Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

Texas Observer:

Christians, arm yourselves.

That, in a nutshell, is what Liberty University students heard from Jerry Falwell Jr., in the wake of the shootings in San Bernardino in December. Falwell — president of the evangelical Christian college and son of the late Moral Majority founder — told students, “If more good people had concealed-carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in and killed them.” Adding that he was carrying a weapon in his pocket, he encouraged students to take Liberty’s concealed-carry training course.

[ … ]

Yet when it comes to linking lethal weapons to the “gospel of peace,” Falwell and Ramsey have nothing on Texas.

One pastor’s message to attendees of a 2012 Keller church conference went well beyond the suggestion that Christians consider gun ownership. “You can’t be a Christian if you don’t own a gun,” pastor Dr. Gary Cass told attendees at the Deliver Us From Evil Conference. “How can you protect yourself, your family, or your neighbor if you don’t have a gun? If I’m supposed to love my neighbor, and I can’t protect him, what good am I?” While Cass told me recently that there is some hyperbole in these statements — in that gun ownership alone is not sufficient to guarantee salvation — he does believe that self-defense “is a God-given right and duty.”

Cass’ DefendChristians.org is based in California, but several Christian ministers here in the Lone Star State are singing from the same hymnal. Huntsville-area preacher Terry Holcomb Sr. is known for carrying his AR-15 Bushmaster rifle into local businesses as part of his campaign for open carry. Likewise, the Rev. James McAbee, pastor at Beaumont’s Lighthouse Worship Center, has earned the moniker “the pistol-packin’ preacher” for carrying his Glock in church and for offering teachers free handgun training. Last summer, McAbee told KLST-TV that “it’s very important that every church, pastor and all, have a gun.” And yet, as he explained to the Los Angeles Times: “I don’t want to hurt anybody. I believe the Bible teaches peace. But that doesn’t mean I should let them hurt me.”

The notion of pastors packing heat and encouraging their flocks to do likewise strikes many Texas Christians, myself included, as peculiar — even, well, un-Christian. After all, the core teachings of Jesus himself suggest a very different message.

Although his country was under oppressive Roman occupation, Jesus taught nonviolence — “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” — which is not exactly a forceful call to arms. Jesus also instructed his followers to love their enemies.

But, of course, the Bible is a big and complicated book. Some Christian gun advocates cite a puzzling passage in which Jesus tells his disciples that if they don’t have a sword, they should sell their cloak and buy one. In an email to me, Cass even cited this passage as evidence of a biblical right to self-defense. However, many biblical commentators, including the evangelical InterVarsity Press, interpret Jesus as referring to spiritual “swords,” not physical ones. Even when Jesus was arrested, and the disciples asked him if they should defend him with their (physical) swords, he told them no. Based on my studies as both a scholar and a Christian, I believe that if Jesus taught us anything, he taught us that the godly life is one of peace, nonviolence, and love.

[ … ]

… the Second Amendment enshrines what Aledo Christian conservative David Barton has called “the biblical right of self-defense.” The Second Amendment’s “ultimate goal,” Barton contends, “is to make sure you can defend yourself against any kind of illegal force that comes against you,” whether from a neighbor, an outsider, or “your own government.” However doubtful it is that the Founders wanted to allow rebellion against the very government they were creating, this “insurrectionist idea” is very popular in Christian Americanist circles.

Oh good.  Yet another derogatory phrase for Christians who believe in living according to the Bible: “Christian Americanist.”  So this makes twice I’ve heard the author, David Brockman, claim that he is a scholar.  But if you’re going to make that claim, you have to live up to the hype.  Frankly, Brockman fails miserably.

Why is the passage about Jesus telling his disciples to get swords puzzling?  I thought Brockman was a scholar.  In fact, first of all Jesus told his disciples to find swords for self defense (the command is placed in context of having a purse and bag which they didn’t previously have, and being self sufficient in the absence of Jesus who was soon to give His life for His people).  Second, the command sets up the disciples to rely on God’s mercy and grace.  It was against Roman law for anyone but Roman soldiers to have weapons, and Jesus was commanding that they break Roman law.  Finally, this command sets up Peter for good instruction when he slices the ear off one of the Roman soldiers (referred to later by Brockman).  Jesus explained to Peter that His kingdom wouldn’t grow by the power of the sword (contra false religions like Islam).  Jesus had to die and be raised again for His people, and Peter was getting in the way.

