On the gun front, or should I say irrational politician front, in New York they are blaming recent police shootings on lax gun laws in Georgia. The reason? The guns used in some of the shootings were STOLEN in Georgia. I’m pretty sure it is against the law in Georgia and in New York to steal a gun!

My daddy always said never elect an honest man to politics because he would become a crook. It seems they become stupid, too. Blaming those shootings in New York for Georgia laws is as dumb as blaming the heroin problem there on lax drug laws in Afghanistan!

I would be willing to bet those same New York politicians whining now about guns strongly support releasing criminals, stopping the police policies that actually reduce crime like stop and frisk, and support giving people everything they want by taking others money through taxes.

Its pathetic that we know supporting wild animals with hand-outs makes them dependent on others keeping them fed. Signs in parks say “Don’t feed the animals, they become dependent on people and won’t fend for themselves.” Yet we give some people everything they need so it is no wonder they think they can take everything they want from others on their own.

People should be responsible for their actions. You can’t blame others for your problems you cause yourself. But that is the way to get their vote, support them by taking money from those earning it and blaming their problems on others.

The latest news to get gun control fanatics all a dither is a report showing gun deaths have exceeded automobile accident deaths in some cities and states. And gun deaths were predicted to exceed automobile deaths nationwide by this year, 2015.

There are a lot of reasons for this change. Comparing the two causes of deaths is like comparing which is best to use, live bait for bass or rifles for deer. The gun control lobby wants to use the statistics to demand more restrictions on law abiding citizens to own guns. Of course they ignore the fact that owning a gun is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and driving is not.

John Lott, Jr. has done a lot of research on gun violence. In an article for Fox News he presents facts about these two sources of deaths in the US. (I know, Fox News is denigrated by those getting all their propaganda from MSNBC and related sources, hated by them like the Nazis were in WWII and called liars by them, but that is a whole nother story)

He shows that gun deaths have risen and car deaths fallen, but demonstrates that accidental deaths from cars are 99.4% of the total while accidental deaths from guns are only 1.5%, And the car deaths drop corresponds to the rise in gas prices, making people drive less. As gas prices came down recently, car deaths have risen.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution in a headline this past Sunday reflects this. It says “Roadway deaths in Georgia have increased by nearly a third so far this year, a troubling jump that transportation officials and experts are struggling to explain.”

As Lott says “But if increased safety regulations are the solution, why is it that between 2000 and 2013 accidental deaths from guns fell twice as much as those from cars (35% to 18%)?”

Another claim is guns are too easy to get so more people use them to kill themselves. That ignores the fact if people wanting to commit suicide could not get guns they would find some other way. As Lott points out “Despite fewer murders and accidental gun deaths, gun deaths have risen slightly because of a 28% increase in firearm suicides. But non-firearm suicides increased even faster (56%) – something is causing suicides in general to rise.

One hue and cry from the gun control fanatics is a demand for more background checks, like the Brady Law. But, as Lott says, they ignore the facts, a common trait of that group. “The Economist points to a new Bloomberg-backed study claiming that prohibited people with criminal records made 7 out of 169 online gun purchases. Unfortunately, they merely verify that people with names similar to those who are actually prohibited were interested in buying guns. They never showed that prohibited people actually bought a gun.”

“Some guns were listed as having not gone through background checks, when in fact they had. In reality, Bloomberg’s groups have inadvertently exposed the problems with the current background check system.”

Lott’s bottom line is “So will gun control advocates ever explain why accidental gun deaths have fallen more than those for cars? Or why non-firearm suicides rose twice as fast as firearm suicides? I predict they never will.”

His article is at http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/12/which-is-more-likely-to-kill-car-or-gun/

My bottom line is this, something not mentioned by anyone I have seen. How may car deaths were caused by cars illegally owned, compared to guns deaths caused by guns illegally owned?

All too often, but just a few times a year, a car death caused by an illegal alien who should not even be in the US make the headlines. But almost every day headlines about a shooting include the fact the shooter was charged with possession of a gun by a convicted felon. One of the most recent was the Griffin daily News 4/16/15 article about the felon that shot the two year old in a car on Highway 19/41. He broke laws to even have a gun.

