W.W. Pitman & His Against The Odds Shot

Marshal W.W. Pitman with the bandit's gun

Walter W. Pitman earned his place in gunfighter lore when he fired an against all odds shot. And yes, from what I can tell, it's the only such shot to ever take place in the history of the Old West.

Granted there was another time that an against all odds shot took place in a gunfight. That took place on February 8th, 1887, when at about 8:00pm known gunfighter Jim Courtright called known gambler and gunman Luke Short out of the White Elephant Saloon to meet.

Luke Short was a gambler and friends with the likes of Bat and Jim Masterson the Earps, who were also friends with Marshal Jim Courtright. Short managed the White Elephant Saloon in Fort Worth. Courtright was running a protection racket there at the time.

Like John Wesley Hardin, Jim Courtright had developed a reputation as being fast and accurate with a gun. He needed to make an example of Short who refused to pay. And yes, Short had a sizable reputation as a gunfighter. His reputation was mostly because of a 1881 gunfight with a gunslinger named Charlie Storms at the Oriental Saloon in Tombstone, Arizona. And no, Courtright and Short did not get along.

So when Jim Courtright called Luke Short out of the White Elephant, Short put on his flowered vest and top hat, and made sure his six gun was in his hip pocket before he stepped outside into the street. Once out there, both men walked up the street for about a block until they were in front of Ella Blackwell's Shooting Gallery. No, it wasn't a "shooting gallery". It was a the bar and brothel. 

According to reports, the two spoke while walking, but then the two men faced one another as angry words came from Courtright who had been drinking a lot. It was then that he made some indication about Short having a gun, but Short assured Courtright he was not armed. Although he was of course, Short lied to see where it would lead. 

At that point Short moved slowly toward Courtright saying that he could have a look for himself. Then Short pulled open his vest to display his not wearing a gun. And really, who knows if Jim Courtright felt embolden by the sight of an unarmed Luke Short, but witnesses stated that Courtright got louder in an attempt to intimidate Short.  

It is said that as Short dropped his hands to re-adjust his vest, right then and probably for the sake of bystanders to apparently give the impression of being justified in killing Short in self-defense, Courtright loudly yelled "Don't you pull a gun on me!" 

With that, thinking Luke Short was not armed, Jim Courtright drew his pistol. But according to reports, it hung up for just a second on his watch-chain. And in that split second, Luke Short pulled his pistol from his hip pocket and fired first.

Yes, that shot was one of the luckiest shots in Old West history. Short's bullet struck Courtright's right thumb as he was thumbing backing the hammer of his pistol. And yes, his thumb was tore off!

It was gone, and that meant Short had rendered him incapable of firing his single-action revolver with that hand. Please remember that Courtright had a single-action pistol, and subsequently he needed his thumb to cock the hammer back before firing each shot.

Knowing he couldn't do so, Courtright tried to switch his pistol to his left hand. But before he could get off a shot, Short fired what was said to be at least four more shots in quick succession. Yes, at point blank range until his gun was empty.

Jim Courtright is said to have then fell backward. The infamous long haired gunfighter and former lawman hit the ground like a bag of grain. Some say Courtright was dead before he hit the ground. Others say he lingered a while. Either way, Short was still alive because of a lucky shot that tore Courtright's thumb off.

Now compare Luke Short's shot that tore off Jim Courtright's thumbs to what happened to Wharton City Precint 1 Constable Walter W. Pitman, and you may think that it's pretty much a toss for who as had the against all odds shot. 

Born January 14th, 1884, west of Muldoon in Fayette County, Texas, Walter W. Pitman was raised to be a farmer and certainly not a gunfighter. And no, in fact, he really wasn't ever a gunfighter. 

Fact is, it's said he worked on his family’s farm until he got married in 1904. Then six years later, Pitman, his wife and two children moved to Wharton, Texas.

And as people do during hard times back in the day, he tried to make a living at whatever job he could find. Some say he was a salesman, but that didn't last very long so he returned to farming in 1912. Times were still hard, so in 1916 he ran for the position of Precinct 1 Constable. That was a precinct that included the county seat. And low and behold, Pitman won the election.

Immediately, Walter Pitman, known as "W.W.," cuts a deal with the sheriff to live for free in the jail in exchange for helping him run it. His family is on the farm, so to keep him in town the sheriff agrees if he also patrols Wharton at night.

