Hey Guys... and Cammy.
Been pretty busy this summer and haven't posted much, but I've been reading some of the postings. Doing the usual summertime stuff with the fam. The last week or so has been interesting though so I thought I'd reach out and share a few things and open the floor for discussion, rebuttal, banishment etc.
Wife and I took our CCW class and did our range time. Waiting on the Sheriff to send us that little card now. Casual Observation: Wife is not someone to be trifled with given the marksmanship she exhibited. Just wow.
Went to DE for my daughters lacrosse tournament and had an insightful convo w a State Trooper. He said that the Cleveland PD reached out to other departments nationally and requested 1200-1500 tactically trained officers for the RNC convention. Don't be surprised if you see more than just OH State Troops roaming around. Given the climate the request makes sense.
Can someone define 'tactically trained' for me though?
While still in DE, had to set a few moms straight with regard to 'assault rifles'. That was fun. They said that they appreciated the knowledge and 2A insight in a sane, non threatening manner. They were very curious about my own personal take on some issues (gun rights, meaning behind 2A, responsible ownership, etc.) so I thought I'd share some of my thoughts. I'd be curious to hear other opinions as well.
They were taken aback when I offered the following item for discussion:
I said that, for me, if you are exercising your 2A rights by owning a firearm, whether it be for personal protection, competitive shooting, training, hunting, etc. then you owe it to your family to have some form of binding agreement (like a will of sorts) in place as a family (no gov't interference or oversight), so everyone knows what to do with each and every item in the gun safe should you become mentally deficient or debilitated (accident, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, etc). IMO, in an un-related / kinda related vein, I said that the mother that brought weapons into the home with a mentally imbalanced son that directly led to Sandy Hook was an idiot for doing so.
The other nugget I offered as opinion revolved around their misconceptions of the 'gunshow loophole' which we all know doesn't exist. After I explained how FFL dealers are the ones selling weapons at gunshows and background checks are required on site, I then had to define a straw purchase and explain how those were illegal as are true military style assault weapons. I did state my opinion that the only olive branch 2A practitioners could offer the gun grabbers, that I could see at any rate, was that when grandma decides to sell her late husbands shotgun or rifle that the sale must take place in Sheriff's office. That way a background check could be performed. The PD can't interfere with the sale in any way. Their only role is to process the background check and give a thumbs up or down on the sale. If the weapon was staying within the family then that check wouldn't be necessary.
No solution is perfect and a determined person will get their hands on a gun no matter what the law says.
So I'm curious. In your opinion, would either of those stances (binding agreements, non familial background check) weaken the letter of the law when it comes to the 2A and its purpose or intent? Is either of these the proverbial slippery slope that eventually leads to an Australian style nightmare?