Gun Law News: Mississippi Becomes 10th Constitutional Carry State

Mississippi and Governor Phil Bryant are fast becoming one of my favorite States and Governors (Right Behind my Home State of Texas of course). First the Religious Freedom Bill and Now Constitutional Carry!! It does my heart good to hear and read about so many liberals CRYING and COMPLAINING…As the old saying goes: You know you are on the right track when Liberals Despise and Hate You!  Good For You Governor Bryant!!! -SF


Mississippi became the 9th state to restore permitless carry today, the 15th of April, 2016.  It seems poetic that Governor Bryant chose to sign HB 786 into law a few days before most citizens were required to file their federal taxes. The easing of one burden helps reduce the pain of another, in this case.  HB 786 is titled the “Church Protection Act”, which is a correct description.  The bill provides that churches can create volunteer church security that will have the same protections that private security guards now have in Mississippi.  The program will require training and the designation of the volunteers in writing.

The permitless carry portion of the bill was an amendment that made a small, incremental change to Mississippi law.  Last year, in 2015, the legislature changed the law to allow people to carry concealed firearms in purses, bags, cases, briefcases, and other fully enclosed case, without a permit.  This year the amendment to HB 786 added pistols or revolvers carried in a “sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster”.  There is not much left.  From HB 786, as it was sent to Governor Bryant.  Underlined words have been added to the statute by the bill:

(24) * * *  A license * * * under this section is not required for a loaded or unloaded pistol or revolver to be carried upon the person in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster or in a purse, handbag, satchel, other similar bag or briefcase or fully enclosed case if the person is not engaged in criminal activity other than a misdemeanor traffic offense, is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a pistol or revolver under state or federal law, and is not in a location prohibited under subsection (13) of this section.

The law has a provision to prevent the use of state resources for the enforcement of any future federal regulation or executive order that infringes on the Second Amendment or the Mississippi Constitution of 1890:

SECTION 5. No federal executive order, agency order, law not enrolled by the United States Congress and signed by the President of the United States, rule, regulation or administrative interpretation of a law or statute issued, enacted or promulgated after July 1, 2016, that violates the United States Constitution or the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 shall be enforced or ordered to be enforced by any official, agent or employee of this state or a political subdivision thereof.

Vermont has had “Constitutional” carry for as long as it has been a state.  The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15th, 1791, a great Christmas present to the United States, four months after Vermont became a state in the same year.  In 1791, no permit was required for either open or concealed carry of weapons.

Vermont, plus the nine states that have restored “Constitutional” carry now make up 20% of all the states in the Union.  They are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Wyoming.  They extend from the Pacific to the Atlantic, and from the Canadian border to the Mexican.   It will be more difficult to call them a  “handful” now, as the outnumber the states that still cling to the outdated notion of “may issue” concealed carry permits.

Those states are Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

The new law is not absolute, perfect, “Constitutional” carry.  All the “Constitutional” carry states have some restraints on carry.  In Arizona, you are required to have a permit to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol.  In Wyoming, you are required to be a resident; in Mississippi, you are not allowed to carry in your waistband without a holster.

There are several other states that are prime candidates to pass permitless carry.  New Hampshire and Utah passed bills that were vetoed by their governors.  Louisiana and Missouri have implemented strong Constitutional amendments to protect the right to keep and bear arms;  the courts may not allow a permit requirement for a fundamental right.

I will not be surprised if a majority of the states have Constitutional carry by 2025.  That would only be another 16 states.  Three states became “Constitutional” carry states just this year.  The infringements on the exercise of Second Amendment rights have always been based on racism and lies.  Now they are being repealed, and Second Amendment rights are being restored.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Read the Original Article at Ammo-Land


U.S. Citizens May Be Banned From Purchasing and Owning Body Armor

My advice to all CO’s concerning this issue is the same as it is whenever lib-tards and the “powers that be” try to FLEX their fascist muscles and “CONTROL” our guns or “BAN” our ammo….GEAR UP NOW and KEEP GEARING UP; THINGS ARE NOT GOING TO GET ANY BETTER FROM HERE ON OUT.-SF


It’s time to remind US citizens again of HR 378, the Act that would “prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians, with exceptions,” (source). The Act caused a stirwhen it was first reported on in early 2015, but has since dwindled in the media, and slipped through the cracks of the public’s attention. The proposal is still open, however, and those who are interested can track its progress through the (source) link above.

