Who else plays with slug throwers?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
I go to On Target... alot. Enough so that I have a member pass! LOL!



The only recommendiation for a pistol for a lady is this...



visit www.corneredcat.com



Otherwise I have three carry pistols, they are pretty compact, the first is a Sig Sauer P225 (9MM), a H&K;USPc (9MM) and of course the Rock Island 1911 Compact in .45.

The Sig and H&K;are very, very nice pistols, easy on the hand, slim enough for carry and pack enough power to stop most issues. I like the .45 because it packs a wallop, unfortunately the wallop extends both ways. It can be punishing after 1-2 magazines, plus those magazines only hold 6-7 rounds. Hit what you're aiming at, because you don't have too many chances after that.



Otherwise i'd suggest a Glock 26. Absolutely reliable (like reliable out to 50,000-100,000 rounds), easy to clean, easy to fix, easy to use and very much available.



good luck and let us know when you go.

-bix
 
I'm almost scared to ask. How much does ammo cost for the .416? I have a USP9 full size that (I assume) is still sitting in a locked fire safe somewhere around here. The last time I went to a range I think Clinton was still in office. Beliive it or not I have an AR-15 I've never even fired. :red:
 
The .50 BMG ball- just the milsurp ammo is 350-375 for 100 rounds. Unfortunately the .416 is only produced one place, Barrett.

The .416 ammo is all match grade so its lovingly made and concequently expensive, about 375 for 80 rounds. As you can realize, I don't shoot it too much.

But its fun to have. Almost like your AR-15.



good luck

-bix
 
<strong><span style="font-size: 15px;">Supreme Court Throws Out Handgun Ban</span></strong>



On June 26, the U.S.S.C. struck down a 32-year old ban on handguns in the District of Columbia.



<a href="http://news.aol.com/story/_a/supreme-court-throws-out-handgun-ban/20080626072409990001?icid=100214839x1204690370x1200216220">Thought you'd like this Bix</a>



<img src="http://www.aolcdn.com/aolnews_photos/09/07/20080626113909990060" alt="" />
 
Trooper, to me its a good thing.



The DC laws were so convoluted that it was AGAINST the law for a person to own a functioning firearm for home protection. To do so carried pretty stiff fines and penalities. On the other hand, criminals (and being classified as one) having a illegal firearm would get a minimal slap on the wrist, in FACT they were EXCLUDED form the law (IE, it was a clause under self incrimination).



The biggest beef I had was that it was stated that the police are NOT REQUIRED to protect you as a citizen (DC v. Heller).



"... a Government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen."

And of course the Appeals were just as bad....

"The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship, no specific legal duty exists for the individual."



Add on top of all this insanity is that DC officials blame other neighboring cities and states (with less crime) for their "Lax laws".



So i'm quite happy with this... seeing as California is very, very similar to this anyway.



ON a different note, it doesn't matter anymore. The new OC Sheriff (a transplant from LA county) so much as said, she's going to revoke most of the CCW's

from people because it is danger to have so many of them out there. Yes 1100ish CCW's compared to the 3.1MILLION people in this county ( or about .0003% of the population)... wow, such bad MISINFORMATION.



Anyways enough of my blathering, its just frustration over such blatent political posturing.
 
Bix, I'm furious with Hutchens for her PC nonsense position. The Supes really dropped the ball when not asking her about her position on the matter. I have been a consistent presence at The Firing Line in HB and was going to apply for a CCW to protect me while transporting the six handguns (with ammunition, magazines, etc.) I typically take with me to the range.



Hopefully, Hutchens will realize that legitimate, law-abiding folks who transport valuables (including valuables that are inherently valuable to criminals) should have access to the protection provided by a CCW. I legally carried for six years when I worked in the firearms industry and never had any adverse incidents.



True, the process of giving CCWs as political favors is troublesome, especially when done without any training. However, that should not pre-empt issuance to those with legitimate need.



Last night, as I left the FL at 9:30pm, I kept thinking how vulnerable we all are to a smart criminal waiting in ambush. Due to the location and lighting, we are almost totally vulnerable. I always leave my gun case inside and do a thorough walk-around, but there is still ample opportunity for an ambush.



Hutchens will be indirectly responsible for placing firearms in the hands of criminals if she proceeds with the revocations and denials.
 
CM dudge, I completely agree with you. I just find it funny when police officers say, "you don't need guns" and yet are issued one. From what I understand the incidents where legally armed citizens pulled is FAR less than percentage as well as occourances than any normal police officers.

Oh well.

-bix
 
<em>"From what I understand the incidents where legally armed citizens pulled is FAR less than percentage as well as occurrences than any normal police officers". </em>



Bix, I don't understand what you are saying here, can you pls elaborate?



