Shooter’s Log Weekly Wrap Up, July 19-25, 2015

By CTD Blogger published on in News

Presenting the Shooter’s Log weekly wrap up of the major news and trending stories that affect gun owners from July 19 to July 25, 2015.

There were major headlines this week—Obama’s push to extend background checks to those receiving Social Security, as well as many Governors standing up to protect military personnel. One story that caused a lot of customers to contact Cheaper Than Dirt! was a memorandum from New York. Word travels fast, even if it is the wrong word. The Shooter’s Log weekly wrap up reports the (unfortunate) facts.

Picture courtesy of Jessica Pounds for the Cleburne Times-Review

Picture courtesy of Jessica Pounds for the Cleburne Times-Review

“Not On Our Watch!” Patriots Stand in Solidarity to Protect Military Recruiting Offices

All across the nation, reports are coming in that armed Patriots are standing guard at military recruiting offices. Citizens in Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Colorado, Washington State, Ohio—where armed citizens joined off-duty police officers—and many more have been receptive to the men and women openly carrying long guns and handguns on their waists. People are stopping to thank the Patriots and offer cold drinks and food. On Wednesday, the Oath Keepers announced an official call to action to help support those already standing guard in what they call “Operation Protect the Protectors.” The press release reads, “We will stand guard at recruiting stations and other exposed military locations until the DOD changes its idiotic policy of insisting that recruiters go unarmed, while they are in uniform, in a clearly marked public office, open and accessible to anyone who wants to walk or drive up.” At a time our country is divided more than ever on gun rights, it is nice to see the majority of Americans unified at taking a stand against terrorism when the Obama Administration appears to have turned its back.

Ban Lifting CCW on Military Bases Draws Near

Two separate bills lifting the ban on concealed carry on U.S. Military bases passed in May, but since the shooting deaths of four Marines at a military recruiting office in Chattanooga, Tennessee, the House has pushed to move the bills forward. The House passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act allowing soldiers to conceal carry while on base. U.S. Representative Michael McCaul (R-Texas) who helped wrote the amendment said, “Enough is enough. We must give our base commanders more discretion and our soldiers more protection.” Unfortunately, the amendment has opposition. The Pentagon has yet to retract its position of “there are a lot of barriers to this idea, and the Department’s position—and we’ve spelled this out before—is that we do not support it.” Further, retiring Army Chief of Staff, General Ray Odierno expressed his skepticism that concealed carry would protect soldiers. Soon after the Chattanooga shooting he said, “I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves…,” because firearms have the potential for “accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries.” The amendment must now pass the Senate and have President Obama’s signature.

Young Man’s Homemade Drone Sparks Investigation

Connecticut college student, Austin Haughwout did not invent the drone, nor is he the first one to attach a firearm to a drone and operate it from a remote control. However, the young man’s neighbors called in concerns after hearing him test it. Clinton, Connecticut Police Sergeant Jeremiah Dunn says, “At this point, we can’t find anything that’s been violated.” The Outdoorhub.com reports that Austin and his father tested the drone on private property and made sure they were doing nothing illegal. A representative for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has said they will investigate the reports to see if any regulations were violated. The video below of the drone flying and shooting has had over two million views on YouTube.

Mom’s Demand Action Make up Another “Loophole”

Mom’s Demand Action for Gun Sense in America’s Shannon Watts wrote an opinion article for CNN on Monday blaming the Chattanooga shooting on a fictitious “online gun sale loophole.” She wrote, “We’re still learning the facts about what happened in Chattanooga, however, recent media reports indicate the gunman took advantage of the online gun sale loophole and purchased at least one of his firearms where he knew he could buy a gun with no background check, no questions asked.” John Feinblatt, President of Bloomberg-backed Everytown for Gun Safety defended Ms. Watts’ statement, claiming the NRA “put in place” these so-called loopholes that “make it easy for dangerous people to get guns”—despite the fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that gun auction websites are not liable for guns bought and sold through them and later used in a crime. Why is it that the more Ms. Watts opens her mouth or puts pen to paper the more NO Sense she makes…?