The Act was proposed on January 14, 2015 by Representatives Michael Honda (D-CA), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Robin Kelly (D-IL), and Danny Davis (D-IL). According to, other sponsors or cosponsors include Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), and Julia Brownley (D-CA).

The controversy surrounding the topic spills over into the gun-rights issue, but regardless of your opinion on guns, whether or not we have the right to protect ourselves from them should not be an issue. The fact is, armor itself doesn’t hurt anyone (it’s designed to do the opposite), so why is an Act being proposed to take a form of safety away?

The Act specifically focuses on level III armor and higher, which is mainly designed to withstand rifle ammunition. Unless you’re an avid big-game hunter, the average citizen may not find level III armor useful, and in fact some might consider it excessive, but that isn’t the point; there are some law-abiding citizens who find it useful, we’re supposed to be living in the “land of the free,” and the real question is, why are players in the government trying to prevent citizens from protecting themselves from rifle shots, which are intended to result in serious injury or death?

In a press release from Representative Michael Honda:

This bill allows law enforcement to respond to active shooting situations more effectively. The bill prohibits the purchase, sale, or possession of military-grade body armor by anyone except certain authorized users, such as first-responders and law enforcement.”

As mentioned in the Free Thought Project’s report, “this speaks to the heart of the law enforcement problem in America.” One of the lessons learnedfrom Ferguson is that law enforcement themselves should not have access to military-grade equipment, as they are not trained to use it properly, and they act like a bunch of pubescent teenage boys who just got a fully loaded, semi-automatic penis for Christmas, waving it around at anyone who pays them the slightest bit of attention.

The argument for the use of this equipment by law enforcement is that it’s intended to protect US citizens from “terrorism.” And yet, US citizens are not killed on a daily basis by terrorists, but they arekilled on a daily basis by U.S. police, leaving many to beg the question, who are the real terrorists here?

If the intended use of military equipment by law enforcement is to protect US citizens from terrorism, why is it being used when dealing with Americans themselves, such as we saw in Ferguson? Is the implication that the majority of US citizens are terrorists? And now there are State Representatives who aim to prevent citizens from potentially protecting themselves from this excessive force.

The next question we need to ask is, exactly how many “active shooting situations” are police dealing with to merit an Act that will prevent all Americans from theoretically protecting themselves? According to reports, an FBI study in 2014 showed that active shooter incidents (not to be confused with mass shooting incidents, of which there are much less) are on the rise, with an average of 16 incidents a year.

Of course, that’s 16 too many, but it puts things into perspective; police across the nation have been geared for war to supposedly protect US citizens from terrorists when they themselves kill thousands more Americans than terrorists do, and according to Representative Michael Honda, citizens should not be able to protect themselves from this level of law enforcement because there can potentially be around 16 active shooter incidents across the nation this year.

Either these politicians are complete idiots, or they think we are. If it’s to be insisted that military equipment should be used to handle the possible 16 active shooter incidents that may happen this year, why not have the men who were trained to use that equipment deal with the incident? One would think the National Guard, at the very least, could handle such situations. But there are many benefits this Act could bring to the government, all of which are accomplished by tightening its grip on the American people, and that’s precisely what is intended.

There is a bit of light at the end of the tunnel though; should this law pass, reports indicate there is a grandfather clause allowing you to keep armor you purchase beforehand. So for the military-survival Anons out there, group hunters, Ted Nugent, and anyone else willing to spend a couple hundred dollars on a vest: We suggest you track this proposal, and in the meantime, gear up.

