The Second Amendment Is The Permit

The West Virginia senate passed a bill that allows its citizens to carry firearms concealed without any kind of permit from the government. The issues is known as Constitutional Carry in that the only thing a law abiding citizen who is not otherwise disqualified from owning a firearm needs to be able to carry it is the existence of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

WV joins several other states that have done the same thing by recognizing that the existence of the right is the only thing needed to exercise the right.

No one should need a permit or a license or any other government approval in order to carry any firearm that the person is not disqualified from legally owning.

”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.”

Yes, there are people who cannot own a firearm because they are felons or they are mentally ill. Those folks can have their rights restricted because they either have shown they are not to be trusted or they do not have the ability to understand and exercise the responsibility that goes with owning (and carrying) a firearm.

All others should need nothing.

WV is in the process of ensuring the people’s right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the Constitution, is not infringed.

No one has to jump through government hoops to exercise any other right and the same should be true for the Second Amendment.

There are plenty of states that have a lot of work to do in this area but it is good to see some of them leading the way.

Ever notice the places with the most stringent gun control suffers the most crime and the most violence (often from the very firearms that are “controlled”)? WV recognizes that criminals will not obey any law passed and that law abiding citizens should not be burdened with laws that do nothing to stop crime.

People should be free to carry or not.

That would make the country a much safer place.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Why Shop At An Unsafe Mall?

The Mall of America has a policy that bans guns from its premises. Law abiding citizens are not allowed to carry firearms on the property (or at least inside the mall itself) but this policy will do little to stop lawbreakers from entering the mall with firearms and causing all kinds of destruction.

There are threats from terrorist groups where lone wolf terrorists have been asked to attack malls in the US and the Mall of America is on the list of targets. The solution the mall has come up with is for the law abiding to leave their firearms in their cars or at home thus making them sheep.

People who shoot back have a better chance of survival when attacked by a bad guy with a gun.

What will the mall do? It might hire private security or police officers might be assigned to the property. Neither is effective. Hundreds of law abiding gun owners with their guns are a much more deadly foe than cops or security guards scattered throughout. Besides, wouldn’t it be better if the cops were out patrolling the streets?

The mall has basically told would be attackers that the place is a shooting gallery and invited them in. If it had instead published that it wants and encourages gun owners to carry on the property would be bad guys would think twice before attacking. Bad people do not like to attack those who can and will fight back. They like to pick the weak and unprotected. This is why mass shootings happen at places where guns are banned like malls, theaters and schools.

You have never seen a mass shooting at a gun show.

My suggestion is to avoid the place and any other that does not allow people to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. If you are not able to protect yourself then you will not be safe. The government and private businesses are unable to protect you and if you are harmed they will not take responsibility for your injuries.

If enough people stay away from the mall to cause it financial distress and cite the gun ban as the reason the mall’s management will quickly change its mind. If not then a lot of anti gun folks will shop there in their deluded world where they think they are safe. Let them be the targets. Stay home or shop where you are encouraged to carry your firearm.

America was founded by people with guns and our history includes armed people ensuring their own safety and the safety of their neighbors. Instead of being the Mall of America perhaps it should be the Mall of un-American Values…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


More Backdoor Gun Control

An article at the Shooter’s Log (Cheaper Than Dirt’s Blog) describes how Obama and his minions will control guns by outlawing certain ammunition.

From the article…

It is doubtful that anyone reading this article will truly be surprised that Obama and his cronies in key government posts are trying to once again de facto suppress our Second Amendment rights. They were not able to make it happen through the legislature, but Obama has his phone and his pen. Currently, it seems the President is using both to target gun owners, specifically owners of AR-15s. If you can’t outlaw the guns, get rid of the ammunition.

Read the rest of the article here

They will do all they can to circumvent the Constitution. Obama has a pen and he is not afraid to use it.

The government has lots of the outlawed ammunition (they are not supposed to have it if we can’t) so that is where we will have to get it should the need arise. We might have to shop at their armories.

