After the storm…Recovering waterlogged guns and ammo.

With all the flooding in South East Texas, the first priority is to get your family to safety! Way down the list of priorities is recovering firearms. But there will be guns lost in the flood… So, what to do if your guns were submerged for any period of time? This is what I would do if I had the time…. (Note, this is just my general opinion, your mileage may vary)

Chances are, most guns will be ruined after a few days. But you can attempt to save them.

If possible…. Get them out of the the water. Get them broken down as far as you know how to break them down. This includes lifting the side plates off revolvers, removing grips, opening any part that can be opened. You tube is a great source to watch a video on how to strip a gun down to the frame. You might damage you gun by trying to take it apart the wrong way, but leaving it full of water will rust it out and eat the finish anyway. So may as well try to save it.

Dry them off (paper towels, hair dryer, bag of dry rice, whatever). Then, hit any visible surface rust with 0000 steel wool and a a few drops of oil. The super fine 0000 steel wool is still safe for polished blue and polished stainless, just use light pressure. Just enough pressure to get the rust. Then oil the hell out of it. Don’t reassemble right away. Keep an eye on it several days for any additional rust formation. If doing multiple guns, zip lock baggies are your friend for keeping parts organized. Don’t let screws and springs from multiple guns get mixed together…

Any wood stock should be removed and allowed to air dry for several days. They may warp or split, so don’t be shocked if it happens. But since they are like a sponge full of water, you have to keep them separate from the metal parts, or it will rust through them. All screws, sling swivels, butt plates/pads need to come off, and vet cleaned, dried, and oiled.

If you have a sight pusher and can remove pistol sights, get them off and clean underneath them, or rust can from in the dovetail. Scopes, red dot sights, and iron sight should also be removed and cleaned. Yes, aluminum rails and mounts won’t rust, but the screws are all steel and need to be taken out and cleaned/oiled. Pull off all the grips, let the wood dry out. Oil all the grip screws and bushings. Magazines should be unloaded cleaned inside and out. The water is full of silt and that silt is in the magazine body. Plastic and aluminum won’t rust, but that mag spring is steel, and it will rust if not cleaned and oiled.

Shotgun ammo will be gone if submerged any real length of time. But most modern factory ammo for rifle/pistol has a sealed primer, and should be fine if it sits in the water for a while. If it sits a few days? Then you may have some issues with some rounds. I would not use it as duty carry ammo, but it should still work for practice ammo. Any dud rounds will give you a chance to practice an immediate action drill. Just be wary of SQUIBS, and if you hear a pop instead of a bang… STOP and check the barrel for obstruction!

Chances are, a gun that just got wet for a few hours can be saved. But a gun sitting submerged a few days may be toast.
If you have any pics of flooded out guns, send us some before and after photos that we can share on our page. We would love to see the results. Hope this helps.

Academy Sports is buckling to political pressure, even though they had nothing to do with the Orlando terror attack.

They are removing from shelves and displays all “MSRs” (modern sporting rifles such as the AR), all MSR accessories, and any firearm the resembles a MSR (like a S&W M&P15-22). So they are removing mags, rails, and Magpul stocks form shelves as well. But they will still sell the MSRs on line and presumably in store. Soooo, they won’t display them or advertise them, but they will sell them. Hypocritical.

In response Daniel Defense is refusing to sell rifles or gear through Academy. By pulling this stunt, Academy is not helping the Second Amendment. The Turd in Orlando had Glock on him during the attack, as well as a Smith and Wesson .38 in his car… Yet the Glock and Revolvers remain on display at Academy Sports.

Consider that when spending your cash.

New Gun Bills introduced in Austin

Today is a big day for introducing gun legislation in Austin.  For Open Carry, five separate bills have been introduced to Texas law makers by Dan Flynn, James White, J. Strickland, Dan Huberty and Drew Springer.  Most versions of the bills would allow the open carry of a handgun for residents who are licensed to carry a weapon, but not on property the owner has forbidden the presence of weapons.

What about OTHER gun legislation being introduced?  OC is stealing the most headlines, but there are other bills pending…


HB176 – Only Texas laws apply

Author: T Kleinschmidt, R-Lexington

The bill would allow for punishment for those who enforce federal gun laws that infringe on Second Amendment rights, including taxes specific to gun purchases, the tracking of gun purchases or prohibitions on the ownership and transfer of handguns by law-abiding citizens.  Matt Krause and Craig Goldman have introduced similar legislation that would prohibit enforcement of federal gun laws


HB206 – Tax holiday for guns

Author: Jeff Leach, R-Plano

The bill would create a sales tax holiday for firearm and hunting supplies, “if the sale takes place during a period beginning at 12:01 a.m. on the Friday before the last full weekend in August and ending at 12 midnight on the following Sunday.”  Brandon Creighton also introduced a tax holiday bill in the Senate.


HB223 – Pop Tart gun bill

Author: Ryan Guillen, D- Rio Grande City

The bill would prohibit schools from punishing students who use their hands, playthings and, yes, even pastry items to mimic firearms. The proposed legislation also would protect students through the fifth grade who play with toy guns or draw or possess pictures of guns.


HB216 – Lowers the CHL age requirement

Author: James White, R-Hillister

The bill lowers  the age requirement for getting concealed handgun permits to 18 from 21.


HB278 – Open carry for attorneys

Author: Trent Ashby, R-Lufkin

The bill would allow the open carry of a handgun by a district attorney, assistant district attorney, county attorney, assistant county attorney or municipal attorney.


HB308 – Expands where a person with a CHL can carry a weapon

Author: Drew Springer, R-Muenster

According to the bill, the “premises” where CHL holders are not allowed to carry firearms would mean “a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area, or any portion of the building in which the activity prompting the prohibition is not then ongoing.”