Read the Original Article at ANONHQ


Constitutional Carry and the Art of Skinning Cats


On Friday, March 25, Governor Butch Otter signed SB 1389, making Idaho the ninth state to adopt constitutional carry (aka unrestricted carry or permitless carry).

Back in the day, we knew this as Vermont carry, after the one-and-only state whose residents were legally free to tuck guns in their pockets or purses or under their clothing without first asking their state government for permission. Vermont had been that way for generations. And for all those generations, they remained alone.

But now … oh, my.

In some ways, Idaho’s bill isn’t a huge change from its existing laws. Idaho residents already had constitutional carry outside city limits; SB 1389 merely extended it to cities — over the objections of police chiefs, Bloomberg’s Everytown, and the usual hoplophobes who cried the usual cry of “blood in the streets!”

In other ways, what a very, very big deal this is.

For one, the bill explicitly acknowledges the individual right to bear arms and that said people grant only limited powers to state governments:

The legislature hereby finds that the people of Idaho have reserved for themselves the right to keep and bear arms while granting the legislature the authority to regulate the carrying of weapons concealed. The provisions of this chapter regulating the carrying of weapons must be strictly construed so as to give maximum scope to the rights retained by the people.

Like all such bills, it’s full of legalisms that hardcore freedomistas won’t appreciate (for instance, permitless carry is only for those 21 or above; those 18 to 20 must still get permits though those permits are “shall issue”).

But for some of us who’ve been around a long time … it’s a bloody miracle.

Let me take you back to the day

It was a dark day. 1993 and 1994. A rabidly anti-gun president held the White House. A Congress composed of rabidly anti-gun Democrats and wishy-washy Republican “leaders” like Bob Dole stood ready to give Bill Clinton more service than Monica Lewinski ever did.

Wham! They hit us with the Brady Law. Wham! They hit us with the Ugly Gun Ban. Over the next several years, they hit us with more laws to restrict guns, give more funding to anti-gun enforcement, and, in general, extend the powers of both the federal government and local police against We the People.

Dark days indeed.

In 1993, I used my smoking-hot 1200-baud modem to dial into a gun-rights bulletin board in Colorado — half the country away from my Pacific Northwest home. And for me, that’s where I first encountered hopeful change — though I didn’t recognize it at the time.

The Internet, though it existed in the scientific and academic communities, was not yet a thing for ordinary people. But we were reaching out to find each other, anyhow. Some via FidoNet bulletin boards (BBSes) like the one I mentioned, which had been set up by and for fans of writer and gun advocate L. Neil Smith. Or a bigger FidoNet operation, the Paul Revere Network (PRN — where I first met TZP co-founder, Brad Alpert). Others gathered local friends and huddled around short-wave radios, where a handful of firebrands (some as crazy as moonbats, but that’s another story) were beginning to agitate against the looming federal takeover. Many began to gather in the real world to form militias.

I was soon running up $300-a-month phone bills dialing cross-country to various gun-rights and Bill of Rights bulletin boards. (My wallet and I were both so relieved when subscription Internet came along shortly thereafter.) But that first Colorado bulletin board remained my mainstay as long as FidoNet ruled the dawning e-world.

Read the Remainder at Zelman Partisans

John Farnam Quips Compilation

I decided to post a few of John Farnams recent February Quips for your reading pleasure. As Always you can find Mr. Farnam at Defense Training International.




When are you ever “off duty?”

20 Feb 16

“Off” Duty?

A man with a dual (USA/Israeli) citizenship was stabbed to death at a Jerusalem supermarket last week. A devoted husband and father, he responded to screaming as two knife-wielding Palestinian teenagers were randomly attacking shoppers. Such racially/religiously inspired lethal attacks are now a daily occurrence in Israel, and in many metro areas here!

In the process of confronting the youthful murderers, the man was fatally wounded. Several other innocent shoppers were also injured, but none fatally.