Well, on the evening of September 15th, 1917, a local outlaw Francisco Lopez got drunk and started shooting up the town. It was Pitman’s job to confront him and that's when things went sour.

Pitman found the drunk Lopez on Main Street, so the constable simply walked up to the outlaw and told him he was under arrest. He then told him to come along peacefully. 

Now very angry, Lopez told Pitman that he wasn’t "Under anything!" And then, Lopez went for his gun. 

Lopez was carrying a .38 caliber Colt single-action pistol. Pitman was carrying a .45 Colt single-action. And yes, it's said that Pitman was slow as molasses that night. In fact, he was so slow that Lopez looked like greased lightning as he fired off two rounds at Pitman. Not too surprisingly coming from a drunk, both of the two shots from Lopez missed Pitman. 

Then Pitman fired at the exact same time as when Lopez fired his third shot. Yes, that's when Lopez screamed and dropped his weapon. Against all odds, Pitman’s bullet had struck the outlaw's pistol.  

Pitman would later describe his experience as a constable and what took place that night when he wrote:

"I undertook to arrest one Francisco Lopez, a drunken Mexican and as I approached him he jumped from the sidewalk into the street and opened fire on me with a little 38 Cal. revolver and I returned the fire as quickly as I could, pull my single action 45 Colt my first shot being immediately after his 2nd and as luck would have it my first shot put his gun out of commission ½ of my bullet entering his cylinder and the other ½ hitting him in his left hand as it split and glanced off. 

My second shot went through his right shoulder and the rest went wild just as the Mexican did. This all happened within 30 yards of the jail door and my wife hearing the shooting made a rush to the jail door with another 45 and my shot gun, an old reliable double barrel loaded with buck shot.

The hombre ran to within 20 yards of the jail door and hid behind a fence corner and when I got the guns from my wife I made a run in the direction of where I last saw him and the first flash of my lite hit him my [wife] followed there he is as She followed I raised the shotgun and then is when she really screamed “don’t shoot him”, and that scream from her is all that kept me from being tried for murder. 

I approached him with both barrels cocked in his center and taken the pistol) , or made him hand it to me handle first, then took him into the jail and locked the door behind and the people from all parts of town came rushing into the jail yard. But the Mexican was already safe behind jail bars. Waiting for a doctor to come treat his wounds which soon got ok. Then he was carried before the county Judge who fined him $200.00 and one year in jail for carrying a pistol later he was tried in District Court for assault to murder, during which trial his large family of small children occupied the front seats in front of the Judges bench. The jury brought in a verdict of 5 years suspended sentence, the sentence being suspended through sympathy for the children."

With a muzzle velocity of roughly 900 feet per second, the big .45 bullet from Pitman's handgun hit the barrel of the assailant’s revolver. Half of the slug entered the chamber holding what would have been the bad guy's third shot. The other half of the slug tore into Lopez's hand which forced him to drop his gun.

It is said that against all odds, Pitman's .45 bullet struck the .38 that Lopez was holding. And yes, it is believed that half of that lead slug had gone up the barrel of the outlaw's gun smashing into Lopez's next round. There is a bulge in the barrel where the bullets had collided with the other.

He was Wharton City Constable from 1916 to 1920, and Wharton City Marshal from 1920 to 1935. In the 1930s, Pitman read that Ripley’s Believe It or Not had a national contest under way to uncover astonishing facts for use in its syndicated newspaper column. So yes, the marshal wrote the story of his 1917 shootout and sent it to Ripley.
Pittman wrote:

"My first shot hit his pistol barrel on the left hand side about one inch in front of the cylinder and glanced up into his cylinder. It came in contact with a loaded cartridge and the two bullets are now stuck in the cylinder. I have the pistol in my possession and will never remove the two bullets as long as I live."

Six weeks after sending it in, Pitman is called to tell him that out of some 5 million entries he had won first prize in Ripley’s contest. He won an all-expense-paid trip for two to New York and then Cuba.

Pitman took the soon-to-be-famous pistol to the Houston Post for verification. Then on June 23rd, 1932, newspapers across the nation told the story of Pitman’s incredible shot. It is said that in the depths of the Great Depression, Pitman and his wife left for Cuba on a two-week vacation of a lifetime. Vacations were of course something that was basically unheard of for regular people in those days. People at the time were out of work and to busy trying to put food on their table, vacations were something for the wealthy.