Some say there are 20,000 gun laws in the US. Others dispute this number saying “there are only 300 federal gun laws” and that state laws are not relevant somehow. Even if you swallow this claim that gun laws are really not gun laws, there are 300 federal laws that criminals using guns violate.

How many laws are enough? If 300 are not sufficient, with 301 do? What law should be passed that only law abiding citizens will follow? Laws have no effect on criminals so, as Hillary said, at this point what does it matter?

Take anything about guns and cars – in fact, anything you read or hear about – with a grain of salt. Look for the agenda of those making the claims, including me. Get the facts for yourself.

There is an old saying “Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.” The liberal media and others that don’t want you to own guns keep saying gun owners are paranoid, that nobody really wants to take our guns. That is their new mantra and they are sticking with it, no matter the facts.

We have a good reason to be paranoid when it comes to our gun rights. History proves if we don’t react immediately to each and every threat, we lose. Andrew Jackson, in his farewell address in 1837, said: “eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty.” Many others have echoed that theme and it has never been truer than it is right now.

A good example of how the liberal media is using the paranoid label is a segment on CNN broadcast on March 27, 2009. In it Correspondent Sean Callebs stated: “In fact, it may not be rational at all. It might even be paranoid. But one thing is certain. Many gun owners believe this president is somehow out to curb their rights and they’re stocking up just in case.”

Paranoid? Not rational? During the above segment, where the talking head called us paranoid, a text across the bottom of the screen said Obama supports the 2nd Amendment, supports giving police more rights to trace gun data and wants to close the “gun show loophole.” Newsbusters says a crawl that does not show up on the segment on the internet stated Obama wants to reinstate the “assault weapons” ban and make it permanent.

That is really supporting the 2nd Amendment and supporting gun owners’ rights! They are out to get our guns.

Sometimes we seem to overreact. Recently an email went around about SB 2099 being passed in secret and would make us pay a $50 tax on each gun we own. Problem is, that bill was introduced in 2000, nine years ago, and went nowhere.

But there is a grain of truth to the scare. According to Chris Cox of the NRA, Obama, when he was a Illinois state senator, supported increasing the federal excise tax on guns by 500 percent.

That’s not paranoid, that is history. Do rational people really think Obama no longer supports such an extreme tax hike on our guns?

To show the lengths the gun control fanatics will go, several groups sued in court to reinstate the ban on carrying guns in national parks. For years if you drove into Kennesaw Mountain National Park with your legally carried loaded handgun you broke a park rule. Even though you were legal outside the gates of the park because you have an Georgia Firearms License, before you got on park lands you were supposed to unload your gun and put it away.

Last fall under President Bush this rule was reviewed and removed, allowing you to keep your gun with you. Expected groups, like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and groups that should know better, like the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, sued, saying said they did not want you and me to be able to take our legal guns into parks.

It always amazes me when people seem to think a murderer or robber will get to a park gate, stop and think “I better not break a park rule while committing murder.” Only us law abiding citizens obey the law!

It was no big surprise when a liberal judge overturned this rule. Then last month Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), attached to a bill an amendment that gave us the right to carry our guns in parks legally.

After 67 Senators voted for the amendment the bill passed 90 to 5. In the House they passed the bill then held a separate vote on the amendment, just to see who wanted to take away our rights. The amendment still passed by a vote of 279 to 147. As expected, all 147 votes in the house and 28 of the 29 in the Senate against our rights were liberal democrats.

Warning – this law doesn’t go into effect until next February, 2010 so only criminals can carry guns into National Parks until then.

This shows we can protect our rights if we stay vigilant, even if we are a little paranoid.

Do you have a Georgia Firearms License, allowing you to carry a concealed weapon? Could you pass the fingerprint background check and get one if you wanted to? If so, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considers you a dangerous person.

The Vitter Amendment was submitted in 2009 but a new similar bill has been introduced in 2015 – expect the same hysterical response.

