Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
A guy goes to the supermarket and notices a very attractive woman waving at him.

She says, "Hello."

He's rather taken aback because he can't place where he knows her from.

So he asks, 'Do you know me?"

To which she replies, "I think you're the father of one of my kids."

Now his mind travels back to the only time he had ever been a woman other than his wife.

So he asks, 'Are you the stripper from the bachelor party that I made love to on the pool table, with all my buddies watching, while your partner whipped my butt with wet celery?'

She looks into his eyes and says calmly,

"No, I'm your son's English teacher."
General CCW Related Discussion Forum / Re: A Thread on National Reciprocity
« Last post by Capt. Frank on December 09, 2017, 06:14:21 PM »
Need some adjustment, is a gross understatement!
General CCW Related Discussion Forum / Re: A Thread on National Reciprocity
« Last post by NorCal Chuck on December 08, 2017, 02:46:31 PM »
Well I for one am inclined to be very skeptical, but I also see it as perhaps a way to get all states on the same page.
Some states are just way to far into some sort of "control" mode and need to loosen up a bit.

Of course there will be suits filed against it and a legal period it will have to go through but this may in fact be a positive once it gets into the courts. States like New York and California will have to "adjust" and the way things are going here in California an adjustment is needed.

I am not familiar with New York state wise but there are certainly plenty of cities that could use some "adjustment!"
General CCW Related Discussion Forum / Re: A Thread on National Reciprocity
« Last post by SapperSteel on December 07, 2017, 12:55:17 AM »
Bill passes in the House:

House Votes to Sharply Expand Concealed-Carry Gun Rights

[Go to URL to view photo] A man aiming at targets during a class to qualify for a concealed-carry permit in Illinois. Credit Scott Olson/Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday easily passed a sweeping expansion of the right to carry concealed firearms virtually anywhere in the country, putting the fate of the National Rifle Association’s top legislative priority in the hands of a divided Senate.

To win over Democrats, House Republicans paired the measure, which would require all states to recognize any other state’s concealed-carry permit, with a more modest bipartisan fix meant to incentivize better reporting of legal and mental health records to the national background check system.

Together, the measures were the first gun-related bill to pass through the chamber since two of the deadliest mass shootings in the United States, in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs, Tex., in the fall.

But the background check measure was not enough to win over most Democrats, nor did it persuade law enforcement officials in some of the largest cities, including New York, who say the legislation would force locales with strict gun laws to bow to places with few or no gun restrictions.

The final House vote was 231 to 198, with six Democrats in favor of and 14 Republicans against the bill.

Passage in the Senate would almost certainly require 60 votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster, and although several Democrats have expressed support in the past, the climb for the N.R.A. will be steep.

On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee debated its own response to the shootings in Texas and Nevada and appeared willing to move forward with a background check bill. But Senate leaders seemed disinclined to take up the concealed-carry measure anytime soon.

Regardless, House Republicans and gun rights activists celebrated the concealed-carry vote, hailing it as an important step toward victory in a decades-long fight to extend concealed carry and simplify the rules for gun owners.

Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A.’s executive director, praised the vote as a “watershed moment” for Second Amendment rights.

“This bill ensures that all law-abiding citizens in our great country can protect themselves in the manner they see fit without accidentally running afoul of the law,” he said.

Democrats said the measure would jeopardize public safety and set a dangerous precedent for overriding states’ rights to determine their own laws.

“The answer to our national problem of gun violence is not that we need more people carrying concealed firearms on our streets,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

Laws regulating the carrying of concealed weapons have traditionally been left up to the states, creating a patchwork of varying standards and expectations. Some states, including New York and Maryland, as well as the District of Columbia require that permit applicants have live-fire experience and safety training, along with a clean criminal history. Others are more lenient, and a dozen states do not even require a permit.

The House bill would not force states to change their own laws, but it would treat a concealed-carry permit like a driver’s license, letting individuals allowed by one state to carry a concealed weapon with them into another state.

It would also allow visitors to national parks, wildlife refuges and other federally administered lands to legally carry concealed guns. And it carves out a provision that would let qualified permit holders carry concealed guns in school zones.

Law enforcement officials from major cities like New York and Los Angeles, where strict gun control laws are aimed at handguns, warned that the bill would usurp states’ authority to set their own laws and effectively impose the lax laws of Southern and rural states on densely populated cities.

Republicans in the Senate would need to pick up at least eight Democrats to pass the measure. And while several Democrats backed a similar measure when it was last voted on in 2013, the politics surrounding guns have shifted since then amid a spate of deadly mass shootings. The result has been a virtual deadlock as Democrats and Republicans cannot agree on how, if at all, to address gun violence.

Several Democrats who voted for the 2013 measure, including Senators Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Mark Warner of Virginia and Tom Udall of New Mexico, said this week they would not do so this time around. Even Democrats perceived to be the most in favor of gun rights, including Senators Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana, were cautious about staking out a position before they needed to.

Republican leaders, wary of seeing the measure once again fail on the floor of the Senate floor, were not rushing the concealed-weapon bill to that chamber. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican and a co-sponsor of both the concealed-carry and background check bills in the Senate, said on Tuesday that he was “realistic enough” to realize that following the House’s lead by combining the bills would also be pointless in his chamber.

“If you put them together, it makes it harder to do what we can do and can do now and need to do,” he said.

Senators from both parties view the background check bill as one of the hopeful — albeit narrow — areas of consensus. It was developed in response to a lapse that allowed the gunman in the Sutherland Springs shooting to buy his weapons. The Air Force failed to send his domestic violence conviction to the national database. Had it done so, the gunman, Devin P. Kelley, would have been barred from buying a firearm from a licensed gun dealer. The measure incentivizes states and federal agencies to report criminal offenses and other information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

During the Senate Judiciary hearing, the acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also told senators that the agency expected to begin regulating — and could even ban — so-called bump stocks, which can turn semiautomatic rifles into weapons capable of firing long, deadly bursts. The Las Vegas gunman used such devices during his deadly rampage.

Democrats in the House denounced the decision by Republicans to combine the two bills and fretted that they could force shut a rare window of bipartisanship over guns. Mark Kelly, the retired astronaut and the husband of former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was badly wounded in a 2011 shooting in Tucson, called the move “reprehensible.”

“The concealed-carry reciprocity is bad in a worse way than the fixing of the N.I.C.S. system is a good thing,” said Mr. Kelly, who helps lead a gun control group bearing Ms. Giffords’s name. “They don’t cancel each other out.”

Correction: December 6, 2017
An earlier version of this article misstated the vote of Senator Claire McCaskill on a measure in 2013 that would have expanded concealed-carry gun rights. She voted against — not for — the bill.

As always,

General CCW Related Discussion Forum / Re: A Thread on National Reciprocity
« Last post by M1911A1 Steve on December 01, 2017, 09:54:19 PM »
"John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, called the bill a 'ploy to weaken state gun laws and allow untrained people and people with dangerous histories to carry hidden, loaded handguns across the country'..."

Um, no, John. Those "untrained people...with dangerous histories" don't bother to get concealed-carry permits in the first place; nor, for that matter, do they obey our laws. That's why they're dangerous.
General CCW Related Discussion Forum / Re: A Thread on National Reciprocity
« Last post by SapperSteel on December 01, 2017, 09:00:54 PM »

House panel votes to expand right to carry concealed guns in victory for NRA
[Go to URL to view photo] House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), center, is joined in a Nov. 29 hearing by, from left, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), a staff aide and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) as the panel meets to craft a Republican bill to expand gun owners' rights. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

By Mike DeBonis November 29

A House panel advanced a GOP measure Wednesday that would greatly expand the ability of Americans to carry concealed weapons across state lines, while also moving on a bipartisan basis to close loopholes in the federal background check system for gun buyers.

The two bills are the first firearms-related legislation to advance on Capitol Hill since mass shooters in Las Vegas and Texas killed a combined 84 people. The House Judiciary Committee approved the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act on a 19-11 party-line vote, then passed the Fix NICS Act on a 17-6 bipartisan vote.