<em>"I just find it funny when police officers say, ?you don?t need guns? and yet are issued one".

</em>



What police officer has ever said that to you ? Also, no brainer why we need them issued. C'mon.



My only concerns with citizens having weapons is:

1. Lack of training (many, but certainly not all)

2. Guns get stolen from citizens, then end up in the hands of the criminals who can't purchase them legally.



I'm a 2nd Amendment Supporter....but still have <em>some</em> reservations due to the above.
 
This ruling has obviously sparked some debate. Here is a Chicago Tribune piece from today's paper,



<a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0627edit1jun27,0,2350076.story">Repeal the 2nd Amendment</a>
 
Troop,



I can't speak for Bix, but I can relate some anecdotal evidence, fact and opinion that I believe help make his points:



1. Statistics from the major states such as TX and FL, where the numerical majority of concealed weapons are carried, indicate that crime rates fall and that CCW holders are not running around shooting people.



2. In CA, gun owners are now required to own a safe or other device to prevent theft. Of course, many do not properly store their weapons but, honestly, that is a poor reason to ban or restrict private ownership. Additionally, there are penalties for improper storage.



3. I have participated in my local citizens police academy, and during the firearms/range portion, while showing us the SWAT firearms, the officer let us all know (in a very stern and direct tone of voice) that he didn't feel that there was any reason for a private citizen to own an AR-15. That's his opinion, of course, but also a shockingly arrogant and completely inappropriate remark in his official capacity. His job is to uphold the law, and the law allows private ownership of legally acquired assault weapons. The reason is irrelevant. Our old police chief told another friend of mine, who had been stabbed during a street robbery less than two blocks from his home, that he did not believe in private gun ownership and would not support his application for a CCW. This chief had a display of his personal firearms in his office. Ironically, my friend, another life-long shooter, did not carry a concealed weapon because he is law abiding. The thug who stabbed him had no such reservations, and THAT is the point here.



4. I am a USMC veteran, woked in the firearms industry for six years, and have been shooting since I was seven years old. I have taken combat and practical pistol, rifle and shotgun courses from SWAT team friends and rangemasters. I am a HUGE friend of law enforcement, have been on many ride-alongs, and have life-long friends who are senior police officers and deputies in local jurisdictions. I KNOW that I am a better shot, both tactically and at the range, than many active cops. The simple reason? I train on a regular basis as opposed to qualifying monthly (good departments) or on a less frequent basis at the range.



I sincerely believe that CA is way too restrictive, and that Hutchens is doing us all a great disservice. If we had more responsible CCW holders, we'd have a safer society. Folks like me and, I assume Bix, aren't out to be vigilantes. We are cognizant of our rights, and know damn well that the responsibility for self-protection and protection of our families rests entirely on our shoulders alone, as the police simply cannot prevent most violent crime. If someone breaks into my house or assaults me on the street, the police department is literally useless unless they are there, present, at the time of the assault.



My cop friends tell me to go ahead and carry, at least in my vehicle, as the chances of getting caught are miniscule. Of course, I won't do that - ever - because it is against the law, and the consequences are massive.



As stated previously, criminals, by definition, could care less about the law - which is why we need more liberal CCW policies. 36 or 38 states (not exactly sure) have shall-issue laws, and you don't ever hear of wild shoot-outs or other horrendous societal consequences. Ironically, the cities with the worst gun violence are the ones with the most restrictive laws. Cracking down on the folks who OBEY the law is never the answer.



Thanks!!
 
CM Dude,

Well, add me to the list of those that don't believe a private citizen needs an AR-15. You would also make me very nervous if you were carrying concealed. I worry that those with a CCW will get a "hero complex" and involve themselves in something that they should be running away from (barring, of course, self protection). Now before you get miffed, these are just my thoughts. There is already an insane amount of guns in the hands of criminals. They got there because private citizens can buy them. Don't you agree that there is a problem ? How can we sell to private citizens and keep them out of the hands of the bad guys?



Let's not forget that there are "straw buyers" for handguns as well.... they buy a gun, report it stolen a few months later, then turn it over to whatever banger they bought it for. Said banger files off the serial number of the gun and voila ! Wash, rinse, repeat. Yes, there are penalties on the books for not controlling your weapon...but they are virtually impossible to prove. So sure, they're on the books but it is highly unlikely that any charges will ever get filed in a court of law. And they know it.



I'll uphold the Constitution, but like I said....I have some reservations about this particular amendment. I am confronted with handguns in some way, shape or form, at least once every day in my line of work. And these fine upstanding citizens and I do NOT play for the same team. In a roundabout way, the 2nd amendment is the cause of it. So what do we do ?



I feel the same way that your other police buddies feel. I just don't think private citizens should be allowed to have a CCW. Sorry.



Also, you are only required by law to purchase a trigger locking mechanism, not a safe.



<em>(a). California law requires that all firearms sold, be transferred with a trigger lock, cable lock, qualifying gun cabinet or lock box, or gun safe. These devices may include those approved trigger locks that come with the majority of new firearms or one that was purchased within the last 30 days, provided that it is accompanied by a receipt.

State law dictates that persons who already own a safe or lock box can sign an affidavit attesting to ownership of those devices. However Federal law now requires that a trigger lock accompany any handgun transfer without consideration of CA law. Effectively this means that safe affidavits are no longer acceptable since the Federal law went into effect. </em>
 
Troop,



You could tell me you think I'm dead wrong, and I wouldn't take offense. I have a thick skin about gun issues, and have family members and close friends who think guns are bad news. It is a contentious subject which fires passions up. Then, and I know from talking to my law enforcement friends, there are the front line folks, you guys - who have to deal with reality.



Of course, you have to deal with the elements of society that DON'T play by the rules, so your perspective is much different than mine. My last post didn't get into the myriad issues that arise from having 300 million firearms in circulation, and the simple fact that there are:



1) Unscrupulous gun dealers who allow firearms to get into the hands of those who shouldn't have them.



2) Straw buyers who do the same thing.



3) Careless gun owners who let kids get a hold of them or who let them get stolen due to negligence or stupidity.



4) The Hero complex folks who escalate a situation by bringing a gun into a confrontation.



5) People who do carry illegally - my CHP buddy says that he comes across a concealed handgun almost daily.



These are just a few examples, and scratch the surface of people behaving badly with guns. There are many more examples of gun crime and stupidity that I'm sure you are much more aware of than I am. When I worked in the industry, the types of people who occasionally came in to buy guns and some of the crap they told us was crazy. Our management empowered us to exercise our right to refuse service to anyone we felt may be a problem. I have also disarmed people in our store, who "wink wink" showed us the loaded and illegally concealed weapons they carried, thinking we would think they were cool.



But for every yahoo or outright criminal misusing firearms, there are many, many more who are responsible and law abiding.



I can see where you (and the officer giving us a tour) would not want to encounter anyone with an AR-15 or similar type of firearm. For law enforcement, it isn't a debate or policy issue, but a practical one. My objection was to his on-duty remarks, which were very strong, and I provided it to bolster Bix's contention that there are cops out there who do not think private citizens should have guns. All of the people I know who legally own "assault rifles' enjoy shooting them and are not harboring Rambo complexes. Regardless, I resepct your opinion - in fact, my dad shares your opinion, and we have debated endlessly over the whole assault rifle issue.



I also understand law enforcement's general objection to CCWs. You don't know me, or almost anyone else you might encounter, and nothing anyone says or thinks makes one bit of difference to the cop on the street who has to deal with a concealed weapon. I still think the shall issue states have it right, but I live here, so no probably no CCW in my future.



Therein lies the rub, the conflict between those who strongly feel that their rights have been under assault for years, and who are responsible and law abiding, and those who feel that guns are a huge danger to society. Thankfully, the Supreme Court cdlarified the rights issue.



Thanks for the quote regarding locking devices. I thought we had to have a safe, as I had to fill out a form indicating what model safe I own the last time I purchased a handgun. Personally, I am all for requiring safe ownership, the handgun safety certificate, safe handling demonstration, waiting period, and thorough background check. I am all for reasonable restrictions that ensure that criminals and the mentally ill do not have access to firearms.



As for the many thousands of illegal guns out there - aggressive and targeted enforcement, like Project Exile, is needed on a nationwide scale. There should be zero tolerance for gun crime. We don't need more laws, just better enforcement of the ones that make sense.



Thanks!
 
CM,

Thanks for not jumping all over me. I actually just read your post but am heading off to work....I'll reply tomorrow. Have a good one.
 
Trooper,

While I agree with you, I don't. As CM stated, there are many, many, many, people who are law abiding. The lawmakers and officers seem to be going after the people who are law abiding and take it ownership seriously. I don't know about many people but most of the CCW'ers I know of would NOT be Mr. John Wayne in any way shape or form. We would protect ourself and loved ones if we could, but our priority is for US to be safe.



As for "Assult type" weapons, I have some very old rifles and one modern bolt action, they can put a round on target FAR beyond whatever that wimpy .223 round may do. Yet they are not classified as an assult weapon (but they have gone to war). At which point do you prohibit the firearm? What is the criteria? Popular demand? If so the .22 bullet would be far and away the most deadily round.



Overall, I'm more worried that it will be another repeat of Columbia v. Heller, where we are not allowed to protect outself and the police and not beholden to protect us on an individual level.