The silly anti-gun Brady Bunch sent out at least seven emails in the two weeks before the Vitter Amendment was voted on in late July. The Vitter Amendment was an amendment to the Department of Defense funding bill that would have allowed people with a gun license from one state to carry a gun in other states.

Right now you can drive in every state in the US with a driver’s license issued to you in your home state. You still have to obey local traffic laws, and the Vitter Amendment said you had to obey local gun laws when in other states. But the gun control fanatics went crazy opposing this amendment.

This is a quote from a July 9 2009 Brady Bunch press release on the Vitter Amendment: “This legislation would force states, your state, to allow dangerous individuals to pack heat in public.” So they consider you a dangerous individual if you have a Firearms License! Here is more from a July 17 press release: “Very dangerous legislation that would force states, your state, to allow dangerous individuals to carry loaded guns in public could be voted on as early as Monday, July 20. And we must stop it!”

This amendment failed by a 58 to 39 vote in the US Senate. No, 58 US Senators voted in favor of your rights. Only in the US Senate is a 58 in favor to 39 against vote a defeat! The amendment had to have 60 out of 100 votes to pass.

But the Brady Bunch was ecstatic! On July 22, after the Vitter Amendment lost although it got 58 yes voted out of 97 cast, the Brady Bunch crowed “You helped stop the gun lobby’s legislation that would have forced states to allow dangerous individuals to carry loaded guns in public.”

Yep, now law-abiding citizens like you and me who have gone through a fingerprint background check to get a concealed carry permit can’t cross a state line and be legal. No doubt someone planning on robbing a convenience store across the state line will stop and leave their illegal handgun in the car because this amendment failed.

It is not rational to limit law-abiding citizen’s rights to reduce crime. By definition, criminals break laws. All gun control laws do is disarm law-abiding citizens and make them vulnerable to criminals.

Both Senator Isakson (R GA) and Senator Chambliss (R GA) voted in favor of this amendment to protect your rights, as did all but two Republican US Senators. There were 37 Democrat votes against your rights and only 10 Democrats voting in favor of your rights.

Thank Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson for voting to protect your rights. And also thank Thurbert Baker, Georgia State Attorney General, for signing a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder expressing his opposition to reinstatement of the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms.

Baker is one of 23 state Attorneys General, the top law enforcement officers in each of their states, to sign this letter. That is amazing. The top law enforcement officers in almost half our states oppose renewing the assault weapons ban. Kinda makes claims that banning these guns will reduce crime look stupid, doesn’t it?

So far US Attorney General Eric Holder is the only one talking about bringing back this useless ban. Most elected officials realize it is a useless law and voting for it will hurt them politically. But, unfortunately, there are unelected folks like Holder that can affect our gun rights.

On a good note, HB 45, the Blair Holt Firearms Licensing Bill, is going nowhere in the US House. It was introduced in January by anti-gun Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL), got no co-sponsors and was assigned to committee where it still sits, dying a slow death. Bills that are so stupid they don’t even get one co-sponsor usually don’t have enough support to ever be voted on. It probably will never see the light of day.

Keep a watch on our elected officials but keep a closer watch on those unelected bureaucrats that control our lives.

in 2009 everyone knew how anti-gun Eric Holder was but so-called pro gun politicians still voted for his approval. And they are about to do the same thing with Loretta Lynch. Why do they vote to approve someone that stands for everything they claim to be against, and is against everything they claim to be for?

This was written in 2009 and it applies even more now!

On the national front it is all bad news. Eric Holder is our new US Attorney General – the man tasked with enforcing federal laws. He has a long history of anti-gun efforts including filing a brief in the Supreme Court stating the 2nd Amendment is a collective, not an individual right and being the point man on the implementation of the Clinton Administration Assault Weapon ban. Both Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson voted to confirm his nomination.

Senator Isakson justified his vote by saying Holder promised to enforce the Supreme Court decisions on guns as the law of the land. And that many politicians praised Holder as a lawyer.

