The Courts and The Second Amendment
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.”
If I'm legal to carry a gun but conceal it without a license, can I really get in trouble? Gregg Kielma USCCA Firearms Instructor Says Gregg Kielma FFL, Firearms Instructor, Gunsmith, and ERT Captain. I get asked this question a lot. "Do yourself a favor and spend the money to take the class and get the permit. Knowledge is power and ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Invest in yourself, know the laws and understand how a firearm is used. Please take my class for the most up to date information available. Yes, if you get caught carrying a concealed weapon without a permit in a state that requires permits, that is a crime, and you can go to jail for it. Many states allow permitless open carry but require a permit for concealed carry in most circumstances. My home state of Virginia is one of them. In Virginia, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is a class 1 misdemeanor, good for up to 1 year in jail and a $2500 fine for the first offense. Subsequent offences can be charged as a class 6 felony. Many states recognize Constitutional carry, i.e. concealed carry without a permit. The states that recognize Constitutional Carry are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Even if you live in a Constitutional Carry state, it is still in your benefit to get a carry permit, because that gives you reciprocal carry rights in other states that recognize your permit. EG a Vermont resident visiting Virginia would need either a Vermont resident permit or a Virginia non-resident permit to carry a concealed handgun in Virginia. Even in your home state, a valid carry permit creates an additional layer of trust and legal protection when dealing with law enforcement.
Akron Man Gets 10 Years for Illegal “Glock Switch” Firearm – Part of a Growing National Trend Scott Witner An Akron, Ohio man has been sentenced to ten years in prison after being convicted of possessing an illegally modified Glock pistol equipped with a “switch,” a small device that converts a handgun from semi-automatic to fully automatic fire. Summit County Prosecutor Elliot Kolkovich announced that 33-year-old Maurice Arnold received the sentence following his conviction on weapons and drug charges. Investigators said one of the Glock pistols found in his home was fitted with an illegal switch, a device about the size of a quarter that allows a pistol to fire continuously with a single pull of the trigger. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) classify these devices as machine guns under federal law. Possession is illegal under both federal and Ohio statutes. According to a 2025 ATF report, law enforcement recoveries of Glock switches have increased 784 percent since 2019, with more than 5,800 seized nationwide in 2023. Arnold’s case began when his parole officer, who was supervising him for a 2012 felonious assault conviction, noticed social media posts showing him handling firearms. After multiple parole violations, police obtained a warrant for his arrest and searched his Akron residence, where they recovered three firearms, including one Glock equipped with the switch, and about 300 grams of marijuana. Arnold was initially released on bond but later removed his GPS ankle monitor and attempted to flee. He was eventually captured and convicted in September on the following charges: • Having weapons while under disability (two forfeiture specifications) • Unlawful possession of dangerous ordnance with a six-year firearm specification • Trafficking in marijuana “Glock switches endanger everyone in our streets, and there is no need for anyone to own one,” said Prosecutor Kolkovich. “Removing these tools of mass violence from the streets and holding those who possess them accountable is one of my key enforcement priorities.” A Local Case Reflecting a National Trend Arnold’s case is part of a growing national issue surrounding Glock switches and the federal government’s efforts to control them. As previously reported in Glock Discontinues Dozens of Pistol Models Amid ‘Switch’ Controversy and Market Shift, Glock has taken significant steps to refocus its product line amid increasing scrutiny from lawmakers and the media.
SAF, Other Groups File Brief With Supreme Court In Marijuana User Gun Ban Challenge Mark Chesnut The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with a handful of partner organizations, have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) urging the court to grant certiorari in a case challenging the federal ban on firearm possession by individuals who use marijuana. The case, Harris v. United States, revolves around whether the law restricting marijuana users for purchasing or possession guns violates the Second Amendment-protected rights of those pot users. And plaintiffs are challenging the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from earlier this year. “Because of the prohibition found in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), if Americans choose to use marijuana or other cannabis products (that often are legal in their state), they must surrender their Second Amendment right before they do so—and not only when they are intoxicated,” the amicus brief stated. “They may not even own firearms if they regularly consume cannabis products. This does not square with the lengthy historical tradition of how alcohol and firearms have been regulated.” Kostas Moros, SAF director of legal research and education, said the 3rd Circuit got it wrong in its earlier ruling. “The Third Circuit’s ruling defies Bruen and Rahimi by upholding a lifetime disarmament of sober citizens who occasionally use a substance—marijuana—that is now legal to various extents in 40 states and socially accepted by a supermajority of Americans,” Moros said in a news release announcing the filing. “History shows that Founding-era laws addressed the danger of mixing alcohol and firearms by temporarily disarming the actively intoxicated, never by stripping gun rights from anyone who simply drank in moderation. The Third Circuit ignored this close historical analogue and instead relied on remote comparisons to laws disarming the ‘furiously mad.’ We urge the Court to intervene and restore the proper Bruen framework.”
