Cheaper Than Dirt! Latest Gun News February 25, 2015

Shotgun Shells

I have received little sympathy for my winter weather complaints. From coworkers in Illinois to Facebook followers in Pennsylvania, those used to frigid temperatures have no patience for my whining. Yes, it has been just one day, but Winter Storm Quantum already has me down. To brighten my mood, I’m reporting on only good news this morning. Twelve states—even gun-restrictive Hawaii— are moving forward in new pro-gun bills. Following are the top headline news picks for the day.


New Arkansas Attorney General, Leslie Rutlege cleared up confusion on last year’s Act 746 that many took to mean Arkansas became a Constitutional Cary state. Rutledge stated, “I interpret it to mean an individual may carry so long as he or she does so without the intent to unlawfully employ it against another person.” In addition, introduced last year, SB 164 allowing public school faculty to arm themselves passed the Senate 33 to 1 and through the House Judiciary Committee last week. A full House vote on the bill is expected soon.


State Representative and House Public Safety Committee chair Tony Cornish says Minnesota’s concealed carry law is meant to allow individual stores to ban handguns, but not the entire mall. Since Islamic extremist group, al-Shabaab threatened the Mall of America, Cornish wants the ban on concealed carry lifted at the nation’s largest mall.


State Senator Van Wanggaard introduced a bill to eliminate the state’s mandatory 48-hour waiting period before taking possession of a handgun. The law’s original intent was to give dealers time to perform background checks. Now that background checks are almost instantaneous, Wanggaard says the waiting period is unnecessary.


Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce’s permitless concealed carry bill, Senate Bill 45 passed the Kansas Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee with a vote 6-3 on Thursday, February 19, 2015. The bill will now move to the Senate floor. Write your senators in support of the bill.

West Virginia

The state is one-step closer to joining Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming in Constitutional Carry. A Senate panel unanimously voted to approve permitless concealed carry.

Georgia is suing Atlanta Suburb Roswell, Georgia to lift the ban on carrying a firearm inside police stations.


Assemblyman Jim Wheeler introduced AB 121 protecting kids from punishment for playing with toy guns less than 2-inches long, drawing a picture of a gun, wearing an image of a firearm on their clothing, making a gesture of a gun with their hands and creating an image resembling a gun out of their food.


Senate Bill 100 lessening the requirements to receive concealed carry permit in Maryland is making its way through the General Assembly. The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee will hold a hearing in March for the bill. Currently, Maryland citizens are only granted concealed carry permits if law enforcement finds a “good and substantial reason” as “necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.”

South Dakota

Two pro-gun bills were heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday, February 23, 2015. HB 1116 eliminates permits required to conceal carry a handgun and HB 1096 allows the state an exemption on NICS checks on any future gun purchases to those who have concealed carry permits.


A House bill doing away with permits needed to conceal carry a firearm passed 56-43 and now moves to the Republican-majority Senate.


A Senate bill allowing constitutional carry in the state narrowly passed 18-17 and will head to the Democrat majority House.


Hawaiian politicians indefinitely deferred two anti-gun bills recently. Senate Bill 783 would have expanded the definition of who could not legally own a firearm, while Senate Bill 462 would have required those denied a firearms permit to relinquish their guns and ammo. Senate Bill 955 and House 50, both protecting shooting ranges passed and moved to committee.

SIG Sauer Releases Statement Official Statement on the Pistol Stabilizing Brace

“BATFE Technical Branch issued an open opinion letter dated January 16, 2015 regarding the Pistol Stabilizing Brace (SB15 and SBX) which is marketed by SIG SAUER. Contrary to several statements subsequently made in social media, this opinion letter did not make or otherwise declare that the SB15 product is illegal. The BATFE letter stated that the SB15 is a product “which is legal to own, legal to purchase and legal to install on a pistol.” SIG SAUER believes that the PSB enhances the shooter’s experience and offers the products as an accessory and pre-installed on a number of pistols. In all of its opinions, BATFE has consistently stated that a pistol with a stabilizing brace attached remains a pistol under the Gun Control Act when used as designed.”