New York’s Safe Act was Never Superseded

Are New Yorkers now able to buy ammo online? In a “don’t believe everything you read on the Internet” lesson, the New York Governor’s office officially stated, “The memorandum can in no way supersede the law as passed by the legislature and further, there is nothing in the memorandum that is inconsistent with the letter, spirit or intent of the law.” What the office is addressing is a story that quickly circulated the Web claiming that the provision of the New York Safe Act that bans the sale of ammo online was lifted. The confusion began when anti-Safe Act Senator James Seward said the ban was lifted because New York’s head of police said the state would not (at this time) develop a database to perform background checks for those buying ammo. Rich Azzopardi, a spokesperson for Governor Cuomo’s office said that Sen. James was “mistaken.” New Yorkers wishing to purchase still have to buy it face-to-face.

In case you missed them, here are the top read blog posts this week:

What developing stories are you closely following? Tell us in the comment section. If you have a news story you would like to share, send us a link at content@cheaperthandirt.com.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (10)

  • Don P

    |

    The professor said that he didn’t help and that he told the eighteen year old it was a terrible idea.

    Reply

  • thorkill

    |

    did anyone read the article? COLLEGE STUDENT does not mean he is under 21. the article says that both he and his father tested said drone. again father of collage student =’s someone over21. also Conn State Police SGT, the people who investigate ASSassinations could not find any laws that were violated.

    Reply

    • Don P

      |

      Thorkill,

      There are other articles that specify he is 18, but I think you are probably right that nobody seems to have read this or any of the other articles.

      Reply

  • Sivispace

    |

    The young man with the drone-mounted handgun will face serious charges. Among the possible charges are reckless endangerment, unlawful possession of a hand gun and possibly assault. The bottom line is it is illegal, except under direct parental supervision for anyone under 21 to possess a handgun.

    Reply

    • Secundius

      |

      @ Sivispace.

      Remote “Assassination Device” device also comes to mind…

      Reply

    • Mikial

      |

      Arming drones is something no government is going to condone. The professor that helped him is an idiot.

      Reply

    • Don P

      |

      Mikial,

      The professor said that he didn’t help and that he told the eighteen year old it was a terrible idea.

      Reply

    • Don P

      |

      “The young man with the drone-mounted handgun will face serious charges. Among the possible charges are reckless endangerment, unlawful possession of a hand gun and possibly assault. The bottom line is it is illegal, except under direct parental supervision for anyone under 21 to possess a handgun.”

      Sivispace,
      I’m so glad that you’re much smarter than the local law enforcement officials and the representative for the FAA. Did you even read the article?

      You claim that he will face “serious charges”. Exactly what “serious charges” are you referring to? To start with, the local police authorities couldn’t come up with any ordinances that he was in violation of. (Clinton, Connecticut Police Sergeant Jeremiah Dunn says, “At this point, we can’t find anything that’s been violated.”) The FAA was contacted and they haven’t been able to come up with any law that he is in violation of, but they are still going to investigate it more.

      You mentioned reckless endangerment, but failed to explain how he is in violation of any reckless endangerment law. There are no laws specifying a firearm on a drone and there is nothing illegal about discharging a firearm in the location that he was at. (“…Austin and his father tested the drone on private property…”) How was he in violation of reckless endangerment?

      You mentioned “unlawful possession of a hand gun”. How can you conclude that he is unlawfully in possession of a handgun? You stated: “The bottom line is it is illegal, except under direct parental supervision for anyone under 21 to possess a handgun.” (actually, I think that you are incorrect on that statement. I think it is actually parental supervision or authorized supervision.) So what does that have to do with the topic at hand? Yes he is under twenty-one, but the article states: “…Austin and his father tested the drone…” indicating at he was with his father. Since his father was with him, he wasn’t illegally in possession.

      You mentioned assault, who did he assault? (He has since been arrested for assaulting two police officers, but that had nothing to do with the drone.) Who did he assault with the drone that would justify your statement?

      Again I ask, did you even read the article?

      Reply

    • ss1

      |

      Hey I’m drinking margaritas and sipping tequila tonight and feeling really good, and I just want to say it’s CLASSIC that the armed drone was in Connecticut. Because Connecticut is so anti-gun, I’m glad they had to deal with the “Remote Assassination Device”, as Secundius calls it…..LOL!!

      Sometimes you have to find humor in some of this :)

      Reply

    • Secundius

      |

      @ ss1.

      Hey Sam. The gun in question was later determined to be a Kel-Tec PMR-30 (.22WMR). He could have had “swapped-out” the WMR’s with TCM’s and really have gotten some “Knock-Power”…

      Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: