Gregory Kielma • August 5, 2024
Courts Attack Second Amendment, Right to Buy Firearms
Courts Attack Second Amendment, Right to Buy Firearms
By
Larry Keane
There’s an interesting – if not devious – trend emerging in some Second Amendment cases. The first step of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruentest is to ask whether the conduct at issue is covered by the text of the Second Amendment which protects a pre-existing “right to keep and bear arms.” Some lower courts in purporting to apply the Bruen test are upholding gun control laws by holding that you do not have a Second Amendment right to buy a firearm.
That’s intellectually dishonest, to say the least. The ability to freely approach the gun counter to legally purchase a firearm is paramount to exercising the Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. There is no “keeping” of firearms if there is no legal right to lawfully acquire those same firearms. The ramifications of this flawed legal reasoning are self-evident. The government could simply ban the buying (and selling) of firearms and therefore eviscerate the Second Amendment all without infringing upon the right.
Right to Buy
The most recent example comes from New Mexico, where a federal district court judge refused to preliminarily enjoin the state’s seven-day waiting period for purchasing a firearm. There were several serious concerns with this decision, including the judge’s determination that the lengthy waiting period doesn’t constrain the rights to keep and bear arms. The judge contended that the waiting period only minimally burdens the “ancillary right to acquire firearms.”
That might come as news to an individual facing imminent threat to their safety or even their life. A woman who is the victim of domestic violence who considers purchasing a firearm to protect herself and her family could argue that the state’s seven-day waiting period is a seven-day ban on her ability to lawfully keep and bear arms when she knows there’s a threat to her life.
That wasn’t the worst of it. The same judge concluded that the waiting-period law is presumptively constitutional” given that the first waiting period laws were enacted in the 1920s – long after U.S. Constitution was ratified, and the 14th Amendment adopted. The judge even pointed to past, discriminatory laws that restricted the sale of firearms to slaves, freedmen and Native Americans. It is astonishing that a federal judge relied on racist laws that have been repudiated by the courts and American society to justify a gun control law.
However, that’s not what the Supreme Court held in the Bruen decision. That test, the Court said, is that gun control laws must have a “history and tradition” consistent with when the Second Amendment was signed into law in 1791 at the nation’s founding.
Court Concerns
It would be tempting to dismiss this judge’s decision as a “one-off” aberration. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. A 2024 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York explicitly said that there is no Second Amendment right to purchase a second handgun within a 90-day window of purchasing a previous handgun.
“The question thus becomes whether a waiting period before the purchase of a second handgun is conduct covered by the text of the Second Amendment. It is not,” the court ruled in its opinion of Knight v. City of New York.
What the court is saying is that the government can ration the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right, in this case, to just once every 90 days. This would be unthinkable if a court ruled that a law-abiding American could only exercise their rights to free speech or attend a church, mosque of synagogue of their choosing every three months. The federal court here is relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right, that Justice Clarence Thomas has warned about.
That line of thinking wasn’t limited to New York. The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont upheld the state’s waiting-period law, in Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs v. Birmingham this year, by claiming there’s no Second Amendment right to legally purchasing a firearm.
“The Court finds that the relevant conduct – acquiring a firearm through a commercial transaction on-demand – is not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment,” wrote Judge William Sessions III. He quizzically added, “Plaintiffs may keep and bear arms without immediately acquiring them.”
That defies logic. It is impossible to legally keep and bear anything without the ability to lawfully purchase it first.
In 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ruled against Rocky Mountain Gun Owners seeking to enjoin a three-day-waiting period law signed by Gov. Jared Polis. In this decision, the federal court ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t explicitly say anything about legally acquiring a firearm.
“From this reading of the plain text, it is clear the relevant conduct impacted by the waiting period – the receipt of a paid-for firearm without delay – is not covered,” the decision reads, adding, “To ‘keep,’ under the definitions provided in Heller, meant to retain an object one already possessed. It did not mean to receive a newly paid-for item, and it certainly did not mean to receive that item without delay. Likewise, ‘having weapons’ indicates the weapons are already in one’s possession, not that one is receiving them.”
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in 2023 in U.S. v. King that there is no right to buy and sell firearms. In fact, Judge Joseph Leeson Jr. clearly states that it is a factor he didn’t – and wouldn’t – consider, writing, “…the Court looks at the Second Amendment’s plain text; it does not consider ‘implicit’ rights that may be lurking beneath the surface of the plain text.”