Even ignoring the lawyer part, Holder has already called for a renewal of the assault weapons ban. He somehow thinks you can ban guns because of the way they look without stepping on the Supreme Court ruling that the 2nd Amendment means what it says and is an individual right to own guns.

Senator Chambliss said much the same thing, that Holder said he would support the Supreme Court ruling and that President Obama deserved deference in his nominations. If only the democrats observed such deference to conservative nominations.

Both Chambliss and Isakson are politicians and should know you can not trust what politicians say; you must look at their record. And Holder has a long anti-gun record. But he is now the Attorney General and they voted for him. Keep an eye on Holders statements and actions to see how wise their vote.

There has been a rash of insane killings with guns in the past few months so the anti-gun groups and the media are in a frenzy to pass laws that restrict our rights. An example is this from a Brady Center fundraising email on April 6:

“Enough is enough. I am outraged by the senseless deaths in these mass shootings — but more so, because Congress fails to act to prevent them.”

The Brady Bunch’s solution, of course, is to outlaw guns and, by the way, send them money.

60 Minutes did one of their usual hit pieces on guns on their April 12 broadcast. They seemed shocked that support for a gun control had gone down, from 60 percent in 2000 to only 49 percent today and seemed determined to do all they can to reverse that trend.

An anti-gun rights editorial from the Atlanta Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker, which can be expected on a regular basis, ran on April 12. She justified he call for a ban on assault weapons because her father hunted deer and he didn’t need an assault weapon.

The New York Times has been running a series of editorials calling for gun control. Some of the comments get scary. For example, in an April 8th blog editorial Timothy Egan talks about guns and claims:

“American life in the spring of 2009 is full of hope, peril, and then this: the cancer at the core of our democracy.”

So guns are the “cancer” of our democracy? Even scarier is March Abraham’s March 25 Huffington Post blog:

“And as for the argument that we will never get rid of all these guns in this country; it is plain wrong. We will get rid of them if we start banning them for real.”

We must fight back or we will lose our rights. Don’t let anti-gun comments, whether from people wanting to ban guns or from people who just don’t know any better, go unanswered. Speak out for your rights and contact politicians, or lose your rights.

The NRA Convention Drives Liberals Crazy
Jim Shepherd
from The Fishing Wire

It’s another of those busy weeks for the outdoor industry. Before the week’s out, an estimated 70,000 or so pro Second Amendment supporters will converge on Nashville, Tennessee for the 2015 edition of the National Rifle Association’s Annual Meetings and Exhibits.

Other than proving that downtown Nashville isn’t equipped to handle that many people -and only a fraction of that many cars comfortably- it will prove, once again, that when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, more people are for it than against it.

Drives the anti-gun groups crazy, but that’s the long-and-short of the lesson that will be taken away by non-shooters next Sunday when the membership heads home. Those of us who do choose to exercise that right – whenever possible- will feast in three days of being pushed, jostled and otherwise crowded cheek-to-jowl with like-minded individuals.

Over the next few days, you’ll see lots of announcements of celebrity appearances, new product rollouts- the kind of pre-event information that gets attendees excited at the prospects of what they’ll be seeing.

It’s a big week for those of us in the industry and the outdoor media because the NRA Show is not only another confab that brings all the industry leaders under a single (big) roof, it’s also the last “major” event of a string of events that begin right after Christmas. When the NRA Show closes, many of us will be heading for home and some semblance of life, uninterrupted by hotel stays and road trips.

I say many because my travel schedule doesn’t end in Nashville. That’s the first scheduled stop in more than three weeks of road work. But this year, I have a wild card in my planning: the arrival of a first grandchild. I’ve shaken off bumps, bruises, bugs, fender benders, snowstorms and various personal maladies to make scheduled events, but this first grandchild is a double-barreled threat. Mom also happens to be my good right-hand helper- meaning I’ll be back to the day-to-day work of putting the wires together while she’s out of commission. So….if I’m scheduled to appear at your event over the next three weeks, there’s a chance I might be AWOL – but it won’t be because I decided to skip out and go fishing. As I tell everyone associated with our wires, family comes first. It’s a life value I’ve learned from this industry-so allow me now to say “thanks” – it wasn’t always the most important part of my career, but I learned in time.