Brockman – if he is the scholar he claims he is – should know all of this.  He should also know that the founders set up a system that was intended to be curtailed by the power of weapons, for that is exactly what they did.  They curtailed the power of tyrants in England, and were it not for weapons, there would have been no victory.

But the biggest failure is Brockman’s ignorance concerning the case for biblical self defense.  I’ve explained it before.

I am afraid there have been too many centuries of bad teaching endured by the church, but it makes sense to keep trying.  As I’ve explained before, the simplest and most compelling case for self defense lies in the decalogue.  Thou shall not murder means thou shall protect life.

God’s law requires [us] to be able to defend the children and helpless.  “Relying on Matthew Henry, John Calvin and the Westminster standards, we’ve observed that all Biblical law forbids the contrary of what it enjoins, and enjoins the contrary of what it forbids.”  I’ve tried to put this in the most visceral terms I can find.

God has laid the expectations at the feet of heads of families that they protect, provide for and defend their families and protect and defend their countries.  Little ones cannot do so, and rely solely on those who bore them.  God no more loves the willing neglect of their safety than He loves child abuse.  He no more appreciates the willingness to ignore the sanctity of our own lives than He approves of the abuse of our own bodies and souls.  God hasn’t called us to save the society by sacrificing our children or ourselves to robbers, home invaders, rapists or murderers. Self defense – and defense of the little ones – goes well beyond a right.  It is a duty based on the idea that man is made in God’s image.  It is His expectation that we do the utmost to preserve and defend ourselves when in danger, for it is He who is sovereign and who gives life, and He doesn’t expect us to be dismissive or cavalier about its loss.

And concerning John Calvin’s comments on this subject:

We do not need to prove that when a good thing is commanded, the evil thing that conflicts with it is forbidden.  There is no one who doesn’t concede this.  That the opposite duties are enjoined when evil things are forbidden will also be willingly admitted in common judgment.  Indeed, it is commonplace that when virtues are commended, their opposing vices are condemned.  But we demand something more than what these phrases commonly signify.  For by the virtue of contrary to the vice, men usually mean abstinence from that vice.  We say that the virtue goes beyond this to contrary duties and deeds.  Therefore in this commandment, “You shall not kill,” men’s common sense will see only that we must abstain from wronging anyone or desiring to do so.  Besides this, it contains, I say, the requirement that we give our neighbor’s life all the help we can … the purpose of the commandment always discloses to us whatever it there enjoins or forbids us to do” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, Book 2, Chapter viii, Part 9).

Far from a mere right, it is a duty.  Forsaking this duty is equivalent to turning over Brockman’s own children to criminals, rapists, thieves and abusers.  God isn’t impressed with Brockman’s fake morality, a morality that pretends Jesus is a bohemian hippie flower child.  And I don’t think Brockman is the scholar he thinks he is.

Mother Jones:

The cartels’ weapons of choice are high-caliber rifles, including AR-15 and AK-47-type semiautomatic rifles, which can be easily converted into fully automatic machine guns. The cartel’s gunrunners often buy firearms legally in the United States, either at gun shops, gun shows, or in private sales. The firearms are then illegally shipped across the border.

But it gets better.  Commenter Aquarian Dreamer said:

usually ‘High-Caliber’ is used to reference impact power, which until the late 19th usually meant larger ammunition. that changed as aerodynamics became better defined, and rifle power became less about bigger ammo with more gunpowder packed behind.

“Impact Power.”  “Aerodynamics became better defined.”  It’s sort of like that little puppy who is just learning to walk but still bumps into things, vomits and shits on the rug.  Maddening, but in some weird, freakish way, adorable nonetheless.

Prior:

High Magazine Clips And The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up

High Ammo Clips

Automatic Bullets In Rapid-Fire Magazine Clips

Duck Hunting With Bullets

Fully Loaded Ammunition Cartridge

High Magazine Round

Jackson Hole News & Guide:

In an effort to bring the town of Jackson in line with Wyoming law, the Town Council is on track to repeal a decades-old ordinance that bans concealed weapons.

The law dates back to the 1970s and outlaws people from having any kind of hidden weapon, including pistols and knives, but also dirks, daggers and “swords-in-canes.”

The potential change is part of an effort by the town to update older parts of the municipal code, but some town officials have paused on the concealed carry ordinance.

Councilor Jim Stanford pointed out that this is a rare instance in which the state has moved to take away local control.

“I disagree vigorously with the Wyoming Legislature usurping local authority to regulate guns within our municipal boundaries,” Stanford said. “And I believe that if this faced a court test it wouldn’t stand up.”

Generally, state statute allows local laws to be more restrictive but not less so than state law. As an example, law enforcement officials said that means that a town can reduce the speed limit on a state road, but can’t raise it.

Stanford said the state’s moves, which are contrary to that concept and came in the form of the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act, are attempting to force “extremist ideology” on localities. Through the act, instituted several years ago, the state is essentially taking over regulation of concealed weapons, he said.

Other town officials didn’t totally disagree with his thinking.

“I do find it interesting how we’re for local authority until we’re not,” said Mayor Sara Flitner.

But, practically speaking, she and other town officials said they had to update the municipal code to keep it in line with Wyoming’s laws.

Last winter my wife and I took an extended trip to Jackson, Wyoming, in part to ski, in part to visit the surrounding area.  We visited your wonderful restaurants, from the exquisite cuisine at The Gun Barrel, to Bubba’s Barbecue.  I have eaten barbecue from North Carolina to Texas, and I have said to others that I have never had it so good as Bubba’s in Jackson.  In fact, I have recommended that others go to Jackson Hole as well, the visit being so good and relaxing.  It was indeed a memorable time for us.

But there is a problem.  I noticed bus drivers open carrying, and as an open carrier myself and my home state being a traditional open carry state, I fully support that.  But being new to the area, I didn’t want to do that, and concealed while we were in Jackson.  That’s right.  I am proud to announce that I violated your stupid ordinance.  I didn’t know about it, to be sure.  But violate it I did.  It would have been easy to fix.  I could have just switched to open carry if I had only know.  And therein lies the problem, don’t you think?  The mere act of switching where I was carrying my weapon would have made the difference between being approved and not in Jackson.  But I’m glad I carried concealed if for no other reason than to prove a point, because you are the ones who are in violation of the law.  God’s providence is good and sometimes humorous and amusing, don’t you think?

Your ordinance is underhanded, illegal and immoral all at the same time.  It is underhanded in that unsuspecting, peaceable men like me could get caught up in your idiotic, pompous belligerence towards your own state.  It is immoral in that you could cause peaceable men like me to run afoul of your ordinances.  It is illegal because it violates Wyoming Code 6-8-401(c), which reads “no city, town, county, political subdivision or any other entity shall authorize, regulate or prohibit the sale, transfer, purchase, delivery, taxation, manufacture, ownership, transportation, storage, use, carrying or possession of firearms, weapons, accessories, components or ammunition.”

It’s called state preemption, and you know all about it.  You hate it.  I’ve observed about your kind before that “It’s an odious thing when local yokels (who are usually elected in elections that aren’t well attended and who are usually unknown until they act out their Napoleon fantasies upon others) presume to tell their townships what to do about everything under the sun.  Totalitarianism doesn’t just happen inside the beltway.”

And again, “I am a long standing and diehard advocate of State’s rights, even to the extent that I don’t think the federal court system should be invoked when local gun control is concerned.  All gun politics is local, I have said.  The corollary is that in order to prevent local hicks, ne’er-do-wells and criminals from acting out their Napoleon fantasies upon other men, association with the state means that – assuming robust gun rights laws already exist – local municipalities and townships shouldn’t be able to preempt state laws.  The state is the right size for law-making and control.  Our founding fathers were wise.”

The councilman who said “if this faced a court test it wouldn’t stand up” – Mr. Stanford – is an idiot.  State preemption is tried, tested, proven, and legal.  Towns and cities cannot override state law unless explicitly stated so in state law.

The only “extremist ideology” here is being expressed by Mr. Stanford.  Shame on you, and a thousand times shame on you.  The carry of weapons is a God-given right, and protection of human life is a God-given duty.  As for the city council, you are in violation of state law, placing at risk peaceable men who don’t know about your stupid ordinance, and wasting valuable time and resources sticking your nose up in the air and being offended that you can’t override state law.