All of these pro-gun bills need your support. Contact your local representatives telling them to support all the purposed pro-gun legislations in your state. Let them know you oppose all gun laws that restrict your Second Amendment rights.

Until February 26, 2015, jump on these great deals:

Don’t miss deals and sales like these, by signing up for our email blasts.

Many states are introducing constitutional carry laws. What do you think about permitless carry? Tell us in the comment section.

[suzanne] [price]

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 (19)

  1. How could I resist? Sure we get our Rights from the Almighty but those on the Left believe we get them from Government.I agree that no person should interfere with my Right and Responsibility for self defense ,but I accept the responsibility of where that bullet goes.A Police Officers call is to enforce the Law,not to save your butt.Of course Government will do everything to strip your rights,its always been a struggle.What makes it different this time is that we have a president who doesnt seem to understand or respect how this great country works.

  2. Yes, it is a God given right to defend yourself and your family. But we have to be realistic and know that the government does not want us to have that right. And Constitutional or not, when the cops show up to disarm you, it is either comply or commit suicide by police. I for one know that my family needs me alive. So, we have to fight them in the courts and the legislatures. The NRA, GOA, and NAGR are all fighting the good fight on the national level, and I for one am a member and supporter of all three, plus my local state level organization.

  3. doesnt matter to me what the feds nor state or any governing body has to say. i carry and will use if needed.
    the government does not own me.

  4. Yeah Pete I get it and I am with you.. I’ll even go a step farther and say that the right to protect myself and my freedom is no business of government at all. It is a right I have because I exist. However Where and by who is the fight against violation of my rights being fought?

    1. @McRuger

      Where — in federal court in states that disobey the LAW.

      By whom — law-abiding citizens who believe in the Constitution.

      Sadly, the way it really works is that some individual has to get educated enough and pissed off enough to start the ball rolling on his own dime and usually at very substantial personal risk. THEN, organizations like the NRA/ILA have to be publicly embarrassed into getting off their fat, lazy rear ends to do the job they have been collecting millions to do.

      The way it SHOULD work is that the NRA/ILA and related organizations ought to have the courage and intelligence be at the federal courthouse TODAY ready to file a lawsuit in every state that disregards the LAW. But these wimps are fund-raisers and hand-shakers not fighters. I am hoping that people like Colin Noir and that former SEAL “get it” and force a change from within.

  5. Let me start by stating that I am completely a supporter of the second admendment, however I have some misgivings about allowing Concealed Carry, w/o any training or at least a test. You need both to get a drivers license so one or the other to carry a firearm seems reasonable. Someone who doesn’t know the basics of driving safety can’t drive legally. I for one would feel safer knowing that somene carrying concealed, at the very least has basic knowledge and responsibilities of carrying safely.
    Just one mans opinion. (PS I have my CCW license and carry the majority of the time, so I am not some anti-gun person)

    1. @Martin,

      As the holder of a concealed carry “permit” I can appreciate your sentiments. But the reality is that the government has no power to decide how we should exercise a basic human right.

      In an ideal world the right to vote, for example, also ought to be exercised seriously, with a level of understanding and knowledge. But we have seen what states do when given the power to control that right — they abuse that power, by using it to prevent certain people from exercising the right.

      Governments are not perfect, and cannot be. That’s why the Founders were wise to give the government only very limited power, and to make sure, in the 2nd Amendment, everyone knows that the government’s narrow power does not include telling us how we can keep and bear our arms.

      As for me, my “permit” means one thing — I carry around in my wallet a very convenient card that allows me to prove, immediately, that I am a law-abiding citizen should any question arise. That card does not give me the right to carry concealed, God gave me that right. I preserved that right by remaining a law-abiding citizen.