Last week, I was traveling to take a look at new technology related to shooting. Actually, it’s new technology related to ammunition- and I was more than impressed with what I saw. While I’m still working on more in-depth research and supplemental testing, it’s safe to say that ammunition may be changing in the not-too-distant future.

No, I’m not saying we’re getting some sort of science fiction alternative ammunition, but we’re probably going to see some of the basic components of ammunition change-significantly. Those changes won’t obsolesce our existing firearms or even modifications of what you’re currently shooting.

If you’re intrigued, that’s good. Because the innovations I saw won’t mean a horrible upheaval in the ammunition industry- just an acceptance of the fact that technology sometimes moves far faster than our industry is always willing to accept. But facts are tough to refute- especially since we pride ourselves on using facts, not emotion, when making decisions.

And this being NRA week means it’s also time for our companion service, The Tactical Wire’s annual Concealed Carry Special Edition. Editor Rich Grassi has a special edition set to come out later this week that features a lot of new products, very thoughtful features and instruction related to responsible concealed carry – and that will be hitting the mailboxes of Outdoor and Shooting Wire subscribers as well later this week.

If you’re not a subscriber to The Tactical Wire, don’t be surprised- or angry- when you see it in your mailbox- it’s just another special edition from the services dedicated to keeping our simple promise:

We’ll keep you posted.

I wrote this in 2008 before the election. Unfortunately, too many gun owners could not see this coming or just did not care. The NRA was right, again1

Politicians will say anything to get elected. That is why it is so important to examine their record and look at what they do and say before running for office. Listen to what they say but verify what they have done. Never has that been more important for gun owners than in this presidential election.

Here is what the candidates for president and vice president say now, what they said before this election and their voting record. Most of the information is taken from

http://www.ontheissues.org/ where you can find lists of votes and statements without comment.

Senator Obama says he believes the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. He also said he supported cities like Washington, DC and his home city of Chicago banning the ownership of guns. He co-sponsored a bill to limit the purchase of handguns to one per month. He refused to sign a Congressional Brief in support of the Heller case that overturned the DC handgun ban. And he endorsed the Illinois ban on handgun ownership.

Last January Obama called for “common-sense” gun licensing. He supported the renewal of the “assault weapon” ban. He voted against stopping lawsuits against gun manufacturers. He called for a ban on semi-automatic guns and for more gun possession restrictions. And he wanted to punish gun sellers if their guns ended up being used in crimes. And he is in favor of banning bullets that can penetrate “bullet proof” vest, which seems to include all center fire rifle ammo.

Senator Obama is rated “F” by the NRA.

Senator Biden recently said he would not let Obama take his Beretta away from him. He voted to keep the assault weapon ban and voted for the original ban. He had introduced several versions of the ban before it was passed. He voted against ending lawsuits against gun manufacturers twice. And he did not sign the Brief in the Heller case supporting the 2nd Amendment that was signed by 300 members of congress.

Background checks at gun shows received a yes vote from Biden two times. He also voted against increasing penalties on criminals using guns. Biden voted against letting guns be sold without trigger locks, voted for the Brady Bill and pushed to make it stronger.

Senator Biden is rated “F” by the NRA.

Senator McCain says he supports the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. He signed the Brief in support of Heller and says he knows how to use guns but does not own one. He voted against lawsuits against gun sellers three times and voted in favor of allowing guns in National Parks. He opposed extending the “assault weapon” ban and voted against the original ban. He also voted against the Brady Bill.

McCain has voted against background checks at gun shows although he sometimes supports them. He voted for more penalties for criminals using guns several times. McCain has called for a ban on “cheap” guns, requiring trigger locks and gun show background checks in the past.

Senator McCain is rated “C” by the NRA.

Governor Palin says she supports the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. She is a life member of the NRA and hunts and fishes as did her father. She hunts as much as she can and keeps her freezer full of wild game. She supported the Heller case ending the DC handgun ban.