The whole episode is unseemly, obscene and [should be] embarrassing to you.  You’re acting out in a tantrum as if you were little children.  This needs to end, and you need to bring Jackson into full compliance with State law in a timely manner.  And then you need to move on about the business of the city without so much smugness, condescension, pomp and arrogance.  You aren’t a board of kings, and you don’t get to fabricate just any law you wish.  If my readers want to send you notes saying the same thing, I’ll list your web site.

Comment:

I’m a legal handgun permit owner in Australia. Owning a firearm in Australia is no longer a right, but is a privilege. I am a member of a local firearms range where I compete in pistol shooting (the only permissible reason to own a handgun). My handgun permit only lasts one year, is a privilege, dependent on my competing in at least 6 competitions a year and being a member of a gun club. The police firearms branch review my license every year and have the right to terminate it if they feel I am not a “fit and reasonable person”. I cannot discharge my firearm outside of a designated firing range. I cannot store ammunition or the handgun in the same part of my gun safe. I cannot transport or store my gun with rounds loaded in the magazine, or a loaded magazine within the firearm. I cannot own a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity. I cannot use my handgun for personal protection, even when within my own home- as this is illegal and would result in a firearms act violation and the termination of my license as well as legal proceedings against me. My firearm is registered by law. The possession of a firearm means that the police have the right to search my entire house and inspect my safe and firearm on any day- so long as they have a “reasonable” cause to do so and arrive at a reasonable hour. So there……..

Never trust wicked men to honor your liberties.  It will be like this in America unless you are willing to shoot back to ensure that it’s not.

By now you’ve seen at least some of the details of Obama’s executive orders on gun control.  You know what I think about all of this, so I won’t repeat what we all know.  But I do want to make some specific observations.

The little boys and girls at Daily Kos are just giddy that they saw Obama cry.  They’re in full celebratory mode.  Crocodile tears on tap for just such an occasion.  That none of this accomplishes what he said he wanted to do doesn’t even move the needle on the bullshit-o-meter for the Kos kids.  That he’s a liar and this was all staged to occur at this point in his tenure escapes them.  He wanted to do all of this by executive order rather than by law-making.  It has been his design all along.

Regarding the details of things, first of all concerning mental health.  Via Uncle, your doctor can report you for what he or she perceives as mental illness.  I suppose that means that your name makes its way into the NICS as prohibited.  Next, the Social Security Administration can also put you on the prohibited list.  Seriously.

Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs.  The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS.  The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent

As for the mental health issue, that may mean, for example, that anyone who has ever taken a neuromodulator is now prohibited from ever owning a weapon.  And once these regulations get published in the federal register and codified in the federal code, it becomes very difficult to remove them.  One thing working against their removal is that the progressives blame guns for violence, while the so-called conservatives blame mental health.  Neither is responsible, and they know it.

As for the elderly, this might mean that if a child has power of attorney because a couple cannot run TurboTax, they are considered to be incompetent to manage their own affairs.  The Holy Scriptures say, “Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of the old man” (Leviticus 19:32).  The very ones who are the weakest and least able to defend themselves, who may need the protection afforded by a weapon more than anyone else, are the ones attacked by Obama.

What a worm.  What … a … worm.  He is a hateful, sorry, miserable, awful, terrible servant of the evil one.  But the most interesting reaction to Obama’s actions comes from Mike Vanderboegh, who observes that Obama has instantly nationalized the armed civil disobedience movement.  That’s the takeaway.  He has done what we could never do.

Fusion.net:

Texas is starting off the new year with a bang: A statewide gun law that doesn’t make much sense.

“Unfortunately, this law was not written very well. It’s not very clear…I can read it one way, I can read it another way,” said Donna Edmundson, the city attorney for Houston, at a town hall meeting two months ago. The law—which will make Texas the 45th and largest state to allow citizens with permits to openly carry handguns—goes into effect on January 1.

But by the end of that hour-and-a-half session, which was also attended by the police chief and district attorney, very little had been resolved.

Now, as they anticipate anticipate an uptick in 911 calls reporting people walking the streets with guns, police departments across the state are still trying to figure out how—and if—they can enforce the law, which legal experts say is marked with gaping loopholes and ambiguities.