The National Rifle Association this week called the concealed-carry bill, which requires states to honor permits issued elsewhere, its “highest legislative priority in Congress.” The group says mandatory reciprocity would prevent “abuses” in states with strict firearms laws and allow gun owners “to exercise their rights nationwide with peace of mind.”

“Your fundamental right to keep and bear arms should not end at the state line,” the group said in urging its members to contact their representatives and call for its passage.

But groups that support increased gun controls decry the bill, arguing that it will undermine the ability of individual jurisdictions to set their own standards for who can carry a gun. Many states have existing reciprocity agreements, typically with states that have similar licensing standards.

John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, called the bill a “ploy to weaken state gun laws and allow untrained people and people with dangerous histories to carry hidden, loaded handguns across the country” in a statement released before the committee vote.

Under the bill, a person holding any state concealed-carry permit and a photo ID would be able to legally carry a weapon in any other state that allows concealed carry. He or she would still be obligated to follow state or local laws governing where or what type of concealed weapons may be carried.

But standards for the issuance of concealed-carry permits vary from state to state, and opponents of the bill argue that the bill would in effect force states to accept lower standards than they have set for themselves. Some states, for instance, require gun safety classes or prohibit the issuance of permits to people convicted of stalking and domestic-related misdemeanors, while others do not.

The bill could come to the House floor before the end of the year, said its sponsor, Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.). “I’ve been telling leadership since July we’ve had the votes, and it’s just been a matter of scheduling,” he said Wednesday.

The bill’s prospects in the Senate are less clear. It would take a 60-vote supermajority to advance the controversial legislation, and Republicans have a majority of only 52. A Senate reciprocity bill authored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) has not received committee consideration.

In the aftermath of the Oct. 1 Las Vegas shooting, lawmakers expressed openness to a new gun restriction — cracking down on the use of “bump stocks” that can be attached to semiautomatic rifles to mimic the rapid fire of illicit machine guns. The shooter in that incident, Stephen Paddock, used the devices to spray fire from a high-rise hotel room on a concert crowd below.

But the NRA suggested that the matter was better handled administratively by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives, and a bipartisan effort to ban bump stocks has stalled.

The Nov. 5 shooting at a church in Sutherland Springs, Tex., has prompted the bipartisan push for the gun-related bill that advanced Wednesday — one tightening the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, also known as NICS.

The Texas assailant, Devin P. Kelley, should have been barred from purchasing the murder weapon because he was court-martialed in 2012 for assaulting his wife and child while enlisted in the Air Force. The Air Force, however, never entered the disqualifying offense into the federal system.

The Fix NICS Act is meant to ensure that federal and state authorities swiftly and accurately submit records to the database. Democrats hailed the bill as a rare step forward for gun safety, but Republicans cast it as an effort to better enforce existing laws.

The House bill includes a provision asking the Justice Department to prepare a report “that specifies the number of times that a bump stock has been used in the commission of a crime in the United States” but does not propose any restriction on those devices.

A Senate version of the Fix NICS Act does not mention bump stocks; the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on regulating them for Dec. 6.

Democrats spent several hours attacking the concealed-carry bill Wednesday at the committee meeting before it received a vote, offering amendments that would exclude persons convicted of violent misdemeanors or domestic offenses, as well as one that would set a national minimum age for the interstate recognition of concealed carry permits. All were defeated on party-line votes.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said the Hudson bill “shakes the underpinnings of public firearms safety laws.”

“This bill would overrule restrictions on the concealed carrying of firearms that states have carefully crafted to make this practice safer, based on the needs and circumstances in each state,” Nadler said. “Suffice it to say that public safety would suffer if we were to unwisely adopt this legislation.”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said the bill was in keeping with recent Supreme Court decisions establishing an individual right to own and carry arms.

“We know that citizens who carry a concealed handgun are not only better prepared to act in their own self-defense, but also in the defense of others,” Goodlatte said. “This bill is about the simple proposition that law abiding Americans should be able to exercise their right to self-defense even when they cross out of their state’s borders. That is their constitutional right.”