The NRA says “Gov. Sarah Palin would be one of the most pro-gun vice-presidents in American history, and Joe Biden would definitely be the most anti-gun.

The following excerpts from the party platforms were printed in The Shooting wire on September 3, 2008:

The Democratic Platform: “We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements — like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban …”

The Republican Platform: “We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which are transparent attempts to deprive citizens of their rights. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the Second Amendment. We recognize that gun control only affects and penalizes law-abiding citizens, and that such proposals are ineffective at reducing violent crime.”

You decide.

Governor Perdue finally signed HB 89 into law the very last day he could in 2008. By waiting so long he gave the liberal media and other anti-gun groups several extra weeks to rant and rave about the bill, then brought it back to the forefront, giving them another chance to say silly stuff. If he had signed it as soon as it hit his desk he could have avoided many of those anti-gun comments.

One of the more strange claims was made by Robert Hiett, president of the Georgia Transit Association, a group urging Perdue to veto the bill. He said “Whether it is a large urban bus, passenger rail or rural shuttle bus, the presence of firearms will create a sense of insecurity.”

These folks have a total disconnect from reality. How will passengers know about concealed weapons? They should be thankful if some on the bus have them. An Atlanta Constitution news article on May 16, 2008 titled “Abductor arrested but where is victim?” tells how “A man drove his car in front of a bus, forcing it to the side of the road, then boarded the bus and forced the woman off at gunpoint, Dekalb police said.

What are the odds those passengers felt secure, knowing no law-abiding citizen was able to have a gun on the bus at that time?

No mention if the “abductor” had a concealed carry permit. And he ignored the law. What a surprise. Thugs ignore the law, take guns where ever they want to and commit crimes, while some irrational people yell for laws restricting where law-abiding gun owners can take their guns. People with that mind set will never get the idea of self protection.

The new law does give you some additional places you can carry concealed legally with a permit, but be careful. Gun control fanatics will do everything they can to get around the law. For example, GeorgiaCarry.org reports a Marta official said “MARTA police plan to ask passengers with visible guns to conceal them. They will ask the public not to approach fellow passengers with guns, but to contact MARTA police.” If they harass you, you could get in the middle of a mess.

Be careful in restaurants. Up to now you could walk into KFC with a concealed gun and be legal but if you went next door to Applebys with your gun you would be breaking the law. Now you can carry in Applebys but can not have a alcoholic drink. Don’t mess up and have even one beer while carrying. Some fanatic may be trying to catch you to make a point.

In more discouraging news, Jay Wallace, owner of Adventure Outdoors, had to stop fighting the lawsuit filed against him in New York. After several rulings against him by a very anti-gun judge, he gave in to Bloomberg’s demands that his store be supervised by a court appointed federal monitor. I am sure the cost of the legal fight was part of the reason Mr. Wallace had to give in.

The New York Times crowed about this great win for Bloomberg. They trumped up some numbers to show Bloomberg is fighting crime, ignoring the continued downward trend of crime there for many years. But this is the same newspaper that went back and edited a April 15, 2008 news report. One of their reporters honestly called the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence an “antigun group.” Seems the New York Times won’t allow such honesty, claiming “While it supports some firearms restrictions and enforcement of legal regulations on gun ownership, it is not an “antigun group.”

I hope Mr. Wallace still has his civil suit against Bloomberg in the Georgia courts and does not have to drop it because of his action in the New York courts. He should get a more honest judge and fair treatment here, even if he will not get more accurate and honest coverage from our local liberal media.

I like the word “inane” which Webster defines as “lacking sense, significance, or ideas, silly, empty, void.” What a perfect word to describe anti-gun editorials in the Atlanta Journal/Constitution and other main stream media, especially in 2009 about HB 89.

HB 89 reduced the places law-abiding citizens with Georgia firearms licenses were restricted from carrying a gun. While it was being debated and modified last year the media went insane. They claimed all kinds of wild-west type shootouts and found a few waitresses that feared for their lives if their customers carried a gun.