For one thing, legal experts say, it’s not clear if the law allows police to detain someone who they suspect is open carrying without a license. Some districts are training police to ask to see a license only if an individual is engaging in otherwise suspicious activity. Others say they are free to ask because there is reasonable suspicion that the person may be committing a crime—unlawfully carrying a gun without a license.

Even trickier for police officers is what happens when a citizen is asked and refuses to show proof of an open-carry license. According to the Dallas Morning News, there is no penalty in the law for license holders who refuse to do so:

[C]ase law in Texas could prohibit police from arresting that person, since the action has no penalty.

But if the person isn’t a license holder, the officer can arrest him for unlawfully carrying a gun. So at what point does an officer know enough — like the person’s identity and whether he’s a license holder — to determine whether to make an arrest?

In other words, as it is written, the new open carry law is nearly impossible to enforce, said Geoffrey Corn, a professor of law at the South Texas College of Law in Houston. “It’s kind of like a Catch-22,” he told Fusion. Carrying without a license is illegal, but there’s no clear way for police to investigate if the person does indeed have a license to open carry or not.

“The way it’s gonna end up is that police are gonna have encounters with people who are open carrying that are going to escalate, and that are going to lead to an arrest,” Corn said. “And then that’s going to lead to defense attorneys saying the whole thing was tainted, and that the seizure was illegal because he had right to carry.”

Originally, the bill had a “no stop” provision, which barred police from asking anyone for their open carry license. Law enforcement groups fought it, saying it would prevent police from doing their jobs, while endangering the public. In response to that pressure, the bill was rewritten in its current form.

“Traditionally, the way legislatures tackle hard problems is to leave it to the courts,” George Dix, a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law, told Fusion. “In this case, I suspect there was no politically acceptable language they could agree on, so they left it up to others to decide.”

The officials who pushed the bill through saw it as mostly a symbolic measure, he speculated. They weren’t necessarily concerned with how it would be enforced.

For all its problems, there is one thing abundantly clear with the new law: seeing someone on the street with a gun is not enough of a reason to detain them and ask for their license. Seeing someone with a firearm no longer makes them suspicious in the eyes of the law, even as regular citizens might be alarmed at the sight.

“What a lot of police are worried about is not that there’s gonna be open carry, but that there’s going to be a deliberate effort to exercise that right in what I might characterize as an ‘unusually zealous’ way,” said Corn. “And there can be a lot of chaos in those circumstances.”

Deliberate, mind you.  Not accidental, but someone exercising a right deliberately.  Deliberately!  And not only that, but in an “unusually zealous” way!

So tell us Mr. Corn.  What does it mean to deliberately exercise a right in an “unusually zealous” way?  Be precise, please.  Legally precise.  And explain how that can be chaotic.

Or perhaps this is just some bullshit term made up for some bullshit article over something that won’t end up mattering a hill of beans to most people?  Which is it, Mr. Corn?

Indystar.com:

A veteran was wounded Wednesday at Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center when a handgun he brought into the Indianapolis hospital accidentally discharged in his pocket while he was in a procedure room — possibly an MRI suite.

Hospital officials confirmed the accidental shooting in a statement issued Thursday and reported the victim, whose name was not released, received immediate medical attention. The statement added the man’s wound did not threaten his life.

A hospital spokesman initially confirmed in a telephone call from The Indianapolis Star that the incident involved an MRI, but the subsequent statement said only that the incident occurred “in a procedure room.” When asked for clarification about the involvement of the MRI, the spokesman said in an email that the statement “is our response at this time.”

The statement noted it is a violation of federal and state law to bring a firearm into the hospital and “notification of this law is posted at every entrance.”

Having a gun or other metal object in the vicinity of an MRI machine would also be a violation of widely accepted medical and safety protocol, according to American Journal of Roentgenology, and could have fatal consequences. It was unclear Thursday if criminal charges would be pursued. The Marion County prosecutor’s office was closed Thursday.

The accident at Roudebush may be the first time in the U.S. that a patient was wounded when a gun discharged in an MRI unit.

It also is at least the second instance of a handgun accidentally firing in the suite of one powerful imagining machines which, according to WebMD, use “a magnetic field and pulses of radio wave energy to make pictures of organs and structures inside the body.”

In the other case, according to a 2002 report in the American Journal of Roentgenology, a gun discharged in an MRI after it was pulled from the hand of an off-duty police officer as he attempted to place the weapon on a cabinet about 3 feet away from the MRI’s magnet bore. No one was injured in that case.