“Even if the Court assumed that there is an implicit right in the Second Amendment to buy and sell firearms in order to keep and bear arms, that is not the same thing as a right to buy and sell firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms,” Judge Leeson wrote. “In other words, the Second Amendment does not protect the commercial dealing of firearms.” Of course, while Heller said commercial regulations could be presumptively valid, it never suggested that the buying and selling of commonly used “arms” could be banned.
Governors Knew in 2020
Juxtapose that with governors who, just four years ago, quickly reversed their policies to order firearm retailers to close their doors during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. New Jersey’s Gov. Phil Murphy reversed course from his initial ordering of gun stores to be closed. He recognized that denying the ability of law-abiding citizens to legally obtain a firearm is denying them the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Pennsylvania’s former Gov. Tom Wolf did the same, even after Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court denied a challenge to the order. The quiet about-face was in light of what could have become a U.S. Supreme Court challenge.
A federal judge ordered former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker to allow firearm retailers there to reopen. The judge ordering the injunction wrote, “The exigencies surrounding this viral pandemic both justify and necessitate changes in the manner in which people live their lives and conduct their daily business. However, this emergency – like any other emergency – has its constitutional limits. It would not justify a prior restraint on speech, nor a suspension of the right to vote. Just the same, it does not justify a ban on obtaining guns and ammunition.”
Divorcing the right to freely approach the gun counter at a firearm retailer and the right to keep and bear arms is a dangerous slope. Firearms are legal products, available for anyone to freely purchase who is over the age of 18 for long guns or 21 for handguns, provided that individual is purchasing the firearm for him or herself and can pass the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Conditioning that right – whether through waiting periods which are an attempt to delay the exercise of that right – or by unmooring the right to legally purchase a firearm is a violation of the rights that belong to the people.
Imagine a court ruling that the First Amendment doesn’t include the right to buy a book. Or a law that said you can only buy a newspaper after waiting seven days. Or a law that limits how many books you can buy in a month. Or a law in which the government decides which books you are allowed to buy and read? Obviously, no one would tolerate such laws. So why is it acceptable for Second Amendment rights? The answer, sadly, is that despite the Heller, McDonald and Bruen decisions, because some legislative bodies and judges treat the Second Amendment as a “second class right.”
Jury convicts illegal alien who distributed cocaine and machine guns from home Wednesday, December 3, 2025 U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Texas LAREDO, Texas – A 32-year-old Mexican national who unlawfully resided in Laredo has been convicted of unlawful possession of a machine gun and drug trafficking, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei. The jury deliberated for approximately two hours and 30 minutes before returning the guilty verdicts on all 12 counts as charged against Carlos Alberto Garcia-Guajardo following a less than three-day trial. The jury heard that Garcia-Guajardo and Fernando Patino Jr., also an illegal alien, sold firearms and cocaine out of a residential home in Laredo. The firearms included several machine guns. Testimony revealed details of the undercover operation which began with the sale of a pistol. At that time, Garcia-Guajardo had indicated he and Patino could also offer drugs for sale. On Jan. 2, Patino and Garcia-Guajardo sold the first of two machine guns - a model 22 Glock equipped with a conversion device . In the following weeks, they arranged additional sales involving cocaine and other firearms. In total, Patino and Garcia-Guajardo sold 10 firearms. The jury heard the pair used the sale of cocaine and firearms to negotiate future deals. Testimony revealed that during one transaction, they told a buyer that “because you are paying full price on the snow, we will cut you a deal on the Glock.” Evidence also showed Garcia-Guajardo and Patino not only sold firearms but fired them indiscriminately in their neighborhood and conducted extensive drug trafficking. On Jan. 31, law enforcement executed a search warrant on the 3000 block of Monterrey Street in Laredo. At that time, they found Garcia-Guajardo along with Jose Guadalupe Hernandez-Garza, a 26-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, as well as scales, cash in various denominations, multiple firearms and crack cocaine stored near items belonging to young children. Garcia-Guajardo had been ordered removed from the United States on two occasions, most recently in July 2024. As an illegal alien, he is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition per federal law. Visting U.S. District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle presided over trial and has set sentencing for March 5. Garcia-Guajardo faces a mandatory minimum of 30 years and up to life in federal prison. He could also be ordered to pay a $250,000 maximum fine. Patino, 33, pleaded guilty prior to trial and is pending sentencing. Both Patino and Garcia-Guajardo have been and will remain in custody pending sentencing. Hernandez-Garza admitted to being an alien illegally in possession of a firearm and ammunition and has been ordered to prison. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Drug Enforcement Administration; Laredo Police Department and Immigration and Customs Enforcement - Homeland Security Investigations conducted the investigation with the assistance of ICE - Enforcement and Removal Operations, Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Anti-Gang Unit – Laredo Center and Border Patrol. Assistant U.S. Attorney’s Tory R. Sailer and Brandon Scott Bowling are prosecuting the case. This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Updated December 3, 2025
BRISTOL MAN FOUND GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED MURDER OF ATF AGENTS SERVING A SEARCH WARRANT Thursday, December 4, 2025 U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Florida TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA – John Caleb Allen, 26, of Bristol, Florida, was found guilty by a federal jury of ten counts, including two counts of attempted murder of a federal officer. The guilty verdict was announced by John P. Heekin, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida. U.S. Attorney Heekin said, “The case exemplifies the incredible danger our brave men and women in law enforcement face as they keep our communities safe from violent offenders like this defendant. Attacks on law enforcement will be prosecuted by my office to the fullest extent of the law and deserve severe punishment.” Evidence at trial demonstrated that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) had been investigating the defendant for the illegal sale of machine gun conversion devices (MCDs). On June 3, 2025, ATF used a confidential source to purchase a firearm and a MCD from the defendant. On June 23, 2025, ATF used a confidential source to purchase 13 MCDs and two firearms from the defendant. Officers watched the defendant pick up the two firearms he sold to the confidential source from a federal firearms licensee (FFL), where he lied on ATF Form 4473. Based on their investigation, ATF obtained a federal search warrant for the defendant’s house. While attempting to execute the search warrant, the defendant shot approximately 14 times at ATF agents as they attempted to enter his front door. One of the officers had a bullet pass through his shirtsleeve and another officer was struck by a bullet in the body armor, but neither was injured. Officers did not return fire and were able to get the defendant to peacefully exit the residence with his hands up several minutes later. Agents located numerous firearms, including an unregistered firearm silencer, during the residential search. In total, the defendant was convicted of: • Count 1: Transfer of a machinegun on June 3, 2025; • Count 2: Transfer of a machinegun on June 23, 2025; • Count 3: Making a false statement to an FFL on June 23, 2025; • Count 4: Attempted murder of a federal officer (first ATF Special Agent); • Count 5: Forcibly assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon (first ATF Special Agent); • Count 6: Discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (first ATF Special Agent); • Count 7: Attempted murder of a federal officer (second ATF Special Agent); • Count 8: Forcibly assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon (second ATF Special Agent); • Count 9: Discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (second ATF Special Agent); and • Count 10: Possessing an unregistered or unmarked silencer. Sentencing is scheduled for February 17, 2026, at 10:00 am at the United States Courthouse in Tallahassee before Chief United States District Court Judge Allen C. Winsor. This conviction was the result of a joint investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, with assistance from the Liberty County Sheriff’s Office. Assistant United States Attorney James A. McCain prosecuted the case. This case is part of Operation Take Back America a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. As part of its PSN strategy, the United States Attorney’s Office is encouraging everyone to lock their car doors, particularly at night. Burglaries from unlocked automobiles are a significant source of guns for criminals in the Northern District of Florida. Please do your part and protect yourself by locking your car doors. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Florida is one of 94 offices that serve as the nation’s principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney General. To access public court documents online, please visit the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida website. For more information about the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Florida, visit http://www.justice.gov/usao/fln/index.html. Contact United States Attorney’s Office Northern District of Florida USAFLN.Press.Office@usdoj.gov X: @USAO_NDFL Updated December 4, 2025
WAKULLA COUNTY WOMAN PLEADS GUILTY TO STRAW PURCHASE OF TWO FIREARMS Tuesday, December 2, 2025 U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Florida TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA – Michaela Nicole McMeans, 56 , of Panacea, Florida, has pleaded guilty to making false statements to acquire a firearm and conducting a straw purchase of two firearms. John P. Heekin, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida announced the guilty plea. U.S. Attorney Heekin said: “I appreciate the excellent investigative work by our federal law enforcement partners to identify and detain this offender who was purchasing firearms for others who were legally prohibited from purchasing or possessing those weapons themselves. My office will continue to back up the outstanding work of our law enforcement partners with aggressive prosecutions to keep our communities safe.” After the arrest of two prohibited individuals in possession of firearms in the Panama City area in April 2025 (one a convicted felon, the other a resident alien in the United States on a visa), investigators with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determined both firearms had been acquired through a single purchase at a Panama City area federally licensed firearms dealer in March 2025. Investigators determined that the defendant purchased both firearms in the transaction, and that she had represented in documentation filed at the time of the purchase that both firearms were for her personal use; they were not. After being confronted, the defendant admitted the handguns had been purchased on behalf of two individuals who she knew could not lawfully purchase firearms. Sentencing is scheduled for February 5, 2026, in federal court in Tallahassee before District Court Judge Mark Walker. The defendant faces up to fifteen years’ imprisonment on the charges. The case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Eric K Mountin. This case is part of Operation Take Back America a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Florida is one of 94 offices that serve as the nation’s principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney General. To access public court documents online, please visit the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida website. For more information about the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Florida, visit http://www.justice.gov/usao/fln/index.html. Contact United States Attorney’s Office Northern District of Florida USAFLN.Press.Office@usdoj.gov X: @USAO_NDFL Updated December 2, 2025
Why do we have concealed carry laws? Why does the gun need to be concealed? From an avid reader of my blog. LET’S TAKE A LOOK I can tell you why! I carry my weapon on me all the time, when I’m out in public. I cannot count the number of times I had some yahoo come up behind me and start crying about me being armed in a public place. Carrying a weapon is our right! The 2nd amendment defines it precisely. Your right to feel comfortable by having guns removed from public carry, is outweighed by our right to feel comfortable carrying! Just because someone is armed, it does not instantly define them as a murderer, nor does anyone have the right to infringe upon their right to carry, because they think their rights supersedes another. The SCOTUS has ruled on numerous cases, a person’s rights end where they conflict with another’s. You have the right to go out in public with or without a weapon, as do I, YOU do not have the right to tell me I cannot.
22-year-old Anthony Holley Jr. A domestic tragedy unfolded Thursday afternoon at the Magnolia Court Apartments, leaving a woman dead and a young man behind bars on murder charges. According to the Tallahassee Police Department (TPD), the fatal shooting occurred just after 2:15 p.m. on December 4. When officers arrived at the complex, they found an adult female suffering from a critical gunshot wound to her abdomen. First responders attempted life-saving measures at the scene and rushed her to a local hospital, but she did not survive. Detectives with TPD’s Violent Crimes Unit quickly identified the suspect as 22-year-old Anthony Holley Jr. , who was in a relationship with the victim. The investigation revealed a harrowing sequence of events leading to the gunfire. Police allege that Holley was handling an AR-15–style rifle inside the apartment in a "reckless and careless manner." At the time the weapon was discharged, it was pointed directly at the victim, who was holding a small child. The bullet struck the woman, but the child was miraculously unharmed. Holley reportedly fled the apartment immediately after the shot was fired. However, the manhunt was short-lived. Within hours, detectives located Holley near the scene and recovered a firearm matching the description of the weapon used in the killing. He was taken into custody without incident. Holley has been charged with second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a delinquent. "This arrest is a testament to TPD's ongoing commitment to seeking justice and holding violent offenders accountable," the department stated following the arrest. Authorities are asking anyone with further information regarding this case to contact TPD at 850-891-4200 or to remain anonymous by calling Crime Solvers at 850-574-TIPS.