HB353 – Allows open carry for volunteer emergency services personnel

Author: Ken King, R-Canadian

The bill would expand the abilities of volunteer emergency personal to openly carry firearms. “‘Volunteer emergency services personnel” includes a volunteer firefighter, an emergency medical services volunteer …, Health and Safety Code, and other individuals who, as a volunteer, provide services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations.”


HB421 – Texas made weapons

Author: Matt Krause, R-Fort Worth

The bill would exempt from federal commerce clause regulations any guns manufactured wholly within the state of Texas.


SB124 – Penalties for giving guns to criminals

Author: Royce West, D-Dallas

This is one of the few bills that would strengthen an existing gun law. The bill would increase penalties for one who knowingly gives or buys a firearm for someone intending to break the law from a misdemeanor to a third-degree felony.


SB229 – Penalizes illegal firearm seizure

Author: Brandon Creighton

The bill puts penalties on those who seize firearms in conflict with state laws. An official could face a Class A misdemeanor if “while acting under color of the person’s office or employment, intentionally or knowingly seizes a firearm as permitted or required by a federal statute, order, rule, or regulation that imposes a prohibition, restriction, or other regulation on firearms that does not exist under the laws of this state.”


(Note, I got this information from a couple of different articles in the Houston Chronicle.  I consolidated the info into one post, so I hope it is completely accurate.  Just wanted to cite the source.)

Let us know what you think.  Which one is your favorite?  Which is the worst?  What has the greatest chance of actually passing?  You tell us in the comments…


Addicting Info – Open Carry Texas Leader Does ‘Daily Show,’ Assures Members He Didn’t Say Anything Too ‘Extremist’

Addicting Info – Open Carry Texas Leader Does ‘Daily Show,’ Assures Members He Didn’t Say Anything Too ‘Extremist’.

What is he thinking?!? We have discussed CJ Grisham and Open Carry Texas (OCT) on the show more than once. CJ’s intentions seem to be honest and supportive of OC, but his actions and comments unusually cause more problems than they solve.

Well, here he goes again. He agreed to appear on the Daily Show with John Stewart… Let that sink in a bit. John Stewart is very anti gun, and the Daily Show in notorious for editing an interview to make the subject look like an idiot. It does not matter how well CJ prepared, or how well he answered, it will be edited out of context. Period.

CJ claims he recorded the whole interview himself to prevent any misunderstanding. So what? The damage will be done, the Daily Show version will be shared across the net, and the only folks who will see the unedited version will be OCT supporters who already side with CJ. The anti gunners will plaster the edited version everywhere and millions of undecided or moderate 20 year olds will get the message that OC is a fringe freak movement. Damage done.

We as 2nd amendment proponents need to get our message out to the media. We need a broader audience. But we don’t need to stick our foot in a bear trap on purpose like CJ is doing. It is the same thing as when Jeremy Alcede went on Piers Morgan, or when Tex Grebner went on Tosh.0 a few months back. Both were edited to look like buffoons. You can bet money that will happen again…


Drones, Airspace, and the Law

So, we talked drones and privacy last week in a post and on the podcast. A NJ man used a shotgun to shoot down a privately owned drone that was hovering and taking photos of a new house that was under construction. The shooter was promptly arrested and his shotgun seized.

Needless to say, we a GOTR do not recommend shooting up into the air if you see something hovering over your yard. Deadly force should be reserved for deadly threats. Having your picture taken is not a “deadly threat” to you or your family.

The question did arise as to what are your legal rights to the airspace above your property. Well, SCOTUS laid that out in Unites States vs Causby 1946. Causby was suing the government for building a airstrip near his property, and noted his farm is in the glide path of landing planes. He said that pales flying over constituted the unlawful seizure of his property.

Causby cited an old Latin common law phrase, “Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos” (Latin for ‘whoever owns [the] soil, [it] is theirs all the way [up] to Heaven and [down] to Hell’), as a principle of property law, stating that property holders have rights not only to the plot of land itself, but also to the air above and (in the broader formulation) the ground below.

But, in 1946, SCOTUS issued a decision that “us est usque ad coelum et ad inferos” has no legal authority in the United States when pertaining to the sky. A man does not have control and ownership over the airspace of their property except within reasonable limits to utilize their property. Airspace above a set minimum height is property of the Masses and no one man can accuse airplanes or other such craft within of trespassing on what they own.

Now, it was still not a total loss for Causby. Per Wiki:
The court noted in his specific case that Congress defined the “navigable airspace” in the public domain, as that above the “minimum safe altitude” which varies from 500 to 1000 feet depending on time of day, aircraft, and type of terrain. Since the aircraft passing over Causby’s property were at 83 feet, the court determined the flight path was an easement, a form of property right. Because the government had taken the easement through private property, Causby was owed compensation under the Takings Clause.

The court’s decision, authored by Justice William O. Douglas, could have resolved the case on a narrow ground by simply holding that there was a taking of land because the government’s flights affected the land. Justice Douglas did reach that conclusion, but then he went much further and opined on what airspace landowners do and do not own. He wrote that “if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run” . . . Thus, a landowner “owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land,” and invasions of that airspace “are in the same category as invasions of the surface.”[1]

In the case of a drone flight, we do not have a SCOTUS opinion yet.

Since private drones typically fly below 500 ft, one could argue an intrusion… But that argument stands a better chance in court if you are not shooting up in the air. Remember, just because can, does not always mean you should.

We present this as a mere suggestion. A bit of case law that has come before. You have to make your own decision, and understand that the decision could have very negative consequences…

Stay safe.