Everytown Targets Ruger After Glock’s Redesign, Demands RXM Pistol Be Pulled Scott Witner Everytown for Gun Safety has now set its sights on Sturm, Ruger & Co. , calling on the American gunmaker to stop producing its new RXM pistol , just weeks after Glock announced plans to discontinue several of its most popular handguns amid ongoing lawsuits and legislative pressure from anti-gun activists. In a letter sent on Monday, Everytown’s chief litigation counsel, Eric Tirschwell, told Ruger that the company should “put public safety first” by either removing the RXM pistol from the market or redesigning its internal trigger system. The group claims the RXM shares a trigger mechanism like Glock’s so-called “cruciform” design; a part that Everytown argues makes both brands’ pistols vulnerable to illegal modification with so-called switches or auto sears. “Ruger faces a choice following Glock’s recent announcement,” Tirschwell wrote. “Will it continue to sell the RXM despite the evidence of its ease of convertibility to an illegal machine gun, or will it put public safety first?” The letter comes on the heels of Everytown claiming credit for Glock’s production changes, describing them as a “major victory” for gun control efforts. The group says it intends to apply similar pressure to Ruger, one of the nation’s largest firearms manufacturers, if the company doesn’t comply with its demands. Ruger has not publicly responded to the letter. Background: The “Switch” Controversy The issue centers around illegal conversion devices, commonly called “Glock switches”, that can turn a semi-automatic pistol into a fully automatic weapon. These small parts, often imported illegally or manufactured with 3D printers, have been appearing in criminal cases across the country. Everytown and other gun control groups argue that because these devices interact with the cruciform trigger bar used in many Glock-pattern pistols, the design itself is “defective” and should be banned or redesigned. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has documented an increase in recoveries of conversion devices nationwide. However, critics note that illegal conversion devices exist for nearly every major firearm platform, including AR-15 rifles, and that Glock’s popularity simply makes it a more common target for modification and enforcement. More importantly, the possession or installation of these devices is already a serious federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
California Governor Gavin Newsom Newsom’s New Glock Law Sparks Legal Battle Story by John Baker Newsom’s New Glock Law Sparks Legal Battle California Gov. Gavin Newsom, joined by Assemblymembers Jesse Gabriel and Catherine Stefani, has enacted a law banning sales of certain Glock-style handguns, with exemptions for law enforcement and existing dealer inventory. Gun rights groups have criticized the measure for its restrictive nature, indicating plans to challenge the law in court. Gabriel said the law aims to push manufacturers to redesign cruciform trigger-bar systems that can be converted for automatic fire. Stefani stated, “AB 1127 says enough is enough. If these companies won’t redesign their weapons to protect our communities, California will hold them accountable.” The Firearms Policy Coalition said, “But no tyrant, no politician, and no state will ever be allowed to extinguish the rights of a free people. Not now. Not ever.” The Firearms Policy Coalition added, “FPC and our legal team have been preparing a challenge to AB 1127 for months. We and our allies will move swiftly to strike down this unlawful and immoral ban in federal court. The Constitution – not Gavin Newsom – defines the limits of government power, and we will make sure he once more learns that lesson.” John Baker covers U.S. politics & news for content partner Modern Newsstand LLC.
