GeorgiaCarry Convention Report

SAMSUNGI had a great time last month at the GeorgiaCarry.org 5th Annual Convention. I got to meet a lot of great supporters of gun rights in Georgia, and hear some great speakers, and share in the successes and challenges of the last year, and the year ahead.

Some highlights from the convention:

  • There was a TV crew from the Netherlands at the convention all weekend, making a documentary about GeorgiaCarry.org. They were quite friendly, and asked a lot of questions.
  • A protest group, Georgia Gun Sense Coalition, held a protest in front of the convention center, and the event drew about a dozen people, and was covered by a local community news website.
  • There were no Atlanta news outlets covering our convention. I thought this was sad, although not surprising.
  • Despite the fact that Georgia law does not require formal training or testing of any kind in order to receive a Georgia Weapons Carry License, GeorgiaCarry.org has developed a Georgia Firearms Carry Course, which covers basic firearms operations and selection, concealed carry basics, and goes over Georgia Law governing concealed carry. It is the first training class of its kind specifically designed to cover Georgia requirements. During the convention, GeorgiaCarry.org offered, free of charge, a training class to certified NRA instructors, which further certified them to teach this class. Over 30 instructors are now ready to begin teaching.
  • Even though ownership of firearms in Georgia is up significantly in the last year, and GeorgiaCarry.org has added over a thousand members, there has been no increase in the number of firearms deaths or accidents in Georgia in that time.
  • It will be of interest to our neighbors in North Carolina that despite claims that HB89, the law passed in 2008 that allowed carry in restaurants and bars, incidents of blood running in the streets outside these establishments has not been observed. In other words, lawful gun owners obey the laws and mind their own business wherever they are, even when armed.
  • Our main speaker at Saturday night’s banquet was former Presidential candidate at conservative talk show host Herman Cain. Mr. Cain has definite opinions about the state of our government, and about the motives and agendas of the left wing. As he puts it, they want nothing less than to do away with the liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution, and they realize that the main stumbling block to their plans is the Second Amendment. If we ever lose the Second Amendment, there is nothing, practically, to prevent the abolition of the rest of the Constitution.
  • Mr. Cain has definite, specific opinions of the Democratic leadership, which, in the absence of FCC regulations restricting his talk show, he was happy to share with us. I agree with him.
  • I was successful bidder on a year’s membership at Hi-Caliber Gun Range in Holly Springs, in the annual Silent Auction. I can’t wait to go take advantage of it!

I look forward to getting more involved with my local and state representatives about upcoming gun legislation. I also plan to volunteer to man the membership table at local gun shows.

Coming This Weekend – the Hero of Canton Meets the Gunny

Gunny X blurredThe Glock Sport Shooting Foundation holds a number of matches throughout the US – by my count, 47 in 2013. If you won your category in any of those matches, you get invited to a special match, held at the Glock Annual Shoot at the South River Gun Club in Conyers, Georgia, called the Gunny Challenge. This event is hosted by Glock spokesmarine R. Lee Ermey, and is a shoot-off for the coveted Gunny Challenge Cup.

This year, the Gunny Challenge will be co-hosted by actor Adam Baldwin, who appeared in Full Metal Jacket, Independence Day, and several other movies and television shows. He may be best known as Jayne Cobb from Firefly.

Here is Glock’s official promotional banner. Personally I like mine better.

Gunny Challenge IXI have reported on the GSSF and Gunny Challenge before, and I will be there Saturday. If you plan to be there, please drop me a note,send me an email, Twitter, or Facebook. We’ll meet up.

Here It Comes

My heart goes out to the victims of the shootings yesterday at the Washington Naval Yard. I watched the news feed from the first Twitter reports, all through the day. My colleagues and I discussed it, and I withheld judgment until I knew what facts I could.

The murderer appears to have been a relatively normal person. Yes, he had some brushes with the law. He was angry about some things. If that ought to have been some kind of warning to us, then there are a million others that need to be rounded up.

So then he violates almost every existing law in the strictest gun control fortress in the nation, and shoots up the place. Predictably, the gun control factions start their calls for stricter laws.

But everything he did was already against existing laws.

Except the existence of the guns themselves.

Bookmark this post. I am not the only one who will point this out.

We on the side of the Constitution have always insisted that the guns are not to blame for violence, that it is the criminals who should be punished. That cannot be disputed. We, who lawfully and Constitutionally own guns for protection, sport, hunting, or any reason, should not be punished for the actions of criminals.

There is one side, however, which insists on previous restraint of every wrong. To them, anything that can go wrong can be prevented by restricting something, ahead of the potential wrong. So, in the case of gun violence, they pass laws to prevent convicted criminals and the mentally ill from buying guns. And they pass laws preventing anyone from bringing guns into areas where they think there should be no guns.

Only, not everyone who is violent has done something in the past that would have prevented them from lawfully buying a gun. And, strange as it seems, someone who is intent on committing a crime already (murder) sees nothing wrong with violating Gun Free Victim Zone laws.

So, in the near future, the overwhelming logic will become clear in the media: since we can’t know who will kill with guns, we must remove all the guns from society. Now.

Here it comes.

Do not be surprised.

Do not be weak. Look to Australia and Britain if you wonder where this leads.

++++++

I was going to end this post here, with a warning. But I cannot, because, to me, the real answer is obvious and must be presented.

The real answer, for us, is to end this unreasonable insistence that every crime can be prevented with some new law. True, the only way to prevent crime – any crime – is to give the potential criminal a reason to decide not to commit the crime. But believing that some law, which results in a sign or a metal detector or a background check or a potential prison term, will somehow always cause a potential criminal to change his decision, is demonstrably absurd. Yesterday’s events prove that.

What, then, would prevent criminals from carrying out something like the Washington Naval Yard tragedy?

Armed victims.

Thanks to a change in the laws in 1993, no one other than guards may carry guns on a military base. So, the murderer yesterday was attacking a Gun Free Victim Zone. The murderer at Fort Hood last year attacked a Gun Free Victim Zone.

The murderer in Newtown attacked children in a Gun Free Victim Zone.

The murderer in the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, picked that theater because it was a Gun Free Victim Zone.

We must end Gun Free Victim Zones.

If  the potential criminal thinks his targets may be armed, he may decide not to attack. In this case, prior restraint turns out to be a real thing, but only if it is a real thing, not a law or a sign.

And, if the threat of potential victims fighting back does not change the criminal’s mind, then the potential victims do fight back, and the incident is resolved. Not completely peacefully, admittedly, but the final results are much less than they would have been otherwise. Ample historical examples exist. And, the more these kinds of results occur, the more that potential criminals are swayed to prior restraint.

But we must be ready to make this argument, and not be swayed by the other side. Be persistent, and be calm, and be polite.

Here it comes.