Our Founders fought a revolution over a lot less…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


If She Had A Gun

Many food chains that offer delivery do not allow their drivers to carry firearms even if they have a permit to do so. The people who deliver food carry cash and are often required to deliver at late hours in dark places.

A Domino’s pizza delivery woman in Antioch California delivered a pizza to an address where she was forced back into her car by a man with a gun and then forced to drive to another place where he raped her.

This happened in California so it is unlikely that she was able to carry a firearm at any time because that state, like many other anti firearm states, would rather have its citizens end up as victims.

Yes the rapist had a gun and if she had one it might not have made a difference but at least she would have had a chance. In fact, if people in California were allowed to carry there is a chance the rapist might never have targeted her. If criminals know people could be carrying firearms they are less likely to attack them.

In places where people might be armed (whether they are or not is not the point) criminals do not know who has a concealed firearm and who does not. They do not like those circumstances.

Criminals prefer unarmed victims and they prefer knowing that no one else will be armed. This is why nuts attack gun free zones like schools, malls and movie theaters. They know that the odds are in their favor and that no one is probably armed because responsible firearms owners follow the law.

In a just world instead of being the victim of rape the young lady would be standing over a bullet riddled body describing what happened as the police draw a chalk line around the dead would be rapist.

Liberals (and face it, these are the ones who want us disarmed) can’t have that. If you can take care of yourself there is no need for government to be your everything.

Well how is that working out? The police were not there BEFORE the rape to prevent it. They showed up afterwards to take a statement.

The fortunate thing is this rapist was an idiot. The police went to the address the pizza was to be delivered to and he was there. They were able to arrest him and charge him with multiple crimes.

While it is great they caught the animal the reality is the victim has been scarred for life.

She never had a fighting chance because the government made her a potential victim by pushing for and enacting gun control.

Speaking of gun control; how well did it work out for the criminal in this case? He used a firearm to commit his crime and he is 17. He should not have had a handgun at that age to begin with regardless of his criminal record (which is not discussed in the article). If criminals obeyed the law he would not have had a firearm…

Even if states follow the Constitution there will still be problems as long as there are gun free zones or jobs where people who have the potential for danger are not allowed to carry.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Will They Get A Slap On The Wrist

A lady was fortunate to win one thousand dollars at the Maryland Live Casino. Unfortunately, two other people noticed her good fortune and followed her to her home that was about an hour away.

When she got out of her car one of the two brandished a handgun and took her purse. The couple was arrested four days later by detectives and they are charged with assault, armed robbery and theft.

Given that they committed a crime with a firearm in Maryland they should expect a stiff penalty and some jail time. But, this is Maryland and even though they broke the law they might get a plea bargain for lesser crimes and end up walking only to commit more crimes in the future.

Maryland is easy on criminals but tough on the law abiding. The man who had the gun is Mark West. He has a lengthy criminal history that includes assault, CDS possession with intent to distribute and violation of both probation and peace orders. I don’t know his specifics but this history would indicate he would not be allowed to legally own a firearm.

In many of his past cases he was not prosecuted (looks like the charges were dropped) and for those he was prosecuted he received little in the way of punishment.

Maryland would rather keep putting criminals on the street and harass law abiding citizens.

In Maryland the law abiding cannot carry a firearm at all openly (it is alleged that one may carry a long gun but that would be unwise) and concealed carry permits only go to special people. Maryland has decided that certain firearms are not allowed in the state and its citizens may not purchase them.

The laws are designed to keep the law abiding from getting or carrying firearms. Self protection is not a valid reason in the state.

It would appear though, West had no trouble getting a firearm and using it in a crime even though he has a criminal history and probably would not be allowed to have one.

The point has been made many times that gun laws only apply to people who obey the law in the first place.

This story proves that point.

Maryland is a nanny state that infringes upon the rights of its citizens.

I hope this trend reverses starting next Wednesday when a new governor is sworn in.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog