Overheard at the barbershop

A blogger friend frequently leads his posts with, “Heard in the ‘bolance…” I’m emulating him today about a discussion I had with my barber last week.

My barber is the current owner, of a string of owners, of the barbershop where I’ve been getting my hair cut for a long time, several decades, since I got out of the Air Force. My barber started as just another hair-cutter. She saved her money and when the last owner retired, she bought the shop. In the time I’ve known her, she’s raised a family and now has grandchildren.

I’m not sure how we approached the subject. Somewhere in our conversation she said she and twenty of her ‘girlfriends’ were taking CCW training the following day. She made the statement, “Getting one while she could.”

It was a strange statement, I thought. There is no movement in Missouri to abolish concealed carry. Nation-wide, the trend is just the opposite. Even Illinois, the last holdout, now has concealed carry. The first 5,000 certificates were mailed out this week.

Heller and McDonald ended any idea that the 2nd Amendment applied only to militias, or the National Guard, according to rabid liberals. The May-issue vs. Shall-issue controversy received a probable fatal blow this week when the 9th Circus, uhh, the 9th US Appellate Court, declared ‘May Issue’, in light of Heller and McDonald, was a denial of 2nd Amendment rights. The first case was against the San Diego Sheriff. That decision was echoed in a second case against another Sheriff.

Because of these court actions, I was surprised to hear my barber be so pessimistic about concealed carry and ownership of firearms in general. She, like all too many, is not a follower of 2nd Amendment news. In fact, she’s not a follower of the news in any form. She acquires bits and snips of information, frequently invalid information, from the internet and friends.

What she is, however, is a fair barometer of state of mind of American citizens at large. And that barometer foretells a storm season. I hadn’t told her that I was carrying concealed. There had been, until that time, no need. The conversation proceeded about how she planned to stash a pistol in her barbershop. She mentioned velcroing a holster to the back of her barber chair. I suggested that a pistol hidden in the shop would defeat its purpose if she was not at that spot when a need occurred. What would she do, I asked, if she needed that pistol and she was not at her chair but on a smoke break in the rear of the shop or sitting, reading during a slack period several feet away from her hidden pistol? I suggested she carry on her person instead. Her barber smock provided perfect concealment of a pistol in or outside of her waistband.

The entire conversation was an indication that normal, run-of-the-mill citizens are fearful, worried, not about crime so much as deeply concerned about the course of government. When I mentioned the confiscation threats being issued by the Connecticut and New York state governments, it was completely new to her. She was surprised, dismayed, and…enraged!

As I said, she was not a follower of the news. She was a typical representation of the vast majority of citizens living their lives, mindful of the growing governmental interference, who simply want to live life as they have been. But everyday, in some way, that vision of life is being changed, and not, in their view, for the better.

You see satirical articles, such as the one below, every day, it seems. This article used to be an inside joke—inside to those who are 2nd Amendment supporters. But it is new to some like my barber. To them, it isn’t satire aimed at over-reaching government; it is a strong possibility that is not fantasy nor satire.

The police panic in Boston last year following the Boston Marathon bombing is still fresh in people’s mind. (If you have a Facebook account, you can see a gallery of photos of illegal police actions.) The scenes of police invading homes without warrants could happen anywhere government becomes oppressive.

72 People Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation in Massachussetts!

Posted by Staff on March 09, 2014

Boston – National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.


Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.

Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

Of course, the article is satire, an updated version of the Battle of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. To people like my barber, it brings a troubling possibility home. New York and Connecticut have already threatened their citizens that police break in their homes and seize so-called ‘assault’ weapons and ‘large-capacity’ magazines. Shotguns, too, in the case of New York. To a growing number of Americans, that threat is no longer a fantasy and certainly not satire.

While she finished my haircut, we had a nice conversation on the merits of auto-loading pistols versus revolvers. I think she will begin with a revolver…at first. Like all so many things, once you’ve bought your first firearm, you just can’t stop at one.

Obama blocks CMP—more Gun Control

By executive fiat, Obama issued two “gun control” orders today “because Congress wouldn’t.” One edict directly affects the Civilian Marksmanship Program, the CMP, who has been the agent distributing former US military rifles to veterans and qualified citizens. I bought my M1 over a decade ago through the CMP.

The source of those rifles in the last few years, has been the return of M1 Garands and M1 Carbines supplied to foreign governments during WW2 and the Korean War. Korea and Denmark have been some of the foreign sources of returning American-made military rifles. Those and other sources now, by Obama’s edict, are blocked.

The other provision closes “loopholes” where some felons could conceivably circumvent their prohibition of purchasing weapons by using a corporation or trust. My non-judical mind wonders if this edict could also spell trouble for licensed firearm dealers, distributors, importers and manufacturers as well.

Here is this morning’s headline by the leftist Associated Press, an organization who has yet to cover a gun control issue it didn’t like.

Obama offers new gun control steps

By JOSH LEDERMAN — Aug. 29 9:53 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Striving to take action where Congress would not, the Obama administration announced new steps Thursday on gun control, curbing the import of military surplus weapons and proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations.

Four months after a gun control drive collapsed spectacularly in the Senate, President Barack Obama added two more executive actions to a list of 23 steps the White House determined Obama could take on his own to reduce gun violence. With the political world focused on Mideast tensions and looming fiscal battles, the move signaled Obama’s intent to show he hasn’t lost sight of the cause he took up after 20 first graders and six adults were gunned down last year in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities, where some may end up on the streets. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.

These days, Obama mentions gun control with far less regularity than when it appeared the Senate was poised to take action, although Obama did meet Tuesday with 18 city mayors to discuss ways to contain youth violence. And with immigration and pressing fiscal issues dominating Congress’ agenda, the prospects for reviving gun legislation appear negligible.

With Jones’ confirmation at ATF, the White House has completed or made significant progress on all but one of the 23 executive actions Obama had previously ordered in January, the White House said. Still lingering is an effort to finalize regulations to require insurers to cover mental health at parity with medical benefits, although the White House said that it is committed to making that happen by the end of 2013.

The new rules for guns registered to corporations will follow the traditional regulatory process, with a 90-day comment period before ATF reviews suggestions and finalizes the rule. Last year, ATF received 39,000 requests to register guns to corporations and trusts.

I’ve trimmed the AP story to remove the adulation of Obama and Biden. I suggest you follow the link and read the entire article. The battle between us and liberal tyrants has not and will not cease.

“Eternal vigilence is the price of liberty.”
–Wendell Phillips

Recap: 2013 Gun Rights Rally — Jefferson City, MO

Yesterday was a full day. It was raining like an upended bucket when we left the house at 6:30am. Visibility could be measured in feet—not yards.

We picked up a friend and headed out on US-50 to Jeff City. It rained all the way—heavy, heavy, rain for the first 40 miles. I was concerned with hydro-planing and made sure I followed in the tracks of a large truck a hundred yards or so ahead of me.

It’s a 2 1/2 hour drive, for us, to Jeff City. That is, when it’s in good weather. We parked about three blocks away from the Capitol and walked, uphill—a steep hill, to arrive in the Capitol’s Rotunda right a starting time. We were able to find seats but not together.

Gun Rights Rally, April 18, 2013, Missouri Capitol Rotunda

Gun Rights Rally, April 18, 2013, Missouri Capitol Rotunda

Did I say it was crowded? When the rally started, it was standing room only. The two upper observation levels that surrounded the Rotunda was ringed, shoulder-to-shoulder, as well.

I sat on the second row in one seat next to some friends. Shiela Stokes-Begley, the President of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance, was one of the speakers. I sat next to her hubby, Dennis. Mrs. Crucis and our friend found two seats together further back. I’m not good as estimating the size of crowds. My best guess is that several hundred people were there. The photo above was taken before the rally started. It was MUCH more crowded after the start.

Mark Perez organized the event. Beth “Ann”, from CSC Radio, was the MC.

Mark Perez, Gun Rights Rally Organizer

Mark Perez, Gun Rights Rally Organizer

Beth Ann, Gun Rights Rally MC

Beth Ann, Gun Rights Rally MC

Missouri House Speaker, Tim Jones (R-Eureka), speaks before the Gun Rights Rally, April 18, 2013

Missouri House Speaker, Tim Jones (R-Eureka), speaks before the Gun Rights Rally, April 18, 2013

While the Rally progressed, MO state Representatives and Senators arrived, spoke briefly and left. Both Houses were in session. A bill, a consolidation of a number of gun rights bills, was being voted upon—it eventually passed by a large margin. However, there’s always a however, democrats were doing their best to delay the inevitable. One dem rep, who has proposed a bill to confiscate guns in Missouri, was speaking against the bills. It was a blatant attempt to delay the vote.

Gun advocates rally as Mo. House backs gun bill

By JORDAN SHAPIRO, Associated Press, Updated 6:17 pm, Thursday, April 18, 2013

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Several hundred gun-rights advocates rallied at the state Capitol on Thursday as the Missouri House passed a bill that would greatly expand who can legally carry a weapon and allow certain school personnel to carry concealed weapons on school grounds.

The House lived up to the energetic crowd’s expectations shortly after the rally ended by passing one of the largest expansions of gun rights since the Legislature passed a law allowing concealed weapons in 2003. The measure sponsored by Republican Rep. Doug Funderburk would allow appointed school “protection officers” to carry concealed weapons, as long as they have a valid permit and register with the state Department of Public Safety.The bill was passed with a 115-41 vote, one day after a small group of U.S. Senate Democrats from rural states joined with Republicans to reject more extensive background checks for gun purchasers and proposed bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

“This is too big of a country to have a one size fits all approach,” said Spellman, who works in the financial services industry.The Missouri House measure would also declare federal gun laws to be unenforceable within the state’s borders, a component that Democrats chided as unconstitutional. Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, said the bill won’t be enforced but “to do so would be literally secession” from the United States.

Missouri law currently allows concealed guns to be carried by people age 21 and older who haven’t been convicted of a felony or deemed mentally incompetent, and who pass a firearms training course and background check. But the House legislation would lower the age requirement and allow people age 19 to apply for a permit. The measure also allows concealed weapon permit holders to openly carry firearms that are less than 16 inches long.Rally-goer Debbie Dickson said she supports the minimum age reduction for concealed weapons permits. She said it was the role of parents, not the government, to educate about guns and safety.

The bill also includes a provision that would prohibit health professionals from being required to ask people about firearm ownership or documenting it in medical records.While gun control proposals at the federal level may have prompted the House legislation, Republican lawmakers are also looking to ease privacy concerns within the state. Republicans are concerned about a new Revenue Department procedure that scans personal documents of license applicants to be kept on state computers and have criticized the Highway Patrol for providing data on concealed gun permit holders to a federal Social Security fraud investigator.”I don’t want any private records to be spread when everyone can see them,” Dickson said.The bill would also make it illegal to publish any identifying information about a gun owner or a person applying for a permit to own or carry a firearm. A person or entity publishing such information would be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

We arrived home, after making a few stops along the way, about 8:30pm. The cats were happy to see us. One had barfed on the carpet in the family room, a joy of living with cats. Mrs. Crucis spent some time catching up on her e-mails and surfed a bit. Me? I crashed.

A long day, but one well spent.


While trying to think of a theme for today, I remembered an encounter I had some years ago with an anti-gun liberal. I had worked with this woman for a couple of years. I usually had little association with her outside of some planning meetings. This time, our group met outside the office for lunch at a nearby diner well-known for its quality of grease.

Somehow the conversation got around to guns. Several of us in that group were shooters. This particular woman, of course, was not and made her opinions on guns known to the group, “No one should own guns! Guns only kill! The police will protect you!”

It was that last statement that made everyone laugh which made her angrier. We then attempted to educate her that the police have NO obligation to protect her, me, any individual and there were U. S. Supreme Court decisions to support that statement. This woman refused to listen, of course.

It is time again to remind people of these facts. The police, the Sheriff, any government agency, has no responsibility to protect any individual. Here are some pertinent court decisions to prove that point.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.”

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

Ah, but you say, that is the District of Columbia. It’s not a state but a federal enclave. It’s different for states.

Sorry, but you’re wrong. Here’s another case that originated in Colorado. It had the same result as did Warren v. DC.




On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales’ husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales’ family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one’s individual protection.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion of this decision. He said:

The horrible facts of this case are contained in the complaint that respondent Jessica Gonzales filed in Federal District Court. (Because the case comes to us on appeal from a dismissal of the complaint, we assume its allegations are true. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1 (2002).) Respondent alleges that petitioner, the town of Castle Rock, Colorado, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond properly to her repeated reports that her estranged husband was violating the terms of a restraining order.1

 We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband. It is accordingly unnecessary to address the Court of Appeals’ determination (366 F.3d, at 1110—1117) that the town’s custom or policy prevented the police from giving her due process when they deprived her of that alleged interest. See American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 61 (1999).14

Read more on this decision here.

This Colorado decision is somewhat unique because of the implied versus actual protected provided by the restraining order. The implied protection was valueless if the enforcing agency did not respond which the Castle Rock police failed to do in this case. In other words, the actual value of the restraining order was nullified by the inability or willful inaction of the police to enforce the order. In other words, a piece of paper, the restraining order in this case, provided no protection against an aggressor with a knife.

There has been another case, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services that pertains to minors in custodial care. In this case the Department of Social Services failed to respond to complaints of parental abuse against a dependent minor child. The beatings were reported to the Department of Social Services who refused to intervene. The issue came to a head when the father continued beating the child finally causing severe brain damage and retardation.

The Court’s decision can be summarized in this short segment.

A State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. — Cornell School of Law

The critical component of all these decisions is that the state, whether it be Federal, local municipality, or a state government has no obligation to protect any individual. In fact, government has no obligation to come to the aid of any individual for any reason. Since this has been proven true in the Courts all the way to the US Supreme Court, who does have that responsibility to protect the individual? No one…except that particular individual who must protect himself.

If the government has no obligation to protect individuals from harm by others, then that same government cannot prevent any individual from acquiring the means for the individual to protect themselves from any person or agency.

That is the real purpose for the Second Amendment.



Living in a liberal paradise

It’s a new year.  Our mailbox did not survive New Year’s Eve. We arose yesterday morning to discover it was laying on it’s side.  We share that mailbox with a number of neighbors. Fortunately, we still able to retrieve our mail.  With the consolidation of mail delivery from Raymore to Belton, our mail now arrives after dark. Before the consolidation our mail arrived before noon. Perhaps it’s just as well. We receive less and less real mail. It it weren’t for the coupons and ads we probably wouldn’t bother checking the box at all.


The libs are at it again.  After the large negative response to their latest gun grabbing scheme from Senator Feinstein, they are trying a new tactic—mandatory liability insurance. As usual, this will only affect the law-abiding gun owners. Criminals will ignore this new law like they ignore all the rest.

Law on liability insurance eyed for gun owners

Idea resurfaces after Newtown killings

By David Sherfinski – The Washington Times, Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Hoping to get beyond the debate over new gun-control laws, a group of economists and legal scholars is floating another plan they say could cut down on spree shootings: require all gun owners to carry liability insurance, similar to what automobile owners must have.

The plan, which was floated in Illinois’ legislature in 2009, draws the ire of gun-rights groups who say it infringes on Americans’ Second Amendment rights and unfairly targets law-abiding gun owners. But backers say it offers a way to ferret out potentially dangerous or unstable criminals from the ranks of gun owners without having the federal government enact outright bans.

The horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. last month ignited a new national debate over gun law, but the liability insurance proposal may not have prevented that tragedy. Shooter Adam Lanza used firearms owned by his mother to kill her and then 26 children and administrators at the school before taking his own life.

“If you own a gun, you should expect some due diligence of all people who own guns,” said Tricia Dunlap, a Richmond-based lawyer. “We can stop debating about whether you can own a gun, because of course you can. Do we ban assault weapons? No, it doesn’t work. God, we’ve been having that debate for 20 years. Can we come at it from a fresh angle?”

So what do we really have here? Another tax. Some libs tried to sue the state of Connecticut after the NewTown shootings. The state replied that school safety wasn’t their responsibility but that of the local city and school district. The libs and their trial lawyer buds must have someone to sue and you can’t get money from ordinary people—you need someone with deep pockets…like insurance companies. Those insurance companies will, of course, pass the cost along to the gun owner.

It doesn’t matter than gun-owners are already liable if they misuse their firearms. The issue is who has money the libs and lawyers can steal acquire if they sue? Your average gun-owner doesn’t have pockets all that deep. This bill will provide a suitable (sueable?) source of money.

Bu-Bye, Boehner

It appears that the revolt in ‘Pub ranks in the House is growing.  This article appeared on Breitbart.com and confirms rumblings I’ve heard from other sources.

House Republicans Circulate Plan to Oust Boehner from Speakership

by Matthew Boyle 21 Dec 2012

Several conservative House Republican members are contemplating a plan to unseat Speaker John Boehner from his position on January 3, Breitbart News has exclusively learned. Staffers have compiled a detailed action plan that, if executed, could make this a reality.

The Republicans, both conservatives and more establishment members alike, are emboldened after the failure of Boehner’s fiscal cliff “Plan B” on Thursday evening. Dissatisfaction with Boehner is growing in the House Republican conference, but until now there hasn’t been a clear path forward.

Those members and staffers requested anonymity from Breitbart News at this time to prevent retaliation from Boehner similar to what happened to those four members who were purged from their powerful committee assignments a few weeks ago. Their expressed concern is that if Boehner knew who they were, his adverse reaction toward them would be much more brutal than losing committee assignments, such as a primary challenge in 2014 by a leadership-sponsored candidate.

The article continues on but it’s gratifying to read that those who can are taking action to remove that abomination from the Speakership. It’s long past time Boehner is removed from the Speaker’s office. He’s unfit to hold the office of Representative, too.


Diane Feinstein is at it again. She wants another “assualt” weapons and high-capacity magazine ban as well as national registration of all firearms.

Stopping the spread of deadly assault weapons

In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devises.

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

  • Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

    • 120 specifically-named firearms
    • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
    • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
  • Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. 

    • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
    • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
    • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
  • Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

    • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
    • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
    • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
  • Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

    • Background check of owner and any transferee;

    • Type and serial number of the firearm;

    • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;

    • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and

    • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

Fortunately, this bill will go nowhere in the House, unless John Boehner betrays us again.

 Gallup: Majority opposes ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’

Gallup poll, December 26, 2012, By:

A majority of Americans oppose a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” but do support stricter gun laws, according to the results of a new USA Today/Gallup poll reported Wednesday.

According to USA Today, 51 percent of the respondents are against such a ban while 44 percent say they favor a ban. Fifty-eight percent support stricter gun laws, the newspaper reported, but also noted that 46 percent support enforcement of existing gun laws…

Essentially, banning so-called “assault weapons” is a dead-heat issue that has not gained any traction.


Feinstein’s attack on the 2nd Amendment has had some unintended consequences—a run on AR-style rifles, large capacity magazines and ammo. One nationally-known supplier, Brownells,  sold 3 1/2 years worth of magazines in 72 hours.

Top Ammo Supplier Sells 3 1/2 Years Worth Of Assault Rifle Magazines In 72 Hours

By Kim Bhasin | Business Insider – Wed, Dec 26, 2012 10:33 AM EST

Firearm accessories supplier Brownells says that it’s experiencing “unprecedented” sales of magazines.

Brownells has sold 3 1/2 years worth of PMAG magazines in just 72 hours, according to a statement posted from the company’s official account on gun owner forum AR-15.com.

It also says that it has sold “an even greater amount” of its own Brownells magazines.

PMAGs, manufactured by Magpul, are used with AR-15/M4/M16 compatible weapons.

“Its rugged design has made it as one of the top performers in the small-arms accessory arena,  according to combat veterans who credit the PMAG with drastically improving the reliability of the M4,” writes Matthew Cox at Military.com.

Here’s the full statement from Brownell, attributed to the president of the family-owned company Pete Brownell:

Hey Guys,

I wanted to take a minute to shed some insight on the magazine situation if i can. First of all I wanted to offer an apology for the situation that Pacs and anyone else encountered with magazines being “In-Stock” and Backordered moments later. Cedjunior had it correct, the demand for magazines actually exceeded the ability for the system to keep up with the volume that was being ordered. They way that our website works is that inventory is fed from our ERP system directly into the website in “real-time”. Unfortunately, “real-time” is the amount of time that it takes for the transactions to work both ways. During normal circumstances, it is nearly instant. However, we’ve been receiving orders at such a pace that these transactions have gotten slower. We absolutely apologize again, we definitely don’t want that ever to be your experience. 

To shed some more light on the magazine situation at present, it really has been unprecedented in the last 5 days. (Edit – Sorry guys, meant 72 hour period) we sold the “average demand” equivalent of about 3 1/2 years worth of PMAGS, and an even greater amount of our Brownells magazines. We’re working like crazy to get these orders to you as quickly as possible. 

We’re working directly with Magpul daily to forecast out the next couple of months deliveries. Magpul is focusing their efforts on the BLACK magazines, so we’re limiting backorders to only Black for now. 

On the Brownells 30 and 20 round magazines, we’re still flowing those into the system daily, and are producing those at 100% capacity as well. We ordered more material yesterday that will allow us to up production again in the coming weeks. 

Our apologies for the delays! We’ll keep working as hard as possible to get these going and will keep you updated always. Let us know if we can do anything at all. – Pete Brownell

Ironically, despite the headline, Brownell’s is known best for selling gun parts, components and supplies, much less so for ammunition.

2012 NRA Annual Meeting, Part II

Mrs. Crucis and I did more than just listen to speakers, we wandered through the exhibits too.  Frankly, unlike the time when the NRA was in Kansas City, there was too much to see.  In fact, the press of the crowds made it nearly impossible to proceed at some of the locations on the floor.  
Circular Entrance of the Convention Center
One of the booths I visited was the Second Amendment Foundation.  I was looking for an e-mail friend, Dave Workman (Examiner reporter, Gun writer and author.) I found Dave talking to a gentleman about the supposed UN Treaty to limit individual gun ownership.  The gentleman was all up in arms thinking that Obama could sign the treaty by fiat and dissolve the 2nd Amendment.  
Really!?!?  Where do people get this ideas?  He didn’t know that it is the Senate that reviews and ratifies international treaties nor that it requires 2/3rds of the Senate to do so.  The Founders purposely made it difficult to ratify treaties.

Ignorance abounds.

After the gentleman left, Dave and I spoke for a few minutes before we were interrupted again.  It’s always good to meet old friends for the first time.

From there we walked over to the Rock Island Auction.  Some very rare and valuable pistols were going on the block at the end of the convention.  I glanced at some and quickly saw they would be priced out of my league.

Double-barreled Flintlock Pistol w/Spike Dagger. $15K – $25K

Or these, which would make Tam drool.

US Army .45acp, Savage M1907.  $25K – $40K

And, this one.

US Navy Colt M1900, .38acp. $13K – $19K

Plus, this one.

Colt M1907, .45acp. US Army Test Trials. $27.5K – $42.5K

Also at the auction were older and more rare pistols such as the one below that had no price estimates. The price would be whatever the market would bear.

Engraved Civil War era Navy Cartridge Colt, .31Rim Fire

Mrs. Crucis wanted to see the book signers.  John Bolton appeared on Friday.

John Bolton, NRA Annual Meeting, St. Louis

On Saturday, Ollie North and Glenn Beck were two that we saw for signings.  The lines for both stretched 150, to 200 yards long.

Ollie North, NRA Annual Meeting, St. Louis
Glenn Beck, NRA Annual Meeting, St. Louis

On Saturday night, the NRA held it’s “Celebration of America” show.  Larry the Cable Guy was first, followed by Glenn Beck.

Larry seemed to have some voice problems, but once into his show, loosened up.

Larry was followed by Glenn Beck.  I’ve not heard Beck speak in person before and I was surprised by his eloquence.  Beck’s speaking style is reminensence of an Old-Time Gospel preacher.

Saturday was a long day for us.  We didn’t leave the convention center until after 10:30pm.  We’re not night people. Friday night we slogged through rain and mud to reach the Tahoe.  Saturday, we parked under covered parking.
Mark that under, “Lessons learned.”