about a law that will allow them to strip you of your citizenship? It’s being debated in congress.

How about having the department of “Homeland Security” running surveillance on journalists?

Are you paying attention to what is going on in your own back yard?

History will repeat itself as many times as we allow it to.

Do you want to live in a country where you have to be afraid of what you can and cannot say?

Is this the USA, or some third world slum?

Have you noticed that the theft of our liberties and the growth of Government control wriggling into every facet of your lives is accelerating?

When will you act to stop this madness?

Will it be too late?

 

I just shot someone in self defense, now what?

There are literally hundreds of training programs available to pretty much everyone on how to actually shoot a CCW weapon, how to carry the weapon, and legally when you are allowed to draw and use your CCW weapon, but there is no consensus on what to do after you have used your CCW weapon in self-defense.

Common “wisdom” on the topic seems to fall into one of two extremes:

• Say absolutely nothing, demand a lawyer.
• Answer any and all questions, after all what do you have to hide?

You’ll find an endless series of arguments on this topic that devolve into name calling on all of the popular CCW related forums, but nothing really concrete to tell you what a good course of action would be.

I’ve done quite a bit of research on this topic, and it seems to me that people who follow either of the above courses of action seem to have a much higher chance of ending up in court. If you say nothing and demand a lawyer, the cops who responded to the call are going to start looking at you as if you’re trying to hide something, or are guilty of something. In the worst case they will miss evidence or witnesses that could have cleared you of any wrongdoing. On the other hand, if you start running your mouth, chances are you’re going to make some contradicting statements, or say something that when looked at in the wrong context will make you look like you broke the law.

Personally, I think that the correct answer lies somewhere in between these two extremes.

Part of the difficulty in finding solid information is that defensive shootings by CCW holders are relatively rare things. After going through all of the police reports and court records involving CCW holder shootings that I could find (which were not all that many), I was kind of at a loss for how to proceed.

So I started looking at the problem I was trying to solve: as a CCW holder, if I have to shoot in defense, how do I prevent being charged with a crime, and having to fight it out in court?

Now sadly enough there are jurisdictions where the DA will actively prosecute any CCW holders that are involved in a defensive shooting. If you are unfortunate enough to be involved in a defensive shooting where this is true (as it is in many places in California), get a good lawyer, and be prepared to spend an inordinate amount of money proving your innocence.

After wrestling with this I came to the conclusion that I’m either going to be charged or not based on information gathered by the first responders and the detective(s) assigned to the case (barring a DA with a political agenda). So what are their guidelines for investigating CCW holder shootings? What things are they looking for to determine if the CCW holder was in the right or acted illegally?

As it turns out, I really couldn’t find much in this regard. I called a couple of friends who work local PD and Sheriff’s Department to ask their opinions. They both suggested that I look into the departmental policies for Officer Involved Shootings (OIS).

What I found was very interesting. It seems that cops wrestle with this same issue. Apparently the policies and guidelines for OIS vary greatly from department to department, and sometimes from precinct to precinct. What I found was that in many law enforcement forums (and consistent with the Force Science Institute’s recommendations), the advice was generally along these lines:

• Give a brief “public safety statement” on scene.
• Get hospital transport.
• Consult with a lawyer before giving a statement, generally 24-48 hours after the shooting.

A little further investigation shows that the “public safety statement” is suggested to consist only of the following (this specific example is from the Mount Prospect, Illinois PD’s OIS policy):

1. Are you injured?
2. If you know of anyone who was injured, what is his or her location?
3. In what direction did you fire your weapon(s)?
4. If any suspects are at large, what are their descriptions?
5. What was their direction of travel?
6. How long ago did they flee?
7. For what crimes are they wanted?
8. With what weapons are they armed?
9. Does any evidence need to be preserved?
10. Where is it located?
11. Did you observe any witness(es)?
12. Where are they?