Later that same summer, Pitman and another Wharton officer had a confrontation with none other than the famous Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow. That took place when the two officers tried to stop their car, a stolen car, when someone inside the car opened fire as the driver did a speedy U-turn and escaped. Fortunate for them, neither officer was hit.

On November 9th, 1935, he suffered a massive heart attack at the age of 51. His family buried him in the Wharton cemetery two days later.

As for the famous pistol, the jammed pistol remains in the holdings of Ripley’s Believe It or Not. Yes, the .38 caliber pistol that belong to Lopez is on display in one of Ripley’s Odditoriums.

So there you have it, two of the most implausible shots in the Old West. One during the hey day of the Old West, and the other at the end of that period. And yes, since both shots kept their shooters alive, they certainly do have a lot in common.  

At least that's how I see it.

Tom Correa

Adolphus Busch -- History vs 2017 Budweiser Super Bowl Commercial

Dear Friends,

This post is "History vs. The Budweiser 2017 Super Bowl Commercial."

So, let's get to it. For me, I love the Budweiser ads with their famous Clydesdale horses. And yes, I look forward to what Bud can come up with. It's always something to look forward to at each Super Bowl. This Super Bowl, I gather we won't be seeing any Clydesdales.

This year, maybe because the parent corporation of Bud is located where the European Union resides, Budweiser has decided make a statement regarding immigration and illegal alien policies here in the United States. They are doing so by running an ad about one of the founders of the American version of Budweiser.

First, to answer why I say, "here in the United States." 

That is because the company we know as Anheuser-Busch, aka Budweiser, is actually a foreign company owned by a Belgian/Brazilian multi-national corporation known as Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV. It's global headquarters is in Leuven, Belgium. 

Yes, it's the same foreign multi-national corporation that now owns Miller, Foster's, and Labatt Brewing Companies, among others. So no, our Budweiser and Miller are no longer domestically owned beers. 

Second, the reason that I say, "the American version of Budweiser." 

Anheuser–Busch has been involved in a trademark dispute with a beer company known as Budweiser Budvar Brewery in the Czech Republic since 1907. Yes, all over the trademark rights to the name "Budweiser".

In the European Union, excluding Ireland, Finland and Spain, as you can see in the above image, the American Budweiser beer is marketed as "Bud" because the "Budweiser" trademark name is solely owned by Budweiser Budvar of the Czech Republic.

So why is the name "Budweiser" so important you ask? 

Budweiser beer has been brewed in the city of "Ceske Budejovice," which in German means "Budweis," since it was founded by King Ottokar II of Bohemia in 1245. The name "Budweiser" supposedly means "of Budweis". 

Budweiser Budvar has been brewing beer in accordance with the 1516 Reinheitsgebot law, using water, barley and hops. Budweiser Bier Bürgerbräu was founded in 1795 by German-speaking citizens of Budweis. It's slogan as the "Beer of Kings" sounds so familiar.

Budweiser Bier Bürgerbräu actually began exporting beer under the "Budweiser Bier" name to the United States in 1875. Yes, a year before Carl Conrad developed a "Bohemian-style" lager that he called "Budweiser" in 1876.

So now I'm sure you're asking, "Where does Tom come up with this stuff, and who the Hell is Carl Conrad?" 

Well, he was the creator of the American version of Budweiser that we know today. And no, he wasn't a beer maker! 

Carl W. Conrad was born on April 1st, 1843, and died on October 26th, 1922. Among beer historians, Conrad is believed to be the person who created the name "Budweiser" which would later belong to Anheuser-Busch. 

Conrad marketed the beer we know as "Budweiser" which later became the property of Anheuser-Busch.

According to research, Conrad was a friend of the wealthy Busch family of Germany. He's credited with helping to develop the recipe for Budweiser beer. The brand name was first registered in the U.S. by Conrad, an importer of wines, champagnes & liquors. 

The Anheuser Brewery produced the brand for him under contract. C. Conrad & Company. Conrad is said to have had offices in Germany and in St. Louis, Missouri. 

Ever wonder about Anheuser of Anheuser-Busch fame? 

Well, his story has everything to do with the huge German migration to St. Louis Missouri in the early 1800s. and how one person's failure can be another's gain.

Eberhard Anheuser was born on September 27th, 1806 and died on May 2nd, 1880. For Anheuser, his involvement in brewing beer all started in 1852 when fellow German American George Schneider, who was a brewer and saloon operator, opened the Bavarian Brewery Company in South St. Louis. 

Schneider hit paydirt and even expanded it just four years later in 1856 to include a new brewhouse nearby. But the following years were different as Schneider was forced to sell the brewery, all while on the brink of bankruptcy. 

In 1860, Schneider's Bavarian Brewery was purchased by William D'Oench, a local pharmacist, and Eberhard Anheuser, a prosperous German-born soap manufacturer. Yes, Eberhard Anheuser was a German American soap and candle maker.

Anheuser was a soap manufacturer that lent money to the Bavarian Brewery. When the small brewery went bankrupt, Anheuser bought out the other creditors and renamed the company Anheuser. 

It is said that D'Oench was a silent partner in the Bavarian Brewery until 1869. That's when he sold out his half-interest in the company. I'll tell you who he sold it to in a minute. 

From 1860 to 1875, the Bavarian Brewery was renamed to E. Anheuser & Co.. Then from 1875 to 1879, it was renamed again as E. Anheuser Company's Brewing Association. Remember, they were still supplying beer to Carl Conrad's Budweiser beer company at that time. 

So what about Adolphus Busch, the young man who is the center of the you ask?

Adolphus Busch was born on July 10th, 1839, and died on October 10th, 1913. And as stated earlier, Adolphus Busch came from a very wealthy German family. And while it was a very wealthy family, it was also a very large family. So large that Adolphus was the twenty-first of twenty-two children. 

His wealthy family was known for running a wholesale business of winery and brewery supplies. Adolphus Busch and his brothers all were said to have received quality educations, and he graduated from the notable Collegiate Institute of Belgium in Brussels.

In 1857, at the age of 18, with three of his older brothers, Adolphus emigrated to St. Louis, Missouri. And no, they did not arrive in St. Louis by accident. 

In the mid-1880s, St. Louis, Missouri was of the number one destination for German immigrants. Immigrants from Ireland and Germany arrived in St. Louis in huge numbers starting back in the 1840s. 

The population of St. Louis grew from less than 20,000 in 1840, to 77,860 in 1850. And by 1860, to more than 160,000. It is said that by the mid-1800s, St. Louis had a bigger population than New Orleans. And because St. Louis was the new home to thousands of German and Irish immigrants, the market for beer in St. Louis was huge. 

Besides that, the city also had two natural resources essential for manufacturing and storing beer before refrigeration. The Mississippi River provided more than enough of the needed water supply to make beer, while the city itself had many underground caves that were used to keep beer cool. 

While everyone knows about Adolphus Busch through Anheuser-Busch Brewing fame, his older brother Johann established a brewery in Washington, Missouri. And yes, his other older brother Ulrich, Jr, married a daughter of Eberhard Anheuser in St. Louis and settled in Chicago. The third older brother who he came with was Anton, and he was a hops dealer but later returned to Germany.

Unlike his older brothers who were all in the beer brewery business in some way, Adolphus Busch's first job in St. Louis was working as a clerk in the commission house. Yes, as a city employee.

He then became an employee at William Hainrichshofen's wholesale company. Then he enlisted in the Union Army during the Civil War and served for six months. During this period, he learned that his father had died and he had inherited a portion of the estate. 

With his inheritance Adolphus Busch partnered with Ernst Battenberg in St. Louis to found the first of his businesses, a brewing supply company that sold to the three dozen breweries in St. Louis. Eberhard Anheuser was one of Adolphus' customers. 

Adolphus married Eberhard Anheuser's daughter, Lilly in 1861. He then entered his wife's family's brewery business. And yes, with the money from his inheritance and his business with Battenberg, Adolphus Busch bought out Eberhard's partner, William D'Oench. 

That's how the E. Anheuser Company's Brewing Association became Anheuser-Busch in 1879. Then in 1880, at the death of Eberhard Anheuser, Adolphus Busch became president and instantly wealthy.

So contrary to what Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV tells us in their commercial, Adolphus Busch did not not come to an unfriendly America to get beat up and told to go back to where he came from. 

While the end of their video says, "When nothing stops your dream, this is the beer we drink," this is a sorry re-write of a story of a young man who came here already with a lot going for himself. In fact, I'd say a tremendous amount more than most coming here.