Another shopper, armed with a pistol, responded by shooting both teenage thugs, instantly ending their rampage. Both criminals were subsequently reported hospitalized.

The decedent was an active member of a local police/security unit. However, on the day in question, as it was reported in the media, “… he was ‘off duty,’ and thus unarmed”

Lesson: The courageous citizen who was armed and effectively and decisively stopped the attack, and for whom the terms, “off duty” and “on duty” apparently have little meaning, doubtless prevented additional injury and probably saved several innocent lives, including his own.

The point is this:

There is no such status as “off duty.” That is just a careless term we’ve invented to cynically justify being personally unprepared.

Either go armed or don’t, but don’t insult my intelligence by claiming the ability to predict when and where lethal threats will present themselves, and thus arbitrarily dividing your life into “safe” and “dangerous” segments.

Going armed is analogous to wearing a seatbelt when in a moving vehicle. We just do it, every time! We don’t con ourselves by capriciously labeling this particular stretch of road “safe,” or “dangerous.”

Our disintegrating world is waxing more dangerous by the day, no matter where you live. Be personally prepared, or naively ignore the evidence and go merrily on your way. Either way, there is no predicting the future. Who claim the ability to do so with any degree of precision are (1) fools, or (2) charlatans!

“Every saint has a past. Every sinner has a future!”

Oscar Wilde



Nervous Jews in Europe!

17 Feb 16

European Jews are nervous, once again. This time, Christians too!

From Jewish friends in Europe:

“While our European politicians publically, piously declare, ad nauseam, that they will extend protection to all citizens, those of us who have been around for a while know full well that all such promises are dubious and hollow.

The fact is, our police and security forces, of all kinds, are already hopelessly overstretched here. ‘Protection’ is mostly myth!

Of course, as in the USA, politicians and bureaucrats here spare no expense, nor effort, in protecting themselves! The rest of us are, as you say, ‘on our own,’ despite interminable, fictitious, self-serving rhetoric to the contrary.”


Even professing liberal, Jesse Hughes, with the “Eagles of Death Metal,” the band that performed during the Islamic terrorist attack in Paris last November, weepingly confessed recently that his former anti-gun position was changing due to this terrible experience.

Yes Jesse: How do you do?

Violent criminality is just casual conversation among liberals, until it happens to them!

Even in Israel, Public Security Minister, Gilad Erdan, conceded on Monday that “… citizens, skilled in the use of guns, are needed… in the fight against terrorism.”

He continued, “There is no way to stop every terrorist attack, because terrorists do not need an explosives laboratory… a knife is enough for them.”

The inescapable conclusion is that modern politicians, here and there, will continue to spend most of their time worrying only about themselves, as all of Western Civilization cluelessly spirals into the dustbin of history. In the interim, the rest of us, dismissing what they say, need to take firm control of our own lives, providing our own protection, and steadfastly managing our own destinies, never waiting around for someone else, some mythical governmental agency, that “really cares” to “solve our problems.”

Expecting to be “protected” from evils and dangers that lurk everywhere has always been naive and foolish.

Today, it is suicidal!

“Justice has been rerouted
From present to future tense;
The law is so in love with the law
It’s forgotten common sense.

Does man now serve the law, I ask,
When law was made by man?
Or, law still serve its rightful task
protecting men from Man?”

Ogden Nash



Exposed Guns!

5 Feb 16

“Open” Carry

The State of TX has recently authorized “open” (exposed) carry of guns within the state. Lots of details yet to be worked-out, but the legislation has gone through. AZ and some other states have technically permitted the practice for some time. And, even in states where there is no specific legislation, the practice is commonly noted in some areas.

My advice to students is not to carry openly. When open carry becomes common, even expected, I may join in. Until then, I’ll leave the practice to those far more in need of fame and recognition than me!

To me, it is similar to wearing a T-shirt proclaiming your particular political party. Why do you think everyone who sees you needs to know that? How does that benefit you?

My personal philosophy of appearing in public revolves around always projecting a low profile. I don’t think it is in my best interests for me to inadvertently, nor intentionally, broadcast important information about myself, information that is no one else’s business!

So, I discretely carry concealed. I am always heavily armed, to be sure, but you can’t tell by looking, nor do I talk about guns, politics, travel plans, et al with people I don’t know. Precious few people have a legitimate need to know any of that!

I do my best to be courteous, polite, and pleasant with everyone, but never chatty with people I don’t know. I don’t want to appear “interesting” nor “beauteous” while in public. I just quietly go my way and conduct my business without fanfare. I believe that philosophy adequately represents my best interests.

Be a “stand-out” when you are so inclined. Just be prepared to garner far more “attention” than you ever wanted!




Another Reason to be Armed: Armed Citizen STOPS another Mass Shooting

Here is another example of a story about an armed civilian SAVING innocent lives you most likely heard NOTHING about (I Know I didn’t). Guns Save Lives Folks…Stay Armed!! -SF


Another legally armed person has stopped a potential mass shooting in Hamilton, Alabama on February 10th, 2016.

The shooting occurred in the morning, a little over an hour before noon, over a distance of a couple of  blocks.

Two people, 67-year-old Donny Miller and 61-year-old Linda Cole were killed in separate offices.  The second victim was shot in an accounting office close to the bank pictured above.  A WVTM13 crew was on the scene less than two hours after the shooting.  Here is video from Marlei Marinez, from WVTM13.

Link to video

In the video, Marlei Martinez reports that she spoke with a man who was waiting in the accounting office to file his taxes.  He heard the initial gunshots,  then pursued the shooter, and took cover behind the bank pillars shown in the image above.  He exchanged gunfire with the shooter.  The legally armed man believed that he hit the suspect, Jimmy Cooper, twice.  That is consistent with the reports that the suspect has gunshot wounds to the arm and leg.

The shooting by the armed citizen is only mentioned in the video report; there is no mention of it in the transcript.

The account appears to be verified by the Alabama Secretary of Law Enforcement.  From

Although, we will conduct a thorough investigation of the officer involved shooting, the initial indication is that the deputies, officer and private citizen acted without hesitation and probably prevented the further loss of life,” Alabama Secretary of Law Enforcement Spencer Collier said in a release.

It is not clear if the legally armed man shot Cooper before the Sheriff deputies arrived, or during an ongoing gunfight.  Most reports seem to be downplaying his actions.  From

Two Marion County sheriff’s deputies and a Hamilton police officer engaged Cooper behind the First State Bank. A private citizen assisted law enforcment during the exchange of gunfire.

Authorities took Cooper into custody behind the Bank.

“He was not going to surrender. Not at all,” Sheriff Williams said.

It may be some time before we learn the precise details of the shooting; but this is likely another case where a legally armed person on the scene, was able to deter and/or stop the perpetrator until the peace officers arrived.

Update: Linda Cole’s daughters report that she had virtually no contact with the murder suspect for nearly 15 years.  From

She was one of two victims in a double homicide that rocked that small community, and according to Cagle and Todd, their mother barely knew the suspect Jimmy Cooper at all.

They said Linda Cole had no contact with Cooper for almost 15 years. But Thursday, people remembered a bright woman who was gunned down at her own firm.

The murder suspect was hit at least three times, possibly four.  His pelvis was fractured and he was hit in the leg, arm, and hand. From

Williams said at UAB, bullets were removed from one leg and one hip. Williams said he was shot in the groin area and surgery was held at UAB‚ to remove his testicles as a result. Cooper is in stable condition and still has a fractured pelvis, an abrasion on his left elbow and two bullets remaining in his body, Williams said.

A bullet that fractures the pelvis is an anchoring hit.  It destroys one of the main support structures of the body.  A person with a fractured pelvis may crawl, but they won’t walk or run.

Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

Read the Original Article at Ammo-Land