I have seen some around the Internet demanding to waste the future Republican (and allegedly Pro-Gun) Congress on repealing the National Firearms Act.

As sexy as this could be, it would be an enormous waste of federal political capital with little to show as return on the investment.  Full auto is a very small percentage of the firearms in civilian hands and we cannot make the same mistake that Opposition is making: Focus on the object and not on the people.

Where would I like to see congress go for? Three things: National Reciprocity without attachments. Simply stated if you can carry in your state, you can carry in the rest of the country. In fact, we are at a great moment for this now that every state in the union and even DC have carry laws.

Second: Institute the Coburn Amendment as law for “Universal Background Checks” and allow citizens access to NICS. For once, I don’t mind having a tool to make sure I can sell a gun to a person that is not prohibited, but this would also occupy the space that the Gun Control Groups feel needs to be covered to make us “safe.”  It would weaken them in their demands for a draconian UBC both at the Federal Level and at State level.

Third: Reinforcing FOPA by allowing to penalize violators with fines and/or jail time plus lawsuits for violation of civil rights. This has to go alongside National Reciprocity as I can almost smell places like NY or NJ abusing Gun Owners that may have more than one firearm with them while they travel.  I can see some New Jersey Trooper arresting not the person with the CCW but a spouse or friend because there is a spare gun and obviously (according to them) you are not gonna two handguns.  Yes, it is harassment and yes, it will eventually be thrown out in court, but the idea is to stop the BS before it happens.

That is my opinion on what we should try to achieve at the Federal Level. Your mileage may vary.

The most frequently asked question remains: Why didn’t she leave? Judges ask it, juries deliberate it, people watching the nightly news consider it. Although psychologists and many police departments have better training in domestic violence (Raghavan says mental health professionals are “light years” ahead of where they were 50 years ago), the question shows the rest of us don’t. “Leaving does not stop the violence and may in fact make it more likely that she and/or her children will get killed,” Walker says. “The real question is, ‘Why doesn’t he let her go?’”

via Killing Your Husband to Save Yourself – Pacific Standard: The Science of Society.

If you think about it, the article is right on the money.  Shelters for Abused Women are very conscious about their anonymity and have every reason for being that way. We have read many cases in which former partners go after their ex-mates long after the relationship is over with the intention of kill or maim.

I cannot begin to imagine the mental pressure that an abused woman carries with her every day; thinking that either there is no point on leaving because he will chaser her and kill her or abandoning him and living with the constant fear of suddenly facing a very irate and possibly very deadly person has to be an incredible burden. And double or quadruple the load if children are in the middle.

So besides all the avoidance tools and help already in place, I think that having the ultimate tool for defense in-extremis is not only necessary but almost mandatory. So yes, to leaving the bastard, yes to hiding and sheltering, yes to restraining orders and any kind of legal maneuvers to keep him at bay, yes to smart tactics of avoidance, but in the end, when everything else fails, she is gonna need that final game changer that will either make the Ex change his mind or stop him from being a threat forever.

And yes, using deadly force against an abusive partner may be one added trauma and she might need help to recover from it, but she will be alive to do so.

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Glock Unicorns….they are out there.

Interesting that they are asking money and it is not that they are hurting. Maybe trying to give the idea they are grassroots?

In any case, I leave you with the words of our favorite Vorlon:

COLUMBUS (Dawn Faugl) — A mother and her 13-year-old son were at the corner store in their neighborhood when police say two men approached them and opened fire, shooting her son in both feet. That’s when the mom pulled out her licensed gun and shot back.

The mom, who doesn’t want to be identified, said she immediately recognized one of the suspects Kevin Hayden, when he walked up to Wilson Market Sunday. She says Hayden and his friends have been harassing her for years, after breaking into her home.

She says she was so concerned, she went and got a conceal carry license this fall.

The mom says she unloaded her gun, as Hayden and his friend ran away, still firing back. Hayden is now being held on $250,000 bond. Police say charges are pending for the other man involved.

The 13-year-old is out of the hospital, but still recovering from his wounds.

via After Her Son is Shot in a Store, A Mother Shoots Back at the Suspects – WTTE – WTTE FOX28.

Because a gun will always beat a slogan and a cardboard sign.

She won’t be on Shannon Watts’ Christmas Card list, that is for sure.

I heard somewhere that you as a concealed carry citizen, do  not have to wonder if there will be a gun in a confrontation you may have because your gun is already there.

This video runs the gamut of do not do like a charm. Excited parties, alcohol, lack of dis engagement, bruised egos that needed to be buttressed, ex-wife, new boyfriend, ex-husband unnecessary escalation and a gun.

Tensions run high? Ex-wife lippy? Get the Hell Out. You get a wee bit of a knuckle charm and no injury from the boyfriend? Get the Hell Out. You drunk? Don’t even drive, much less carry.

Morons all around.

“Screw ‘accurate portrayal.’ I am here to win!”