Why the Glock 19X still outclasses its clones Gregg Kielma You hear a lot of noise these days about clones “doing the same thing for less.” But once you’ve carried a Glock 19X for a while, you learn quick that the folks saying that usually haven’t run one hard. The 19X didn’t build its reputation online. It earned it through field time, rough weather, and thousands of rounds without throwing fits. That matters more than any spec sheet ever will. And if you’ve ever put a cheaper copy next to it on the bench, you already know the truth—similar isn’t the same. Not when your life hangs on whether the gun cycles when your hands are cold and the ammo isn’t perfect. It actually survived the military trials The 19X is the civilian version of Glock’s MHS submission, and that history isn’t marketing fluff. It went through brutal temperature swings, mud immersion, drop tests, and endurance cycles meant to break lesser designs. It didn’t take home the contract, but it didn’t fail the test either—it held its own in a field of serious competitors. You’re buying that same DNA today. A lot of clones copy the silhouette, but none of them went through Army-level abuse before hitting the shelves. There’s something to be said for a pistol proven under conditions where excuses don’t matter. The mixed-length setup actually works There’s no magic number when it comes to how many rounds you should carry. Some folks feel good with six. Others won’t leave the house with less than fifteen. It’s easy to get caught up in numbers, but it really depends on your comfort level, your risk tolerance, and how you’re carrying. Here are ten things to think about before settling on your own answer.© Provided by: The Avid Outdoorsman Glock didn’t invent the long-grip/short-slide configuration, but they nailed the execution. The 19-length slide stays quick out of the holster and tucks under clothing easier. The 17-length grip gives you full control, even if you’ve got paws that swallow most compacts. Clones try to replicate this combo all the time, but most of them get the balance wrong. You end up with sluggish cycling, awkward grip angles, or a frame that doesn’t settle right during recoil. The 19X feels natural from the first draw because the proportions weren’t guessed—they were tested. The trigger is boring in all the right ways Nobody writes poetry about Glock triggers, but you know exactly what you’re getting. On the 19X, that translates into a clean break, a predictable wall, and a short reset you can ride all day without thinking about it. It’s not trying to be flashy. It’s trying to be consistent. Clones often bolt on flat-faced triggers or lightweight connectors to seem “upgraded.” What you really get is inconsistency—different pulls as the parts wear, sloppy resets, or gritty travel that shows up once you hit higher round counts. The 19X gives you something you can trust under stress. The reliability isn’t theoretical It’s easy to get carried away with add-ons, especially when there are shelves full of gear promising to improve your shooting. The truth is, some accessories actually make things worse. They can mess with your grip, add too much weight, or just make your firearm harder to run. Sometimes simple really is better. Before you load up your gun with extra gadgets, it’s worth knowing which upgrades are more trouble than they’re worth. Here are eight accessories that can actually hurt your performance.© ARTFULLY PHOTOGRAPHER / Shutterstock.com Glock’s parts ecosystem is huge for a reason. Extractors, springs, trigger bars—everything is standardized, field-tested, and readily available. If something wears out, you can replace it in minutes, not weeks. And if the pistol ever needs real work, Glock’s support actually knows the platform inside and out. The mags run cleaner and smoother The 19X takes Glock 17 magazines, 19 magazines, the 24 rounders, and even the goofy 33 round sticks if you want to dump ammo for fun. They all fit, they all feed, and they all drop free. The aftermarket selection is massive, and most of it works. With clones, even small deviations in magwell dimensions cause feeding issues. Some mags hang up. Some don’t drop. Some only work half the time. That might be fine at the bench, but it’s a different story when you’re carrying the gun daily. The nPVD finish survives real carry abuse Some guns look great on paper—tons of power, long sight radius, big capacity—but once you try to carry them, it’s a whole different story. If it feels like strapping a brick to your hip or stuffing a lunchbox in your waistband, it’s probably too big. There’s a fine line between power and practicality, especially when you plan to carry a gun every single day. Whether you’re new to concealed carry or just figuring out why your current setup feels off, here are the things that can make a firearm more of a burden than a backup.© Provided by: The Avid Outdoorsman Safariland The slide coating on the 19X isn’t there to look pretty. Glock’s nPVD finish shrugs off sweat, humidity, and the constant rub of kydex. If you carry appendix or live somewhere humid, coatings matter more than folks realize. Clones usually come with cheaper cerakote or black oxide that looks good until the first summer. After a few weeks of holster time, the edges polish bare. After a season, the slide looks older than it should. The 19X holds up better—period. The lack of a front rail keeps the gun fast A lot of people gripe about the 19X not having a front rail for a weapon light. But if you’ve trained with lights enough, you know they change balance, slow down the draw, and complicate concealment. The 19X stays light and maneuverable, which matters when speed is the priority. If you want a duty light, go get a Glock 17 or 45. The 