Tag Archives: Bearing Arms

Voting With Your Feet

Posted on by

A state other than New York and New Jersey is about to lose a company because of its political policies.

On Thursday, Bearing Arms reported the following:

If the firearm industry is as massive as anti-gunners claim, then politicians should be wary about passing gun control. After all, even a little bit of it might be enough to drive the industry from your state entirely, taking jobs and other economic benefits with it.

In fact, we’ve seen something of an exodus from many anti-gun states as companies decided to not just leave places hostile toward their businesses, but that are also trying to make it easier for them to be sued for the actions of third parties.

Now, with Virginia’s anti-gun cabal calling the shots in the Old Dominion State, at least one company has decided to move from there to just a few miles down the road from me in Southwest Georgia.

The article notes:

Thomasville is a beautiful community filled with Victorian homes and a long history of really doing Christmas in style, and now they’re home to a small firearm manufacturer that makes a pretty interesting handgun.

The Rideout Arsenal Dragon is a semi-auto handgun with a ridiculously low bore axis. This apparently reduces muzzle rise and lets you get off follow-up shots much quicker. It’s not an inexpensive handgun, but it’s an interesting one, and it’ll be made close to home, which is nice for yours truly.

And, honestly, I absolutely understand why they’d make the move. The Dragon, which isn’t on the market just yet, it seems, features a standard magazine capacity well above what Virginia now tolerates, with the company’s site listing it as 20+1 or 17+1 depending on the configuration. Why build a gun in a state where your own employees couldn’t carry it as it was intended to be carried?

Here in the Peach State, we hold no such restrictions on magazine capacity.

Elections have consequences. Thank God we live in a country where we are free to move from one state to another.

You Have The Right To Defend Yourself

Posted on by

On April 16th, Bearing Arms posted an article about a recent incident in Butts County, Georgia.

The article reports:

A sheriff in Georgia is praising the actions of an armed homeowner who stopped a would-be intruder from gaining access to a child’s bedroom, while also issuing a warning to other criminals in the county.

Butts County Sheriff Gary Long says a man named Abdul Aquil is in custody in connection with the break-in, and is lucky to be alive after his encounter with the armed citizen. Aquil allegedly first tried to gain entry to the home through a bedroom window with a child on the other side, but the child’s father heard the commotion and interrupted the burglar as he was crawling inside. 

Long said the father of the child “challenged the intruder and the suspect exited the window.”

According to Long, the father then went to his room and got a gun as Aquil busted the living room window, trying to get inside.

The father fired his gun, missing the suspect, but causing the suspect to run away.

Long said in a Facebook post, “The shot fired by the homeowner was UNFORTUNATELY about 8 inches too high, missing the intruder, which would have resulted in his death.”

…Long, meanwhile, has two messages for residents of Butts County. In that Facebook post he “strongly” encouraged citizens who can legally possess a firearm to get their hands on one and attend a gun safety class hosted by the sheriff’s office, adding that “if the homeowner last night was not a gun owner, I am afraid the outcome could have been much different.

The Sheriff issued the following message:

“To the criminals, listen up and pay close attention, if you decide to break into a home in Butts County, make sure you are ready to meet your maker. My staff and I will spend as much time as it takes to make sure the citizens of this County are well-trained, educated and capable of making great shots to protect their family and homes. So, unless you are prepared to die, I would highly recommend you to find a home in another County to burglarize, because this is not the one.”

Gun safety classes are a really good idea. There are also non-lethal ways of defending yourself and your home.

Massachusetts Says Something Positive About The Second Amendment

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Bearing Arms reported the following:

As FPC (Firearms Policy Coalition) Action Foundation’s Cody J. Wisniewski said on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co yesterday, since the Bruen decision was handed down by the Supreme Court last year we’re starting to see lower courts around the country start to take the Second Amendment a little more seriously. While we’ve still seen some egregiously awful misreadings of Bruen over the past twelve months, we’ve also seen some major successes, including one case out of Massachusetts that addresses the fact that in many states, your right to keep and bear arms stops at the state line.

As The Reload’s Jake Fogelman reports, a Massachusetts judge recently concluded that the state’s prohibition on non-residents bearing arms for self-defense without first obtaining a temporary license to carry is a violation of their Second Amendment rights; a stunning development in a state where lawmakers are currently trying to obliterate the 2A rights of gun owners inside the borders as well.

“An individual only loses a constitutional right if he commits an offense or is or has been engaged in certain behavior that is covered by 18 USC section 922,” Judge Coffey wrote on August 3rd in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Dean F. Donnell. “He doesn’t lose that right simply by traveling into an adjoining state whose statute mandates that residents of that state obtain a license prior to exercising their constitutional right. To hold otherwise would inexplicably treat Second Amendment rights differently than other individually held rights. Therefore, the Court finds that GL. 269, sec. (10a) is unconstitutional as applied to this particularly situated defendant and allows the motion to dismiss on that ground.”

The ruling could have significant implications for determining the scope of the right to carry a firearm in public. It is one of the first legal decisions to address gun-carry rights across state lines since the Supreme Court recognized a general public carry right in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen last June. It could fuel gun-rights advocates’ push for the right to travel in all 50 states with firearms in public, also known as “national reciprocity.”

The defendant in the case, Dean Donnell, is a legal resident of New Hampshire. New Hampshire is a permitless gun carry state, meaning anyone 18 years of age or older who can legally possess a firearm may carry it in public openly or concealed. It also issues carry permits to residents for reciprocity purposes. However, Massachusetts does not honor New Hampshire permits.

Judge Coffey’s order does not specify whether or not Donnell had a valid New Hampshire permit, only that he “was in compliance with his home states laws on the possession of the firearm” when Massachusetts charged him. The law under which he was charged, GL. 269, sec. (10a), creates a mandatory minimum sentence of 18 months in prison for anyone convicted of possessing a firearm in public without a license.

Judge Coffey wrote that Donnell’s conduct was “clearly covered by the Second Amendment.” Therefore, under the standard of review set in Bruen, he said the Government of Massachusetts needed to show a historical tradition “relating to disparate treatment of nonresidents” to uphold the law.

Wow. Please follow the link to the article for further details. This is an amazing decision–particularly in Massachusetts.

How Is This Legal?

Posted on by

A website called Bearing Arms posted an article about Boulder, Colorado, earlier this month. It seems as if some of the city officials have forgotten the Second Amendment.

The article reports:

Residents of Boulder, Co., have until December 27 to “certify” their “assault weapons” or remove the firearms from city limits. Those who fail to comply could face fines, jail time, and confiscation and destruction of their firearms, according to the Denver Post.

Boulder police say they have certified 85 firearms since the city council passed an “assault weapons” ban in May. Residents who already owned prohibited rifles, pistols, and shotguns were given the chance to keep their firearms by certifying prior ownership with police. The council also voted unanimously to ban “high-capacity” magazines and bump stocks.

“My hope is that we will see more bans at the state level and one day at the federal level so these weapons will no longer be available,” Councilman Aaron Brockett said in May.

What? Generally speaking, ‘certification’ is the prelude to confiscation.

The Second Amendment 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.

Keep in mind that the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) were put in place to limit the power of the federal government. Those amendments were necessary in order to get all of the thirteen colonies to sign on to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights limits the power of the government–it is not intended to limit the power of American citizens.

This is an instance where a state resident, a state official or state legislature needs to step in declare this ban and registration program unconstitutional and send the case through the courts. This law should not be allowed to stand.