Blackwater Worldwide announced its support of AB2498, proposed legislation that would prevent prohibited persons from unlawful access to and possession of firearms.
This legislation would serve to hold all responsible firearms training facilities to a common standard, allow training of responsible citizens, and, hopefully, reduce firearms capabilities of dangerous criminals.
It won't make one bit of difference to "dangerous criminals." It will, however, present another burden to the "law-abiding."
And of course you needn't ask: "Only Ones" are exempted.
What you might ask is why gun mercenaries are getting in bed with Lori Saldaña, rated "F" by both GOC and NRA. That is, if we're not too gushing and starry-eyed over "blogger outreach"...
17 comments:
Life imitates Art.
"Absolved" comes to life.
So I have to show proof that I can legally own a firearm before I can train at these places...what a load of crap. There are a few problems here...if I am training with a rifle there is no "proof" because in Pennsylvania you don't need a permit to have a rifle. And suppose I want to get training just to have a handgun in my home, in my state you don't need a permit to do that either. Or suppose I want my (future) children to get proper firearms training because of a matter of safety, and let's just say they are 18, which is still under the age to own a handgun of their own but not to practice with one...how do they show proof???
No no this law does absolutely nothing to prevent criminals from receiving training. The local gang bangers don't get training. This law is just trying to prevent law abiding citizens from getting adequate training...the government does not want that.
Very, very dangerous ideas here. More government control of everything... just what we all need.
I guess they will make money though, especially if they're the "only ones" training folks.
III
Gee, ya think maybe they already have training criteria drawn up that leaves only themselves as qualified to offer it? Much like the gun manufacturers did in '68.
I guess we know they don't value this country or liberty. They are willing to sell it for profit.
I find the suggestion that the integrity of the 'weekend with Todd Jarrett' winners is somehow compromised because it's being held at a Blackwater facility offensive.
To hint that participation is akin to endorsing Blackwater's position on AB2498, or giving them a pass on such a poor decision is utterly ridiculous.
That could be a good thing. It means you won't let your participation prevent you from publicly decrying your strenuous objection to this, and other "poor" decisions they've made, right?
I look forward to all the other attendees joining you in this condemnation.
You have my permission to be offended.
I'm having trouble with your sentence construction, which is thoroughly obscuring the point you are trying to make.
I missed your references to suggestion, integrity, Todd Jarrett, compromise, participation, a hint, and a pass. What's the story on that? What is the hint you refer to? Who is the "them" to whom the pass is being given? Who made a poor decision?
I apologize for being obtuse. Please forgive me, English is my first language.
Possibly many "sporting" shooters are still blissfully unaware of Blackwater's betrayal. To them, a contest is a contest and a range is a range is a range. The gun club I belong to still wants to be "100% NRA."
I can see why they'd support this. They're trying to change their business model and moving away from providing security themselves. They want to concentrate more on training and logistics I hear.
Good PR move on their part, trying to look more responsible and all that.
If it did pass, how many training facilities in California would actually be required to comply with the law?
As I mentioned, Blackwater isn't giving bloggers squat, it's Para USA that's paying for everything, and they picked the facility.
But that said, does anyone know what spawned this bill? It's limited to any training facility that has a written contract with the federal government to provide same training, which would lead me to believe only Blackwater would be affected by this. It seems odd that California would target Blackwater specifically and specifically on this one issue.
I don't think anyone begrudges you the training.
Get the training, but don't be gulled into thinking these are the good guys, unless you have evidence of such.
As for California targeting them. Huh uh. What those of like mind are apt to do is to require that all gunowners must receive that training from qualified, certified firms. It will just be "coincidental" if Blackwater is the only one that meets the criteria established.
It would also be "coincidental" if Blackwater was the progenitor of those criteria.
This is a tool that has been used very often in our history for all sorts of issues. I do not find it impossible to believe that something of the sort may be afoot here.
Think DuPont and and the freon fraud.
You would be hard pressed to find a firearms training facility that does not volunteerly do something similar already:
Thunder Ranch:
"Please check one and provide information requested:
___ I have enclosed evidence of no criminal history from a local law enforcement agency on official departmental letterhead.
___ I have enclosed evidence of current, active, full-time service with a public law enforcement agency, with the United States Armed Forces, or with government security agencies. Please enclose a copy of I.D. or appropriate verifiable credential.
___ A copy of a current concealed carry permit or federal firearms license."
Front Sight:
"Front Sight requires a criminal background check once every calendar year. Enter your credit card information below to complete the $50 background check."
Gun Site is the same. Even the smaller trainers I checked require similar.
Key word: "Voluntarily."
Funny--none of the indignant voices on other sites have concerned themselves with "[asking] why gun mercenaries are getting in bed with Lori Saldaña." Their entire focus is on my speculation--which would have been best thrown back at me as false had they taken a moment to decry this Blackwater move--which they haven't.
Now as to why, we do have some clues. We know Saldaña represents San Diego and we know they have been trying to get a west coast facility there--which has undergone much opposition and expensive legal action.
Yes, the new bill as written will probably affect only them--for now. They can go back to the locals who object and say what great guys they are, all compliant with a CA law that they endorsed and everything. And it might even be enough--for now. It probably will be for them, because of all their federal connections and money--but we'll see what harvest comes years from now for others not so well placed.
I was under the impression that the San Diego facility had already commenced training for the Navy? They got in under the code by calling it "an amusement park" or some such nonsense.
The language in the bill that specifies training of feds does confuse me. It would be more like CA to just require anyone who makes a dollar from firearm training to fall under this type of legislation.
I was under the impression that the San Diego facility had already commenced training for the Navy?
It has indeed. I am not even sure they had to go round-about with it - I seem to recall a local justice ruling against the city of San Diego for going back on their previous agreement with Blackwater, and then delaying on providing responses concerning their new decision. Could be making that bit up though.
The city's position--among others--was that permits had been filed for under different names. A federal judge ruled the facility could remain open on June 17. The city filed an appeal with the notoriously pinko 9th Circuit on July 3.
There is much opposition, notably from the left, and their activists are, among other things, pressuring Pelosi--another Californian. We talked here a while back about reports that Obama has foreseen a need for them in his administration.
I've also talked about how private operations can be Constitutional if you consider Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and also as military contractors. I am not automatically against this. Pros have a place training military when they bring skills and technology that can save American lives and dollars.
My main point is we now have a demonstrable occurrence of them working with anti-gun Dems in CA to pass a law that will facilitate them working with party leadership sanction--essentially those Dems will sell out their base, not necessarily a bad thing, but it becomes fair to wonder why the dems would do this--what's in it for them? It's also fair to speculate--since CA is such a huge economy--how future operations and potential expansions (Why else exempt training police and the military?) will be affected by this new bill.
I have nothing against Para Ord doing training at their facility--and nothing against any private concern operating training facilities for civilians. My last comment in this post had to do with my belief that all gun rights activists should be reporting on this bill with concern, and as yet, it's basically this lone SNBI who is.
Once in place, I can easily see applicability spreading in future bills to all trainers, not just those with federal contracts--if we've learned anything from past experience with these people, it's that once they achieve a foothold, they always press for more.
Why is Blackwater, with hundreds of millions to gain from its contracts, willing to endorse such a law?
I don't pretend to have a definitive answer--but maintain there are enough unanswered questions and indicators to where it should be cause for concern and opposition, and believe it shouldn't just be a handful of "extremists" raising that flag.
Post a Comment