02 February 2011

Justification for High Cap Mags

As the attack upon our ammunition feeding devices comes into sever question upon Capital Hill, and the marginally legal Executive Branch pushes shotgun import restrictions (all the while controversy swirls the agency itself), it becomes imperative to seek out the truth with regards to lawful firearms ownership. 

In a story that is more than a decade old, we can point out the benefits one can achieve with multiple standard capacity magazines and common use arms.  The Beckwith Incident shows how a 65 year old gun store owner was able to confront seven armed thugs, aged 16-21, by himself, AND (as a bonus) use restraint to limit the defense of his shop to one justifiable homicide.  Had Mr. Beckwith been restricted to just 10 rounds of ammunition in any magazine, chances are, he would have been run over while reloading by the car he stared down while using his AR-15.  This would have allowed the criminals to flee the scene before the police arrived, and chances are thousands of dollars worth of arms and ammunition would have ended up in the hands of countless criminals.  This article shows how lawful use of Class III weapons in the hands sensible and responsible gun owners can level the playing field against multiple threats, and that using such weapons is not directly related to mass murder (but quite the contrary).

Read the article (and if anyone has the original, please send a PDF scan of it my way and I'll see if I can't get in contact with the author and publisher to host it), take note, and use it in your letters to your representatives. 

Hat tip to AK Fan. 

Stark Reminder of USA Gun Rights

Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws are something that most of us here in the USA take for granted.  We are very fortunate to have not only the law on our side, but also legal precedent to enforce and codify the civil right enumerated in both our Constitution and our history.  

Unfortunately for our northern neighbors, the Canucks aren't as lucky.  As can be read about here, the legal precedent and enumerated protections are both not part of the Canadian legal system.  Further, and what is worse, even though historical right to self defense exists for the citizens of Canada, the doctrine isn't necessarily recognized or held with such convictions for their government overlords.  These believes are evidenced by the over zealous, anti-gun, anti-freedom prosecutors to our North who arrange deals with criminals by trading reduced sentences for testimony against gun owners who use arms in self defense.

I would not only call this a failure of justice, but more appropriately the persecution of the lawful.  (After all, no criminal would ever have reason to lie to avoid more jail time when sanctioned by a prosecutor, right)? 

Take note of two things from this article: 1) That a citizenry that doesn't exercise or stand up for their rights looses them on a prima facia scale, and 2) For as much fighting against our enemies and infighting that our various supporters and groups have, we are still have the best laws and the best lobbying, education, legal, and training groups in the world (save for maybe Switzerland or Israel).  The point being, that as Canada lurches more left on the individual freedom afford by arms and the defense they provide, We The People, continue to move forward.  Let this remind us (along with the events of the last several weeks) that progress is not a constant.  Nor is progress easy, but as long as you aren't moving severely backwards, the end goal of advancing freedom can remain in our sights.  (Gun pun intended).