      So, yes, we sure as heck ought to be required to be trained and pay a small fee before being granted the privilege of carrying around such a convenient card. And people who are so stubborn and angry at government as to choose not to be trained and pay a small fee can spend several hours in a cell while the cops run a background check to see whether they were legally armed, if that’s the way the want to run their lives. That’s freedom, both ways.

      But in no way can the state or federal government tell any law-abiding citizen that we have to get their permission before exercising the basic human right of armed self-defense as we see fit.

    2. I highly disagree, in the FREE state of Pennsylvania, we do not need classes nor tests to get a carry permit, AS IT SHOULD BE.
      we are seen as responsible adults who know you need to learn your weapon ( tool) and how to use it.
      back when the constitution was written, anyone who owned a firearm knew how to use it, passed down from father to children. those who lost their fathers learned from neighbors, etc.

      we do not need government to tell us how to use firearms or what they demand. some states that have this , the prices are out of this world. look at NYC. your paying thousands of dollars and still might not get a CCW.
      people need to be responsible for their actions. if you don’t know how to drive a car, won’t you ask someone to show you how?
      these gun courses don’t guarantee you know how to shoot, hit a target or when to shoot. believe me. i have seen many of these courses which are paper only ( rules and regs) yet they point their firearm all over at a range.

    3. Martin, please allow me to make two points:

      1. I asked the instructor at the mandatory CCW class in Utah if there was any requirement for range time or qualification to carry. Let me share his answer. He said there was not. The state of Utah wanted to be sure we understood the laws associated with concealed carry and the use of deadly force, so they mandated a class to explain those laws to us. They did not require range time or qualification (although this particular instructor included a few hours on the range just to help folks out who hadn’t shot much before) because they did not want to exclude anyone from the right to carry a weapon for self defense. This included the very old or people with disabilities. I agree with him completely. Everyone has a right to defend themselves. Should they seek training? Absolutely, but it is still a choice.

      2. Everyone who has a CCW should carry ALL THE TIME unless it is a place where it is illegal. Period. Why bother to get a permit if you are not going to carry whenever possible?

    4. Per your second pint, I agree fully. When I obtained my CCL and was no longer one of the sheep, I also accepted the role of sheepdog.

      To that end, with rare exception, if I am dressed, I am armed.

      Remember back to when you were a little boy and you got your first REAL wallet? … the one without a picture of a cowboy in it? It was awkward at first to carry it in your pocket … but you kept at it and now your wallet is probably about as thick as a double stack grip and heavy as a mouse pistol..

      Well, put the wallet in your pocket and hang a pistol from the opposite side. You’ll get used to it soon enough … and will be balanced for the first time in years!


      You’ll also find that you are far from the only person who has stepped up to the plate. Around here, I’m tempted to leave my pistol at home when I go into WalMart … there are just that many other people who are already carrying there. Recent sightings include a dwarf in a cowboy hat and a hot-looking soccer mom in jeans with a teenage daughter in tow … and lots of others in between those two extremes.

      Kinda makes me feel good to live in the Piedmont region of North Carolina.

    1. @McRuger

      I disagree because we are winning in court, regularly.

      BUT, you are sort of right because the NRA and other inside-the-beltway fools are undermining the effort by wasting time, political capital and other resources doing STUPID [BLEEP] that is focused on fund-raising and not on getting the job done.

      If the NRA, etc. were serious about this topic they would take all of the resources being wasted on supporting legislation that, at best, could only give us (some of the) rights we already have, and use those resources in COURT to enforce the rights we already have. But, they are not doing that because their focus is on fund-raising and not on actually getting the job done.

      These new, young spokespeople like Colin Noir and that former SEAL need to use their influence to get the NRA moving in the right direction.

    2. That’s why I am a member of not just the NRA, but also NAGR and GRNC (Grass Roots of North Carolina) and GOA as well as my local gun club that makes group donations to a couple other organizations.

      I also toss a few coins toward the Colonial Williamsburg folks and the Ben Carson campaign ( and another group I can’t recall the name of that sends out pocket copies of the Constitution for free.

