Who needs protecting from who..

So you are happily sitting at home, maybe this evening, enjoying a nice bottle of red, watching Dancing with the Stars, and you get a knock at the door. Strange you think, but it could be a neighbor looking to borrow some sugar, so you open the door. Standing there are the Police, all sorts of things rush through your head, has a family member had an accident, is there a situation and you need to be evacuated? After a few seconds the cop says he's there for your guns!!

Think that sounds like an alarmist scare story, it isn't! It seems that up and down the country, errors are being made which result in people ending up on lists that they really should not be on. The SAFE act 2013 contains a provision that allows health care providers to report patients they believe could be a danger to themselves or others.

On the face of it, that sounds like a great idea right? You would think so, but then good intent is always the mother of all F ups I believe the saying goes. There have been numerous incidents of people having their firearms seized when they have not even visited a facility, or where they are demonstrably not a danger to themselves or anyone else, and the 1st they know about it is when the police are knocking on their door!

.

That, although bad, would seem easily corrected when the error is discovered. But it would seem that even that can be an issue. In a case in New York, a Mr Hall had to hire a lawyer, and obtain a number of affidavits to confirm he had not been treated for mental illness! Now not withstanding the obvious problems with trying to prove something didn't happen, how many of us have the time, money and ability to resort to law to ensure our rights are not infringed?

Think that's bad, it gets worse. It seems that not only can errors be made, and you can lose your guns without without warning, but it seems that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that it's also now acceptable, without a warrant or charges, for the police to smash down your door, search your property, and take your guns if they deem that it's in an individuals best interests!

Now where do you start with that! If there is no warrant or charges required, who decides who is a danger to themselves, and on what basis? Could I call the police and settle a score with my neighbor having told the police I thought he was depressed and had spoken about harming myself? How about if someone has one of those times in their lives when a little help is required. Bereavement, divorce & job loss are 3 things that a lot of us suffer through our lives, and some need a little temporary assistance from the medical profession, with maybe anti depressants, sleeping pills or maybe counselling.

Does that now mean that seeking a little temporary assistance will cause people to lose their guns and 2nd amendment rights? Is there a set route back from losing your guns to regaining them, or does a person have to resort to no doubt expensive and difficult litigation?

Possibly most worrying of all, if someone is in a situation where the assistance of the medical world would help them through a tough time, will they seek that help, if they know or suspect they could end up having the police storm their house?

Do we really need protecting from ourselves for our own good?

Police take veterans firearms

No warrant required to seize guns

Where does the 2nd amendment apply?

While watching what was happening in the media this week, always an entertaining pass time, several stories that relate to the 2nd amendment, gun  rights and the shooting sports have arisen which have lead to me receiving some interesting questions online, and even a visit from a
film crew for Channel 3.

Earlier this year, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which would allow individuals with concealed-carry privileges in their state of residence to exercise those rights in any other state while abiding by that state’s laws. Now not having given it much thought before this week, except for trying to keep abreast of which states have reciprocity with the US, I never made the mental leap to compare CCW permits to driving licenses.

Think about this. The driving tests throughout the US are different, which each having it's own unique requirements and tests. In Europe, that is even more apparent, with tests in some countries requiring no more that drive a straight line backwards and forwards, right up to the UK, where tests can be hours long, and require 45 hours of lessons to give you a fighting chance of passing.

Yet with all the disparate requirements from the states here, and even different countries in Europe, you are free to drive coast to coast, without having to worry about not having the licence issued by the state/country you are driving through, so long as you don't break the laws of the locality that you find yourself in.

So why is it if I drive 200 miles West, carrying my usual unspectacular self defence weaponry, I could find myself in prison for a number of years? Why is it that if I take a flight that routes through New York, and check-in my gun, when changing planes in New York, I could find myself on the wrong end of a lengthy jail term?

Whilst individual states have different laws re guns, can it be right that simply possessing one in some parts of the country will lead to your incarceration a not inconsiderable length of time? Surely, as with driving licences, the more basic tenets of the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms should be available to all those for whom gun ownership is legal, from coast to coast?

And while thinking about that, the news about the shooting at Walgreens appeared on my newsfeed, followed by the road rage story, a call from Channel 3, and numerous emails from customers and Facebook messages, all wanting to know whether the Walgreens and road rage shootings were legal.

Now to ask that question is similar to asking whether it's you should brake for an amber light when you are 20 feet from the crossing, it all depends. In cases like those above, there are a great many factors that determine whether you should take action with your firearm, or even whether you should take any action at all, it all depends on the circumstances. And that leads me onto my next point, that loosely connects with my previous point.

Although Arizona is a constitutional carry state, and you are not under any obligation to do so, why would you now take the class, and apply for a CCW permit? The cost is minimal, but the amount of information you will receive is HUGE, and could save your life and liberty, why would you not do it....


Link to story about country wide CCW permits

Walgreens shooting

Roadrage in Arizona