In 2009, another off-duty police officer in Florida sustained a minor hand injury when her department-issued gun was pulled inside an MRI machine. Jacksonville TV station WJTX reported the injury occurred when her hand became trapped between the gun and magnet.

Another MRI accident — which involved a metal object, but not a gun — claimed the life of a 6-year-old New York boy in 2001.

The deadly accident at Westchester Medical Center in Valhalla, N.Y., occurred when a metal oxygen tank about the size of a fire extinguisher was pulled into the MRI and fractured the boy’s skull, according to the New York Times.

In a report on the 2002 incident in New York involving a handgun, the Journal of Roentgenology found, the police officer’s “gun was immediately pulled into the bore, where it struck the left side and spontaneously discharged a round into the wall of the room at the rear of the magnet.”

At the time the .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol fired, the report said, “it was reportedly in a cocked and locked position; that is, the hammer was cocked and the thumb safety was engaged to prevent the hammer from striking the firing pin.” There also was a live round in the chamber.

“Many people who choose this weapon for personal protection will carry it in this manner because it allows them to quickly fire the weapon if needed,” the report noted.

The discharge was likely “a result of the effect of the magnetic field on the firing pin block,” the report said.

“The firing pin block was probably drawn into its uppermost position by force of the magnetic field. The firing pin block has to overcome only light pressure from a relatively small spring to release the firing pin. The pistol was likely drawn into the magnetic field so that the muzzle struck the magnet’s bore first. With the firing pin allowed to move freely in its channel, the force of the impact on the muzzle end was sufficient to cause the firing pin to overcome its spring pressure and move forward to strike the primer of the chambered round.”

From a wonkish standpoint, I find this quite interesting.  I would have liked a picture (or set of pictures) to go along with the explanation, though.  Do we have any gunsmiths who can elaborate and clarify for us?

CSM:

At least in popular culture, Texas has always been synonymous with gun-totin’ cowboys, but until midnight on New Year’s Eve, the reality has been far different. Texas, in fact, has been one of the most restrictive gun-rights states in America.

Thanks to a new law, however, the state will be one of the most relaxed.

How relaxed? Police are discouraged from even asking about someone’s holstered gun. And if they do, they may not have much power to do anything if the person refuses to show a license.

The upshot is that the sight of civilians carrying visible weapons is about to become commonplace in the Lone Star State.

The lawmakers who crafted the legislation passed it in part as a symbolic measure at an unusual time in the United States. Even as gun control groups link America’s obsession with firearms to a slight rise in the number of mass shootings, the US public seems more enamored than ever with weaponry and the power it conveys. Black Friday this year saw the biggest gun cache ever purchased in one day – enough to arm a new military the size of the Marine Corps, as Bob Owens points out on the “Bearing Arms” blog.

Indeed, with notable exceptions in New York, Connecticut, and Colorado, the bulk of states have steadily expanded gun rights since the sunsetting of a 10-year assault weapons ban in 2004. But the new Texas law is Texas-size, given that more than 800,000 Texans are already licensed to carry concealed weapons. Their rights now extend to carrying openly in the halls of the state Capitol.

Given those trends, there’s a fervent debate about whether the new Texas law is a model piece of legislation for a changing America – or a walking disaster just begging for trouble.

To be sure, the law is strict in its own way, offering a model for regulation. Under the law, open-carry folks have to be licensed, a process that includes safety and shooting tests. They also have to show no prior psychological problems, and they have to be at least 21 years old.

But a major sticking point is how the law will affect policing in one of the nation’s most populous expanses. The fact that the law doesn’t provide any sanctions against those who refuse to show a license to a police officer has critics fearing that officers may be handcuffed in their ability to respond to volatile and potentially deadly situations.

Oooo … boogey man gonna getcha!  Hold me Uncle Bob!  I askeerd!  “Walking disaster.”  “Trouble.”  “Volatile and deadly situations.” Oooo …

Again, as a citizen of a traditional open carry state, I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen here.  Nothing.  That’s right, nothing.  Life will continue in the lone star state unabated, and the doomsday predictions of law enforcement and the progressives will go down as a monument to their hatred of the common man.