      I feel that throwing a couple rabid dogs onto the pile keeps the rest of them more honest. The NRA has gotten WAY too comfortable with the big-money folks.It’s become like the RNC of firearms. Lots of RINOs in both places and too few who are up for a good fight. (The NRA is better at taking credit than it is at actually leading the charge.)

      In my humble opinion, the NRA has gotten far too fat and is no longer hungry enough to lead the way.

  6. Practically all of that stuff at the state level is completely irrelevant.

    Constitutional Carry and Reciprocity already are law of the land; it is simply a matter of law-abiding citizens enforcing the EXISTING LAW in federal court. States and the federal government have absolutely no say in the matter, which is completely controlled by EXISTING federal constitutional law.

    In 2009, the Heller opinion affirmed the FEDERAL right of every law-abiding citizen to have a fully-functional handgun immediately available for self-defense. That means the right to have that handgun on one’s person when out and about, which necessarily means the right to carry that handgun concealed or openly as the citizen sees fit.

    While anti-gun people might point out that the Heller opinion did allude to 19th century cases upholding convictions of criminal use of concealed weapons to show that 2nd Amendment rights are not absolute, those cases merely upheld laws prohibiting CRIMINALS from using concealed weapons (upon the grounds that such use was then uncommon by law-abiding citizens). But, under both the “in common use at the time” standard the Heller court applied from Miller, and the “struct scrutiny” standard applicable to any law that impacts a “fundamental” right, the law can never prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying concealed (which are by far the most common means law-abiding citizens choose today for self-defense),

    Because the right to carry a fully-functional handgun immediately available for self-defense is a FEDERAL right, under the Equal Protection Clause every law-abiding citizen in every state in the US has exactly the same right. It simply is not a matter of state law that can vary from state to state.

    As to concealed carry “permits” or “licenses,” those actually do have a proper role IMHO. They prove that the holder is a law-abiding citizen (by means of having passed an extensive background check) — which fact establishes the holder’s right to carry concealed handguns. And many jurisdictions also require the holder to demonstrate competence in handling handguns safely and effectively.

    The States DO have the right to establish the criteria for issuance of such a “permit” or “license” — they just do not have the right to require law-abiding citizens to have such “permits” or “licenses” in order to exercise the FEDERAL right to carry concealed handguns.

    So, the best advice to any law-abiding citizen interested in self-defense is to go get your concealed carry “permit” or “license” from your state or a different state of your choice (some say Utah is a good alternative for those living in states that thumb their nose at the LAW). EVERY state has to accept that official state document as proof that you are a law-abiding citizen with the FEDERAL right to carry concealed handguns.

    Federal law (42 USC 1983 and related statutes) imposes direct, personal liability on any state official who interferes with the FEDERAL right of any law-abiding citizen to carry a concealed handgun, fully functional and immediately available for self-defense.

    The only thing law-abiding citizens need to do in order to carry concealed handguns for self-defense anywhere in the US is to ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAW. We don’t need to ask Congress to do that for us, or our local legislators to do it for us at the state level. The Founders already did that for us in the 2nd Amendment, which guarantees each and every one of us the basic human right of armed self-defense. And, in Heller, the Supreme Court gave us the rationale on which to use EXISTING LAW to enforce that right.

    It makes me sick to see law-abiding citizens holding out their hats, in essence saying “Please sir, may I please have the basic human rights guaranteed to me in the 2nd Amendment?” This stands the essence of America on its head — We the People are in charge, not the politicians. They ask US what they have permission to do, we do not ask them. That is THE LAW.

    1. @McRuger

      They are not “working for our rights.” They are either ignorantly or intentionally undermining our rights by suggesting, falsely that this is a matter of state law. Same with the bozos in Congress.

      Legislators never have and never will have the power to “work for rights” — all they can do is enact legislation. The COURTS enforce rights, not legislatures.

      The LAW is already on our side. We need to ENFORCE that LAW in the courts, not wait for pansy legislators to enact laws giving us rights we already have.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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.