The rants against the bill got even more outrageous after the legislature passed the bill and it was waiting on Governor Perdue’s signature. He signed it, it went into effect on July 1, 2008, and nothing happened. All the inane claims by the media about what would happen never came true, just as any rational person knew they would not.

After law-abiding citizens who had gone through a finger print background check to get a firearms license were allowed to carry their guns into places that served alcohol and food, there was not a single shooting by one of them. I guarantee you would have heard about it, repeatedly, if any such incident had taken place. The media would have been all over it like buzzards on day old road kill.

Expect more inane ranting from the media this year. Senator Douglas (R – Social Circle) has prefiled SB 9 which removes the requirement that law-abiding citizens with a Georgia firearms permit must carry their pistol in a holster. No doubt the media will see this as a danger to all.

No other gun bills had been prefiled as of December 9 but keep a close watch on what your elected officials are doing. Georgiacarry.org is a good source for updates on laws that affect your gun rights here in Georgia. You can check on bills that as http://www.legis.state.ga.us/. You can find bills by their number or key words in the bill.

There probably will be additional laws considered to change the places you can legally carry a gun. Senator Seabaugh (R – Sharpsburg) has led a study committee on this issue and has asked for input from pro gun groups during the year. Some proposed changes might include allowing gun license holders to carry guns on campuses and other places where presently prohibited.

Expect inane claims about the dangers to students, teachers and the public if such proposals are made. But criminals do not obey the laws, as news article after news article about crimes committed on campuses with guns show. Hopefully, by now, most rational people do not pay any attention to such media rantings.

It is no surprise that applications for firearms licenses are up as much as 50 percent in some counties. Gun and ammo sales have gone through the roof, with many gun stores out of popular models and calibers. People are even trading in their hunting guns for guns that might be banned if the “assault” weapons ban is renewed.

Some folks are probably buying guns expecting the prices to go up. Some are stockpiling guns and ammo just in case of the worst happening. And some are buying guns and getting a firearms license because they realize you can not depend on law enforcement to protect you, you must protect yourself.

In some good news nationwide, the Department of the Interior modified its rules so carrying concealed guns in national parks is now legal. If you have a concealed carry permit from your state, and that state allows you to carry guns in parks, you can carry in national parks in that state. If you are in a state with reciprocal carry agreements with your state you can carry in national parks in those states, too.

The original rule seemed silly. If you have a Georgia firearms license and are carrying your gun legally when you leave home, when you get to the gate at Kennesaw National Battlefield Park you had to unload your gun and put it in the trunk. If national parks were perfectly safe, and no place is, the rule would still be a useless waste of time.

This new rule may not last long when the new administration takes over in January.

As Ronald Regan said, “There you go again.” President Obama has used his pen and his minions in the vast federal bureaucracy to override the congress and the will of the majority of US citizens. Since most citizens know more gun control laws are useless and don’t want guns banned, he is trying to ban the most common, cheapest ammo for a type gun he hates.

Claiming .223 ammo is a danger to police officers because there are a few hunting pistols that fire it and it will penetrate tactical vest, the Obama administration is planning on banning it. I have warned for years that any rifle ammo, all of which will penetrate tactical vest, could be banned because there are a few hunting pistols made for firing rifle ammo.

The .223 round is a small caliber rifle round barely legal for deer hunting. But since the AR 15 fires it, the Obama administration wants to effectively stop ownership of those rifles by outlawing the ammo it fires. Other rifle ammo like the 30-06, 30-30, 308 and 7 mm mag, are all higher caliber bullets with more powder in the case.

The congress has refused to ban the AR 15 many times, knowing only law abiding citizens obey laws and criminals will get any gun or ammo they want illegally. The majority of citizens also know this fact. But the president wants to over ride the democratic process.

No police officer has ever had his tactical vest penetrated by a .223 round. Most police organizations, especially those representing the street officers that supposedly would be most protected if this ban had any relationship to reality, do not support the ban.

But the president knows what is best for all of us in all aspects of our lives.