And no, it’s not a model for open carry law.  It’s a half way measure that still recognizes the state’s right to permit the carry of weapons, an illegitimate and bastard right that has no place in a free society.

News from South Carolina:

CHEROKEE COUNTY, S.C. — A Gaffney man was killed while playing with a gun at his house New Year’s Eve.

Witnesses say Tezlar Wayne Ross, 20, and three other people were in his bedroom looking at a .380 handgun when he reportedly took the clip out of the gun and placed it to his head joking with the others when it discharged.

Ross was pronounced dead at the scene.

“This is certainly a tragic way to end the year.  Guns are not toys and this is an example of what happens when they are treated as such and not respected.  My heart breaks for this family,” Cherokee County Coroner Dennis Fowler said.

Please don’t ever do anything like that.  Please.  Always observe the rules of gun safety.  Just like car, or the presence of prescription drugs in the home, bad things can happen when the rules aren’t followed.

Washington Post:

Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring announced Tuesday that the commonwealth will no longer recognize out-of-state concealed handgun permits, part of a national push to circumvent legislatures opposed to tightening gun laws.

[ … ]

But Herring’s office could not say how many people are suspected of crossing into Virginia with concealed weapons to commit crimes …

[ … ]

The states losing reciprocity are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

The Washington Post article comes via Mike Vanderboegh.  As for Mr. Herring, he can’t prove that any crime has ever been committed in Virginia by an out-of-state concealed handgun permit holder, and he knows it.  This is raw politics, progressive statist tactics to deprive men of their right to self defense.  And as we’ve seen before, it’s more than a matter of mere politics, and even more than a matter of rights.  It’s a matter of moral duty.

God expects men to defend themselves and their loved ones as a corollary to being created in His image.  Second amendment or not, men must act to preserve life, their own and that of others.  It is an obligation that attends being servants of the most high God, the only potentate and eternal ruler of the universe.  Your actions, Mr. Herring, go to the heart of God’s expectations for man, and thus there is a deeply moral element to your seemingly political actions.

As I said, we’ve studied this time and time again, and so there is absolutely no question that Mr. Herring is interfering with man’s duty before God and thus has become a stumbling block for God’s chosen people.  There is a whole host of questions and things to consider from this point forward.

For instance, what is the NRA going to do?  If they’re worth two cents, they will go to war over this.  What will Virginia LEOs do?  If they enforce this sinful and unconstitutional law, they are no better than the current Governor and Attorney General Mr. Herring.  I don’t care that those in power want this enforced.  I don’t care that those in power were elected to that office.

Breaking covenant with God’s law means illegitimacy before mankind, and thus their laws must be disobeyed.  I don’t want to hear from LEOs that the people of Virginia should elect better men, different men.  The majority doesn’t have a right to decide when God’s laws are to be dishonored.  If LEOs can’t stand the moral heat, it’s time to get out of the kitchen.  These are weighty questions for weighty times.  What will LEOs do?  Seriously.  LEOs should ponder hard on these words.

But one thing I can do about this is appeal to the most high King over these sinful actions.  In the Christian faith there is a rich tradition of imprecatory prayers, and it’s a tool we don’t use often enough.  It isn’t a substitute for action on our parts, but we must bath everything in prayer.  The last time I prayed an imprecatory prayer it was over Arlen Specter and his support for abortion rights and another candidate who supported abortion rights.  Soon after that prayer, Mr. Specter was diagnosed with cancer and left the senate.  I don’t do this lightly.  But Mr. Herring has forced my hand, and I feel led by the spirit to do this.

“Dear Lord of heaven and earth, whereas Mr. Herring has made it impossible for many of your servants, your children, those for whom your only begotten Son died on a rugged cross, to preserve their lives and the lives of those whom you love, Mr. Herring has declared himself to be your enemy.  Tyrants need willing lieutenants to carry out their evil plans, and Mr. Herring has decided to align himself with the forces of darkness.  This is no small matter to you.

I am hereby constrained by your spirit to pray for his demise.  Bring desolation, destitution and disrepute on the house of Mr. Herring to the fourth and fifth generations.  May his very children and children’s children disavow his beliefs and actions to the fourth and fifth generations.  May Mr. Herring live in shame for what he has done, and I pray that you, oh sovereign Lord, would bring all of his actions to naught and render him impotent and powerless, with the reputation of a worm.”