5 accused antifa supporters plead guilty to terrorism offense in ICE facility shooting that wounded LEO By Jamie Stengle Associated Press DALLAS — Five people pleaded guilty Wednesday to terrorism-related charges after they were accused of supporting antifa in a July shooting that wounded a police officer outside a Texas immigration detention center. The charges brought by the Justice Department followed President Donald Trump signing an order that designated antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. Trump has blamed antifa for political violence. FBI Director Kash Patel has previously said the charges in Texas are the first time a material support to terrorism charge has targeted antifa. A police officer was injured in the July 4 shooting near Dallas outside the Prairieland Detention Center, where federal prosecutors say an antifa cell carried out an attack that included gunfire and fireworks aimed toward the facility. Nathan Baumann, Joy Gibson, Seth Sikes, Lynette Sharp and John Thomas each entered guilty pleas to one count of providing material support to terrorists in federal court in Fort Worth. They face up to 15 years in prison at sentencing. Sharp’s attorney, Erin Kelley, said entering the plea was “step one in a long process” before the sentence is actually determined. Lawyers for the other four defendants either did not immediately return messages Wednesday or comment. Cases against others also charged in the shooting remain ongoing. According to court documents, one member of the group outside the facility yelled “get to the rifles” and then opened fire as officers responded, striking an Alvarado Police Department officer in the neck area. He fell to the ground but was able to return a few shots. Prosecutors say more rounds were then fired at the wounded officer and an unarmed DHS correction officer. Court documents say Gibson, Baumann and Sikes were among those who were present the night of the attack and were arrested shortly after, while Sharp and Thomas were among those who helped the accused shooter avoid arrest until July 15. Others are scheduled for arraignment in the case next month, including Zachary Evetts, whose attorney, Patrick McLain, has said he’s seen no evidence to support the government’s view of the case. “Mr. Evetts has never been a member of anything like a ‘North Texas Antifa Cell,’ and from the evidence provided to us by the government so far, there is no evidence that such an organization ever existed,” McLain said Saturday. Days after that shooting, a man with an assault rifle fired dozens of rounds at federal agents and a U.S. Border Patrol facility in McAllen near the Mexico border, injuring a police officer. Authorities shot and killed the attacker.
Dalmin Muran DEPUTIES ARREST SACRAMENTO MAN AND SEIZE LARGE WEAPONS CACHE AFTER SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY AT LOCAL SCHOOLS, BAILS OUT HOURS LATER Last week, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Threat Management Unit, with assistance from the Sheriff’s Office Special Enforcement Detail (SED), Critical Incident Negotiations Team (CINT), and multiple other specialized tactical units, executed a search warrant on 29-year-old Dalmin Muran following an ongoing investigation into concerning and escalating behavior. The investigation was started after Muran was repeatedly observed engaging in suspicious activity at local schools in East Sacramento County, including Rosemont High School. In one instance, Muran drove his vehicle onto school grounds during nighttime hours and was seen wearing military-style clothing and night-vision optics. He complied when contacted by security, who told him he had to leave, despite insisting he should be allowed access since the schools are “public grounds.” He claimed to have prior military service during other contacts, although it was determined he never had . Muran also expressed interest in joining law enforcement. During the execution of the search warrant, Deputies recovered multiple law enforcement patches and tactical gear, including those from the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office. They also discovered numerous firearms that had been modified from their original California-compliant configuration. One unserialized short-barreled rifle (sometimes referred to as a “ghost gun”) was also located hidden in the attic as the warrant was being served, along with hundreds of firearm parts and components used to build or alter weapons. Deputies also found multiple smoke grenades, flash bangs, and pepper spray deployable smoke grenades within the residence, further contributing to public safety concerns and the seriousness of the investigation. Muran was booked into custody at the Sacramento County Main Jail for multiple felony charges but was released on bond hours later. Detectives are concerned that there may be unreported incidents in which Muran represented himself as law enforcement and/or attempted to enforce laws. The Sheriff’s Office urges anyone who may have had suspicious contact with Muran, particularly instances in which he represented himself as law enforcement or attempted to enforce laws, to contact the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Threat Management Unit immediately through our non-emergency line at (916) 874-5115 for follow-up. The investigation remains ongoing.