19X is built for a different lane—quick, clean carry without extra bulk. Once you run it that way, you understand why the rail didn’t matter. It eats cheap ammo without complaint Because it runs on a G17 frame, the 19X takes standard 17-round magazines, which are cheap, common, and easy to find. It also works with 19-round extended mags that come with it, plus any G34 or G17 mags you already have on hand. That flexibility makes it a smart choice if you’re already in the Glock ecosystem. It also helps if you’re training a lot. Being able to run the same mags across different guns means less to carry, less to label, and more time actually shooting. If you’re running a red dot or working on reload drills, those extended mags also give you a little extra surface to slap on, which helps when your fingers are cold or gloved. For folks who train regularly, that kind of compatibility goes a long way.© Dmitri T/Shutterstock.com The 19X is famously tolerant of low-grade range ammo. Steel, aluminum, 115 grain bargain boxes—it keeps cycling. Training gets expensive fast, and a gun that doesn’t choke on budget ammo saves you money and frustration. Plenty of clones tighten their chambers or use recoil assemblies that can’t keep up with underpowered rounds. They shoot great with premium ammo but fall apart when you feed them what most people actually train with. The 19X runs whatever you throw at it. The factory sights make sense for carry Unlike many Glocks, the 19X ships with real metal night sights. They’re durable, bright enough to matter, and easy to pick up at speed. No goofy fiber rods to break and no cheap plastic to drift loose after a few dozen draws. Clones love to advertise “premium sights,” but most of them are soft steel knock-offs or low end fiber optics that wash out in poor lighting. The 19X gives you sights you can hit with right out of the box. It isn’t trying to be trendy The Glock 19X looks cool in coyote tan, but let’s be honest—it’s kind of a weird fit for most people. The full-size grip with a shorter slide makes it harder to conceal than a G19 and more awkward than a G17. It’s great for open carry or duty use, but it’s often hyped as the “best of both worlds” when that’s not really the case for most folks. A lot of people buy the 19X expecting perfection, but end up wishing they had something either more compact or full-sized. It’s not a bad gun, but it gets more praise than it probably deserves. A lot of new pistols try to win you over with cuts, serrations, or optics plates. The 19X doesn’t bother. It sticks to what works—a reliable frame, a balanced slide, and internals that don’t give up when conditions get ugly. That’s why folks who shoot a lot keep coming back to it. It’s not exciting on the surface, but it’s dependable underneath. And in a world full of flashy knockoffs, that kind of steady performance stands out.
Do stolen firearms ever get returned to the owner? A thought from an avid reader of the blog, Ron W. I had 3 handguns stolen 28 years ago. I had all serial numbers recorded so I provided them in the police report. Roughly 15 years later, I received a letter asking if the 3 guns were still missing. I signed and returned the letter. Over the next 5 years I received the same letter every year, which I signed and returned. Shortly after I signed the last one, I received another letter to come pick up my property. Woohoo! I really loved one of those guns (S&W 686). So, I make an appointment to pick up my property. I arrive, check in, and provide them the letter and proof of who I am. A few minutes later I am handed a small box and told I cannot open it in the building. I head out to the pickup. The tag on the box shows they found the gun around 6 months after it was stolen. I open the box and there is one of the guns, completely disassembled and missing the hammer. It was disassembled carefully as there is no scratches in the bluing, and the screws are undamaged. I tried to go back in and ask if this is normal, but it is a locked facility. So yes, sooner or much later, you will get it back. If it is usable or complete, in the State of Washington, your guess is as good as mine.
How do you defend against a gun to the face and not ARMED? From David S an avid reader of this blog: In October 2016, I did it with humor. I was walking home one evening and felt something against the back of my neck. Thinking it was one of my friends giving me a hard time, I turned around to see who it was. The next thing I knew, this punk kid, had a gun of my face. I looked at him and said, “you’ve got to be kidding.” He was a bit taken aback by that comment. Then he said, “Give me your wallet.” So, I took my wallet out of my pocket and opened it up to show that it was empty. He took it anyway and booked off down the street. When he was about half a block away, I called the police, but he was already around the corner and out of sight, probably already home, in the little time it took the police to get there. Over the course of the next two days someone found some papers on someone else’s lawn and contacted me. Then the next day, someone said he found my wallet, including ID, when he was cleaning out his rain gutter. He turned it into the police, and they called me to tell me that it was at the station and then I could come in to get it at any time. At the end of the day, I didn’t lose anything, got my ID updated, and got my bank debit card replaced. They never caught the punk, but the hold up in that part of town was an anomaly. No one at the police department could remember the last time anything sinister happened in that part of town. After the incident, I walked along that block hundreds of times over the next two years without incident before I moved out of state.
