Since 2013-’14, we have seen a boom on the purchase of single-stack handguns for use in concealed carry. I have walked into many FFLs and witnessed the salesperson or a third-party trying to push a Ruger LCP / LC9(S) or similarly sized handgun off to the customer. I have also met many on shooting ranges and watched what they brought to shoot. Over the last year alone, most of those people stopped regularly shooting those smaller single-stack handguns. In fact, the only single-stack that I’ve seen people retain is the 9x19mm Glock-43, so far. In most of the cases, where one quit utilizing the compact handgun they bought for carry, those handguns were bought based on a “feel good” level and I will explain why.
I don’t consider there to have ever been a question of if State-level nullification legislation was going to be taken seriously, if I may start off being blunt. The Federal government had no intention of sitting idly by as more than half of the Republic started making their own rules for firearms… All categories of them. Most certainly not when it came to legislation which nullified or seemingly nullified Federal firearm laws and protected the Second Amendment. These state laws have varying titles, depending on where the bills were originally written. Montana goes back as being the initial push against Federal firearms and firearms commerce regulation inside the state boundaries with the Firearms Freedom Act of 2009. The law covered all currently regulated NFA items with the simple stipulation that it was stamped or roll-marked, for example, “Made in Montana”.
As seen in Thunder Roads Louisiana Jan. 2017 Vol. 14 – Issue 1.
Also seen in
With the 2016 Presidential Election done and over with, the NRA has promised a push against standing Federal and State-level anti-firearms laws already on the books. Wayne LaPierre’s comments are seemingly focused on the State-level. The main goal seems to be to make examples out of California and New York. This is, in no small part, because they are the two most restrictive states in the Union and always have been. The last persisting strongholds of the long defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban. This is somewhat unfortunate, by my viewpoint, due to the opening that has been presented. The ability to take down some important Federal laws (NFA, GCA, Hughes Amendment of FOPA) and fill Supreme Court seats for the settlement of conflicting Circuit Court cases.
When I was 18, I carried a handgun openly on occasion. I was in full compliance with the law and respected private establishments’ wishes – understanding that an establishment’s owners, who don’t wish to allow guns, are afforded the liberties to make that decision and that I didn’t want to give them my money anyway. Whenever I did open-carry, I always felt extremely anxious and over time I assumed that that feeling of angst wouldn’t disappear; even when I decided to obtain my Concealed Handgun License. About six-months after turning 22, I did just that. When I finally got my license, I immediately began carrying; wearing my sidearm nearly every moment of every day. I noticed that the feeling that I had while open-carrying no longer existed. I had to step back and think about why.
In the wake of the latest firearms control laws implemented in California this past month, you’ll see a large number of pro-firearms proponents bailing out of the state within the final months of the year. Some are fighting “Gunmageddon” by petition and by conceptual design, I should add. However, there are other problems with the state of California, and it’s not just California, but most of the rest of our favorite anti-firearms states. The economies in the states of California, New York and New Jersey are horrendous, to say the least. This is driving many of the anti-firearms proponents out of those states as well. And, with them comes their unconstitutional mindsets and votes.