It seems to me that giving a “public safety statement” along these lines would be very beneficial to a CCW holder that has been involved in a shooting. It addresses any immediate concerns for preserving safety, evidence, and witnesses. All of these things work in your favor. The key thing here is to remember that people who have been in a situation where they have used a firearm in self-defense (citizens and police alike) have a tendency to run their mouths. It’s a stress reaction and a perfectly normal human reaction. Unfortunately every single thing that comes out of your mouth can (and generally will) be used against you in court.

Even if the shooting was squeaky clean, if your story changes at all from telling it to one person to the next (if you let them, every cop you see will try to question you for this very purpose), someone is going to notice that and it is going to raise questions. This is a case where saying less is far better than saying more. If you hit the major points above and nothing else (and only give the statement one time), you have demonstrated that you are trying to be helpful. Wanting to stop at that is not unreasonable, a full interview can always be conducted within the next couple of days.

I find this really interesting, as are the further recommendations from FSI. On the topic of hospital transport, Laura Scarry (a prominent police attorney and certified Force Science Analyst) had the following to say:

This is a controlled, secure environment where an officer can get away from news and cell phone cameras that might otherwise feed intrusive footage of him from the scene to TV and YouTube.

Officers on some departments may be pressured inappropriately by supervisors to give a statement before the end of shift or write a report about the shooting before they go home. At a hospital, an officer can explain to a doctor that he’s keyed up from the stress of the incident and request a Valium. If he’s sedated, he can’t be required to give an immediate statement.

The important takeaway here is that unilaterally the Force Science Institute (and those certified by same) recommend that the shooter not be interviewed immediately. Among the reasons given for this are the growing number of studies that conclude that stress and fatigue negatively impact memory. There are many police unions in the US that have agreements that OIS interviews will not be conducted until at least 24 hours have elapsed from the time of the shooting. This is done because studies like the one above clearly demonstrate that it is beneficial to everyone involved, as the shooter’s memory will be anywhere from 50-70% more accurate when well rested after a stressful event.

They are specifically speaking about police officers, but I do not see any good reason for this to not apply to CCW holders as well. The dynamics of human memory do not change when one puts on a badge.

These are not the only considerations or possibilities of what will happen after you are involved in a defensive shooting, and I urge you to do your own research and don’t take my advice as gospel. I’m not a lawyer, DA, or police officer. I’m just a guy with a keyboard.

Logical Fallacies: Nearly 30,000 people per year die as a result of gun violence in the United States

Most recently I saw this line parroted by Jesse Jackson in an op-ed “piece” he wrote for the Chicago Sun-Times, but I’ve been seeing and hearing this talking point for at least 10 years now.

Let me just get this out of the way: the 30,000/year number is complete crap.

I have no idea where they get these numbers, but I know where I can get some accurate numbers. Let’s take a quick look at Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 from the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2010 shall we?

Here’s the data for 2010:

Total Homicides – 12,996, Total firearm homicides – 8,775

…and for 2009:

Total Homicides – 13,752, Total firearm homicides – 9,199

…and for 2008:

Total Homicides – 14,224, Total firearm homicides – 9,528

…and for 2007:

Total Homicides – 14,916, Total firearm homicides -10,129

…and for 2006:

Total Homicides – 15,087, Total firearm homicides -10,225

And in chart form:

If we take a quick peek at Expanded Homicide Data Table 7 from the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2005, we see:

2005

Total Homicides – 14,860, Total firearm homicides – 10,100

2004

Total Homicides – 14,210, Total firearm homicides – 9,385

2003

Total Homicides – 14,465, Total firearm homicides – 9,659

2002

Total Homicides – 14,263, Total firearm homicides – 9,528

2001

Total Homicides – 14,061, Total firearm homicides – 8,890

And in chart form:

Interesting, so in the last ten years, there has not been a single year when the total number of people murdered in the US was more than 15,087. That’s about half of what the anti’s are claiming, and that’s the sum total of all homicides in the US. One important thing to note here is that I am only looking at homicides. I am not counting suicides (which to be blunt, I couldn’t care less about. If someone is gonna off themselves they’re gonna use whatever is at hand, just look at the suicide rate in Japan where guns are completely banned), or accidental deaths. This is consistent with the “gun violence” part of the statement, accidents and suicide are not violence.