Believe me when I say though, that the though of using any of my posessions to injure, harm or kill somebody makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. It becomes a VERY personal thing to me. I would not willing, easily or quickly jump into that situtation - ever.

Take it easy and be safe.

-bix



p.s. I still owe ya a drink if you make it down!
 
I am baaaaaaaaaaack!!



Hello to the IHB gang. I haven't posted in a couple of months due to being busy and celebrating my 1 year anniversary of leaving SoCal and spending a lot of time off roading and at the shooting range.



I did want to comment on this subject.



I moved to a northern rural Arizona town that has a deep "gun culture". In fact the whole state is comprised of people far more self reliant than urban areas. I aquired a CCW in Az as well as a non-resident CCW in Utah. Those 2 permits allow me to carry concealed in 30 or so states.



It took a little while to feel comfortable carrying a concealed firearm. I decided that if I was going to carry than I would have to go to the range 2 times a month to really be used to the weapon. I also took several shooting classes including Mental Dynamics of Shooting where our final test was to split a business card placed edge out at 10 feet in six shots.



I often travel 20-30 miles offroad in the National Forest and would not even think of going unarmed. You are totally alone and often out of cell phone range there. You can run into some strange people back in the open country and there are Bobcats, Coyotes, and Cougars that can be agressive.



Arizona is interesting as it is an "open carry state" which allows anybody(other than felons) to carry an exposed weapon. At first it was a little weird to see a person standing in line at Starbucks with a holstered pistol. But you get used to it. It is legal to carry anywhere except State or Federal buildings or where a business has posted a "no weapons" sign or where drinks are sold by the glass. I do not feel it is safe to "open carry" but it is up to each person to decide.



After being a handgun person most of my life I recently purchased a Rock River Arms M-4 Carbine. (sorry Trooper). It is basically what SWAT teams use and is a short barreled AR-15 with a collaspable stock. I have 4 30 round magazines. I have been getting used to it by going to the range a couple of times a month.



Three news stories recently have shown a change in the attitude towards citizens carrying arms. First is the Supreme Court decision on the 2nd Amendment, 2nd is the case of the Grand Jury in Texas not bringing charges against a man who shot two burglers, and third was a decision this morning in Alanta which allows people to carry on public transportation.



If the court system would fully prosecute criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime then it would help. But until the bad guys have their guns taken away or they are placed in jail then we should not be at their mercy. Even though criminals are typically not the smartest even they are not as apt to break in to a residence knowing that odds are there is an armed resident.



There are very few random muggings, break ins, or robberies here. Most crimes are people who know each other or are drug related and between those parties. A law abiding armed citizen is pretty safe in this enviornment.



In speaking with a local LEO I asked how he delt with this. He said he assumes that all people are armed and treats them as such. He really didn't seem too concerned about citizens carrying weapons.



Like Bix, I in no way would get involved in trying to stop a crime or do anything except to protect myself or my loved ones against immediate danger. A cell phone and 911 is the answer to those events. In our CCW class we learned that even if you are legal in a shooting incident you will probably get taken to jail and it may cost a lot of money in lawsuits. It is not something that one would want to deal with.



However, if it was a situation that put myself or my wife in danger than I do feel prepared to act to mitigate the threat.



This situation along with many other "freedom of choice" decisions were contributing factors in selecting this area to relocate from urban SoCal. So far it has lived up to or exceeded my expectations.



Enjoy!!
 
Merchant,

Ahh, my good ol' Arizona days... how I miss them. I used to own two nice little toys back then an old Model 1927 Thompson and a Browning 1918 Automatic Rifle (BAR for short - made famous by Clyde Barrow ... AKA Bonnie and Clyde). Both were wonderful authentic pieces, but much expensive and unfortunatley not allowed in CA.... :(

Funny though a Browning M2 is available here in CA... although it is in the $XX,XXX dollar range. (GAG!) Plus getting .50 bmg rounds is a wee bit pricey.



Anyways good luck and have fun out there.

-bix
 
Bix



Those are some real serious toys.



Even I am a little amazed at what I see at gun shows. Thompsons, Aks with bipods and 200 round drums, and some of the eastern block surplus cold war stuff that I don't even know what it is. (Trooper cringes)



Where in Az were you?



Can you believe that I have a Ranger Polaris UTV that is street legal and I can drive it with no helmet while armed. Big change from 30 years in South Orange County.



Enjoy & stay free!!
 
[quote author="xsocal land merchant" date=1214984075]



I have a Ranger Polaris UTV that is street legal and I can drive it with no helmet while armed.



</blockquote>


Amazing what is possible when a bunch of lunatic Democratic lawmakers aren't running the show...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top