Why do gun supporters and supporters believe they can protect themselves better than the police can?
Why do gun supporters believe they can protect themselves better than the police can? Shouldn't they leave protection from attackers and intruders to the professionals? Gregg Kielma Absolutely not, and here's why: My Thoughts, LET'S TAKE A LOOK 1: Police response time is 15 minutes on average. If you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm, and you think you can convince the threat to wait 15 minutes, you go right ahead. 15 minutes is enough time to kill an entire family, take anything of value and be long gone before police arrive. I am not betting on my life, my wife, friends and general public lives on that wait time. 2: Law enforcement is not required to protect civilians (DeShaney V. Winnebago, Town of Castle Rock V. Gonzales) The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that law enforcement has no duty to protect you. They are there to enforce laws, meaning they are only required to respond to crimes that have already been committed. So, say you manage to convince the threat to wait 15 minutes and you have a chat over a beer with him in your front yard while you wait. The cops show up. He then proceeds to pick his weapon back up and kill you. Right up until the crime was committed, the police had absolutely no duty to do anything about it. 3: Police response to active threats can be more dangerous than the threat. Those red lines are lines of fire from law enforcement as a response to a hostage situation involving a UPS driver and his two kidnappers. It's amazing that only one person other than the kidnappers and the hostage were hurt, because many innocent bystanders and their vehicles were directly in every line of fire, some even being used as cover by the responding officers. This is unacceptable of anybody who handles a firearm recreationally, much less an entire squad of people who are supposed to be, and expected to be, more responsible than some random civilian. Unfortunately, in most circumstances, adding more people to a dangerous situation only makes it more dangerous for more people. I'll protect myself and my own family and answer questions later. I trust me to respond quickly and justifiably, reliably.
Gaston Glock: Engineer/Owner of Glock... God's Speed Sir Choosing Your Glock: Performance, Size, and Use Explained Gregg Kielma FFL, Firearms Instructor and Gunsmith: for the record, Glock is KING in my world. The best engineered, most reliable, firearm I’ve ever owned. German engineering at its finest. My current carry firearms for the past 35 years is my Glock19 Gen3. 40K rounds run through this firearm and never a jam, ever. The best weapon I’ve ever owned. Nothing better than a Glock, period. Let’s Take a LOOK Glock pistols have been a staple among firearms enthusiasts since their release in the early 1980s. At first, they were greeted with suspicion owing to their polymer construction, but they soon established themselves as reliable, long-lasting, and minimalist handguns. Now with a variety of models and calibers to choose from, Glock has established itself as the leader in the handgun industry, serving everything from law enforcement and military units to civilian shooters. Understanding the various Glock models and their specific uses can be challenging, given the company’s expansive lineup. This article delves into the Glock universe, providing a comprehensive guide to selecting the ideal Glock pistol for various needs, including concealed carry, home defense, professional duty, and competition shooting. Firstly, Glock’s numerical model series is strictly sequential and has nothing to do with the caliber of the gun or its purpose. It merely indicates the order that the models were released into the marketplace. For instance, the Glock 47 (G47) is merely the 47th model produced. When it comes to calibers, Glock has a selection appropriate for many uses, from the common 9mm employed by NATO forces and the U.S. military to the heavy-hitting 10mm Auto, which is best for hunting and repelling big predators. The most common caliber is still the 9mm, owing to its dependability, lower cost, and extensive availability of ammunition. Glock’s 9mm family consists of full-size G17 and G47, compact G19, subcompact G26, and the single-stack G43 and G43X, optimized for various carry and operation needs. Significantly, the Glock 19 has long been a concealed carry favorite, striking a balance of size, capacity, and shoot ability. That said, the new Glock 47 MOS, with its modular design, has presented itself as a full-size model that is capable of utilizing a myriad of slide configurations, including the Glock 19’s. For those who want optics-ready models, the G45 MOS is a “crossover” pistol with a compact slide and full-size frame that works well in self-defense where a reflex sight might give a tactical advantage. For .45 ACP users, the Glock 30 SF offers a short frame with a lot of power. In the subcompact category, the G43X presents an ideal combination of concealment and capacity, suitable for every day carry. For competitive shooting, the extended-barreled G34 MOS presents a longer sight radius and adjustable compatibility for red dot sights, allowing for accuracy and quicker target acquisition. The Glock family also serves those who like to train or plink with rimfires using the G44, a .22LR that replicates the size of the G19 but with less recoil and cheaper ammunition.