When we look at only firearm homicides, there has not been a single year since at least 2001 when the total was higher than 10,225; just a hair over 1/3 the number quoted so often by the anti’s.

What’s even more interesting is when you look at the age groups. We hear all the time how many “children” are gunned down in the US. In 2010, there were 632 people under the age of 18 killed with firearms.

Now, not included in the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics for Homicides are the following:

• The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty. (386 in 2006, 398 in 2007, 378 in 2008, 414 in 2009, 387 in 2010)
• The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen. (238 in 2006, 257 in 2007, 265 in 2008, 266 in 2009, 278 in 2010)

I find it fascinating how easily one can find accurate data to backup or debunk statistics online.

So I just have to wonder, where are these people getting the 30,000 number?

 

Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 380: How to legally obtain one in California

Much of my blog traffic is the result of this post. The crux of the issue that that you can own one of these in California, you can even buy one from a private party sale legally, but common wisdom around here is that you cannot buy one from an FFL as this gun is not on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (commonly referred to as the Safe Handgun Roster). This is not exactly true.

Before I get into this any further, please understand that I am not a lawyer, and this should not be construed as legal advice. You should consult a licensed attorney to answer any questions you have about this topic.

In 2005 California Senate Bill 269 was passed into law effective January 1, 2006. SB 269 amended the California Penal Code Section 12133 to read as follows:

(a) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to a
single-action revolver that has at least a 5-cartridge capacity with
a barrel length of not less than three inches, and meets any of the
following specifications:
   (1) Was originally manufactured prior to 1900 and is a curio or
relic, as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
   (2) Has an overall length measured parallel to the barrel of at
least 7 1/2 inches when the handle, frame or receiver, and barrel are
assembled.
   (3) Has an overall length measured parallel to the barrel of at
least 7 1/2 inches when the handle, frame or receiver, and barrel are
assembled and that is currently approved for importation into the
United States pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (3) of
subsection (d) of Section 925 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
   (b) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to a
single-shot pistol with a barrel length of not less than six inches
and that has an overall length of at least 10 1/2 inches when the
handle, frame or receiver, and barrel are assembled.

Here is a link to the Information Bulletin (PDF warning) on this from the California DoJ.

So what this means is that you can legally have an FFL alter any pistol not on the California Roster to be a “single shot” pistol before you initiate the transfer. It is also perfectly legal for you (or a gunsmith) to convert the firearm back to its factory configuration once you have taken possession of it. Not all FFL’s will do these kinds of transfers.

This leads to a kind of WTF? moment when you realize that the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale is a complete sham, and does nothing but overcomplicate the process of purchasing your desired handgun. In my opinion, firearms manufacturers should file a class action lawsuit against California over this. Seems like racketeering to me.

So how does this actually work? Let’s say you want to buy a Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 380 in California. The process will go something like this:

• You locate a dealer willing to do an SSE (Single Shot Exemption) Transfer.
• The dealer will alter the firearm to be single shot compliant under California PC 12133 (they install a 9-10″ barrel and a “zero shot magazine”, which is basically a magazine altered to prevent any ammunition from being loaded into it).
• You purchase the Single Shot Compliant pistol, as you would purchase any other firearm in California.
• Once you take possession of the Single Shot Compliant pistol, you can legally reinstall the factory barrel and use a standard magazine.

Most dealers that will do SSE Transfers have trade in packages where you can trade them the parts of the gun that you purchased in the Single Shot Compliant pistol for the OEM equipment, but not all do. You should discuss the specifics of how this works with your FFL before initiating the purchase.

In practice this means that you can buy pretty much any pistol that you could buy anywhere else in the country (with rare exception), you’ll just probably have to pay a little bit more for it than someone who lives in a State without retarded gun laws.

Thus the answer to the question “Is the Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 380 California legal?” is most assuredly yes.

As is pretty much any other pistol.

One often wonders if the people that pass these laws have any idea of what they actually do.