Hudson, in an interview, said his bill would allow weapons permits to be treated the same way that driver’s licenses or marriage licenses are — that states would grant mutual recognition to documents issued by other states.

“All we’re saying is, Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution says each state should give full faith and credit to the laws of every other state, and the Congress has the responsibility to determine how those documents are recognized,” he said. “You’ve got a lot of Americans who are put into jeopardy every day because they cross invisible lines. It’s important that we protect law-abiding citizens who are trying to do the right things.”

Karoun Demirjian contributed to this report.

As always,

Guns & Holster Forum / Re: Sig wins, Army has chosen
« Last post by SapperSteel on December 01, 2017, 11:50:52 AM »
It's not at all clear to me how a 9x19 Parabellum fired from a Beretta M9 is somehow less lethal than the exact same round fired from a Sig P320.  But apparently some folks think it is:

U.S. Army Has a Brand-New Handgun, and It’s ‘Far More Lethal’
John Haltiwanger
,Newsweek•November 30, 2017

Millions of U.S. Army soldiers will get more lethal handguns as part of a half-billion, decade-long project, the first upgrade to the standard M9 sidearm in more than three decades.

The new M17 pistol—and a compact version called the M18—arrived at the 101st Airborne’s Fort Campbell, Kentucky, base on November 28. A small number of soldiers got to fire the new weapon straight out of the box, Military Times reports.

"It is easier to fire and simpler to operate," Sergeant Matthew J. Marsh said in a statement released by the Army. "The pistol felt very natural in my hand. I am excited to take my experience back to my unit and share it with my soldiers."

Initially, the weapon is only being offered to team leaders, but all Army units will get the M17 to replace the standard M9 Beretta over the next decade.

The M17 is a variant of SIG Sauer's P320 handgun. In January, the New Hampshire–based SIG Sauer won the 10-year, $580 million contract with the U.S. Army.

The M9 has become "pretty dated technology," said Lieutenant Colonel Steven Power, who oversees part of the weapon upgrade. "The specific performance improvements from [the M17 and M18] over the M9 include better accuracy, tighter dispersion, and better ergonomics, which combined result in a far more lethal pistol."

The new handguns are equipped with an external safety, self-illuminating sights for low-light conditions, an integrated rail for attaching accessories and an Army standard suppressor conversion kit to attach an acoustic/flash suppressor, according to the U.S. Army.

[Go to URL to view photo] The 101st Airborne Division is the first unit to receive the new handguns. Getty Images

Soldiers seem quite happy with the handgun thus far.

"I never thought I would be one of the first ones to field a new piece of [Army] equipment," Marsh said. "It is a tremendous honor for my battalion and brigade, this division and me."

This article was first written by Newsweek

As always,


Visual Posts / Re: Incredible: These will fool your brain!
« Last post by M1911A1 Steve on November 28, 2017, 06:05:43 PM »
The video is extremely well done...unlike the drawing, which is badly botched.
The prank is worthy of the school: the Rochester Institute of Technology has an excellent reputation.

Escher would never have allowed a drawing such as that one of the stairwell to be published. Its errors of perspective are obvious and apparent.
Look, instead, at Escher's own four-sided stairwell etching, and show me where the errors in perspective lie. I don't believe that most of us could.

Technical-School Pranks:
My cousin, Bob, graduated from MIT (after which he got a degree from Harvard Law). While he was away from MIT on vacation (Spring Break?), some of the guys on his dorm floor took his car apart, and then reassembled it in his dorm room. When Bob returned from his days off, he found his car in his room, with its engine running. (MIT has a tradition of such pranks, which are now a requirement for graduation.)
Visual Posts / Re: Incredible: These will fool your brain!
« Last post by SapperSteel on November 28, 2017, 05:42:23 PM »
I find this nonsense to be purely delightful (skip the first 1:08 of the video):

As always,

Well said, Chuck!

I would add: "...or can buy..."
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10