Why do policemen carry their sidearms in open holsters? Is it easy for anyone to grab them? Gregg Kielma Unknown to most people with casual familiarity with firearms, virtually all holster (especially those used by law enforcement) have a locking system, even if it isn’t easily seen. In fact, I don’t know of any police departments that doesn’t require one on holsters. Now some are much more effective than others, but almost all of them require one. For civilians, especially if carrying concealed, this system just uses tension, but even most civilians use holsters with a locking system that needs to be disengaged before drawing a firearm. The best locking systems can, with practice, be disengaged while drawing, in one smooth action. The holster above is from Safariland and uses their GLS locking system . On the right-hand side is a small protrusion which is a lock release. If you are drawing correctly, as you grab the firearm your finger should automatically hit and release it. While it takes some practice to make it completely smooth, most concealed carriers and law enforcement should already be practicing their draws at least once a week. On the other hand, if you are unfamiliar with the system (which 99% of the general public is) you’ll have no clue how to disengage the lock and will only end up pulling the wearer’s pants up an inch or two. Even if you pulled hard enough to remove the holster completely from the wearer’s pants, you still wouldn’t be able to use the firearm as all proper holsters (which is all the holsters Safariland makes) completely cover the trigger (never buy a holster that doesn’t completely cover the trigger). Many manufacturers produce similar holsters that use their own unique proprietary systems, the one below just happens to be the one I’m most familiar with.
Gregg Kielma in his GUN SHOP What is an "idiot scratch" on a firearm? Kielma says, if you scratch your firearm, I can fix it for you. Give me a call and I’ll do my best to make it look new again. Let’s TAKE A LOOK at a friend and my thoughts. The 1911 is one of the most iconic handguns in the world. Dozens of manufacturers make them. You might find a cheap, used 1911 for as little as $200 if you shop. On the other hand, you could find a Cabot 1911 for around a million dollars. Regardless of how expensive it is, a 1911 is venerated within the gun community. Beloved. An “idiot scratch” is something you see most commonly on 1911s, especially those owned by inexperienced or careless gun owners. I don’t agree with calling anyone an idiot. I don’t think of myself as incompetent. I have a scratch. It just isn’t obvious. How does that happen? In my case, it was just the fact that I’ve disassembled and reassembled that thing in a lot of different scenarios, including in low light situations. I’ve probably disassembled and reassemble it literally hundreds of times for various reasons (including converting it to a .22lr pistol). Why does it happen? It has a spring in there pushing a peg forward. If not careful the spring will “pop” out and could scratch your firearm. The peg makes it slightly more difficult to get this slide stop in place. That’s what scratches your frame. People who are new, careless, or whatever sometimes sweep up to get that slide stop in place. Now remember that while you’re doing all that, you’re also holding the slide back just the right amount to get it all to line up so that the notch in the slide fits. Accidents happen. It isn't that big of a deal. I could probably buff mine out, it’s so light. I just don’t care. My 1911 is one of my least favorite guns to shoot. That’s why it sits in the safe 99% of the time when I go to the range. I’d rather be shooting my CZ 97B. I don’t care about such things and don’t judge people who have marks. They could be exceptional shooters and just… not care about cosmetics. Maybe it isn’t even their mark but rather one caused by the last owner. It doesn’t affect function. It’s just… guys giving each other the business, like “Clips” vs. “magazines.” Lol If you scratch your firearm, I can fix it for you. Give me a call and I’ll do my best to make it look new again.
Do gun owners realize there is a limit on how many guns they can own at a time? Thoughts from an avid reader of the blog. What’s your thoughts on this? It is true. But we don’t like to talk about this subject much. When I was a bachelor living in an apartment, a gun safe was impractical. And closets were…packed. So I had 4 cased rifles under my bed. When I was married and had kids, the gun safe was practical. I filled it. Now that we are empty nesters and less demands on my wallet…. I asked Senior Management if I maybe could get a bigger gun safe to put a few more guns in? Senior Management went all practical and rational (I hate when that happens), “Why do you need more guns? You hardly shoot the ones you have!” So, I bought a case of ammunition instead. Keep up the good work by asking anti-gun questions. It reminds us of the haters lurking out there. Do yourself a favor, stock up on guns and ammo. I will note that I am a typical redneck American gun nut. Working in technology, have couple degrees, bit over 800 books in my Kindle. Accuracy snob. Uninterested in anything rapid fire - hit with the first shot saves both time and ammo. Served in the reserves. Ready to protect the weak from predators - except we don’t even tolerate that here in the first place. Can’t remember how to skin a deer, it’s been years. Can build a campfire. live in the woods for a weekend on canteen of water and 3 trail bars, been even longer. Can remember how to train youngsters on safe handling and excellent marksmanship, recent as last week.
