Bolt action trunk gun... thoughts?

Devereaux wrote:I wore a regular under-the-scrubs vest like cops have for a year that I worked in Des Moines. There were some muslims there who had threatened to kill ED docs because one of their wives was a psycho and kept coming in complaining of abdominal pain. Since I am not allowed to carry in Iowa (at least at that time), I figured a vest was next best thing.

Ye gawds -- did the hospital provide any increased security or press charges?

No.... let me guess.

"Increased security"

Why, yes they did! They got an order of protection that said those dudes could not come within 50' of the hospital except for bona fide emergencies. How quaint!

It's why I wore the vest.

Nailed it!

Of course, you had all those surgical scalpels that could cut the irony off a 'Boma State of the Union speech, right?

Vests . . . now that is a very interesting idea.

I've mentioned here before that I got stuck in a parking garage in downtown Atlanta during a Rodney King riot. Couldn't move anywhere, just stay in the car and hope for the best. That was a very unnerving feeling I hope to never experience again.

I still go back and forth on what my trunk gun should be, though. High capacity semi-auto rifle makes a huge amount of sense. Currently I've got a beater Romanian AK that fills the role. It's got a Polish side-folding stock that is extremely stable, and a red dot, which allows very easy hits to 100 yards free standing.

However, from time to time I consider the fact that a red-dotted AK with a 30 round banana magazine is a very high profile weapon that I wouldn't want to be held in front of a jury at a trial.

I'm seriously considering switching back to a very handy and trusty Rossi 92 lever action in 357 magnum. Up until I've fired 9 shots, I don't see that I'd be losing much to an AK or AR in any scenario I'm likely to face.

A 23-year-old son of a Oklahoma homeowner responded when 3 masked intruders kick in the rear glass door. One was armed with a hunting knife, another with brass knuckles.

The son had an AR-15.

The 3 to 1 odds were reversed immediately.  

All three were shot in the kitchen. One managed to make it to the driveway before he too expired. Those rifle calibers do seem pretty effective.  

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/three-dead-after-broken-arrow-area-homeowner-s-son-shoots/article_64c15c80-0019-56d6-9322-c1b93c0ff5d0.html?mode=story

I love a happy ending.

Tennessee Jed wrote:I love a happy ending.

One of the problems with pistol ARs was the buffer tube/ stock. According to the ATF, if you shouldered the pistol brace inadvertently, you were in line for 10 years in the Bozo No No house, where the Feds would kick free a multiple murderer to make room for you. Now, right before the NRAAM, the ATF has reversed course once again; perhaps with the assistance of a Yuuuge foot (the timing was too cute.)

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/04/24/breaking-news-update-atf-reversal-letter-sb-tactical/

https://blog.princelaw.com/2017/04/25/brace-for-impact-atf-clarifies-its-illogical-position-on-users-shouldering-brace-equipped-pistols/

With that ATF opinion, a 300BLK Pistol becomes much more appealing. It is now the clear preference for a car/ truck/ home/ tight quarters gun.  

And -- sonsabritch -- Dev is proven prescient once again.

Read that sommairs. There are a number of "changes" at ATF that are occurring. Seems there is an attitude change going on.

It makes sense. The previous ruling made no sense that how you held a firearm magically changed what it was classified as. With the same logic, if I held my glock pistol with the handle on my shoulder, I would be turning it into an SBR. Makes no sense. Anyways, I am glad that they changed it. It was one of those unenforceable rules before--but everyone was scared to be the one to challenge it (rightfully so). We could use a little "change" around here after 8 years of Obama.

Never make the mistake of assuming the government is sensible. There is no requirement for it to be so, and generally it is not.

Devereaux wrote:Never make the mistake of assuming the government is sensible. There is no requirement for it to be so, and generally it is not.

Indeed!