The U.S. kept a lot of people out for various reasons during the 1800s. Most to have been affected were the Chinese and Catholics. To my knowledge, there wasn't any sort of anti-German protests at the time coming off the boat. 

Remember, Busch did not go through Ellis Island as an immigrant. Fact is, he had already been to the United States on a previous trip. In 1857, when he decided to live here, that was his second trip here. 

After he left the first time, he loved it so much that he wanted to come back. He arrived here a wholesaler from a wealthy family. He immigrated to St. Louis from Germany in 1857 into an already heavily German population here. He came with three brothers and not alone as the commercial tries to depict. And yes, he married Eberhard Anheuser's daughter, Lilly, in 1861. 

Then, following his service in the Union Army as a clerk, Busch began working as a salesman for his father-in-law at the Anheuser brewery. With his inheritance, he purchased 50% of the shares of the company in 1869. All by the age of 30.

Once he becomes half-owner, he assumes the role of company secretary. Then 11 years later at the age of 41, when his father-in-law dies in 1880, he then becomes president and even more wealthy. No, that's nothing like the commercial at all. And frankly, they should have incorporated some truth in their commercial. 

Now for those of you who are wondering when did Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association actually acquire Carl Conrad’s company and the brand name "Budweiser"? It was in 1883. Although, it should be noted that Conrad did not actually sign over the trademark name of "Budweiser" to Anheuser-Busch until 1891.

Carl Conrad declared bankruptcy in January of 1883. And yes, that was when Anheuser-Busch Brewing "acquired rights to bottle and sell Budweiser".

To pay off Conrad's debts to the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association, the brewery assumed control of Conrad’s company and the brand name "Budweiser."

Adolphus Busch, who was running the company by then, accepted the Budweiser trademark as payment of the debt. It is said that Conrad was given a lifetime job with Anheuser-Busch in sales. 

By the 1880s, Carl Conrad’s Budweiser label was looking a lot like the Anheuser-Busch label it would become. And yes, the "CCCo" insignia and the name "C. Conrad & Co." remained in the center of their paper label until around 1920.

The label above shows the "AB" in the center. As you can see, it looked a great deal like Conrad's design.

Tom Correa

Are Democrats Trying To Assassinate Trump?

Dear Friends,

There is a reason that I don't trust anything that comes out of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC news organizations. It is the same reason that I don't trust a Liberal bigot to tell me something about Dr. Ben Carson. Their prejudice against the good doctor means that I can't trust anything coming out of their mouth.

The same goes for the prejudice, the hostility and the absolute hate coming from those same Liberal news organizations toward Donald Trump. It's an "in-your-face hatred" that's way above simply "not liking" our new president. And that's putting it mildly.

I really don't have to go into what commentators like Chris Matthews and the other ultra-Left on those mainstream media news stations have said about him. They are not even clever enough to hide their loathing of Donald Trump. The venom is incessant and they are really very open about it. And frankly, that really surprises me. I really would think they wouldn't want their hate for Trump to be so obvious. But friends, it really is.

Of course their openness about their hatred for Trump serves the purpose of my knowing absolutely unequivocally where they stand. They despise him in a way that leaves no doubt that they hate him. Call it revulsion, disgust, contempt, or whatever else you want, fact is they hate Trump in the same way that the Ku Klux Klan hates black-Americans. Yes, in the exact same way Black Lives Matters hates white-Americans.

Yes indeed, the Liberal mainstream media's openness about their deep seated hatred for our new president goes to my first point in this blog post: Liberal news organizations truly make no secret about their animosity and out and out hatred for President Trump. And that, well that goes to the heart of why I avoid those news organizations.

Friends, besides not being dishonest about their ill "feelings" toward Trump, they're also not very stealthy, covert, or simply sly about it either. No, they hate Donald J. Trump deeply and they are very public about it. They're very open about it.

Their hostility, animosity, antipathy, toward Trump certainly means that their news will be presented in ways that are biased against him. That's why Liberal news organizations should not be trusted.

They are prejudice against Trump and Conservatives in general. They don't have any idea what impartiality means as they demonstrate their partisanship, favoritism, and unfairness. I believe they knowingly to that while skewing reports to inflame the passions, the bigotry, the intolerance, of their fellow Liberals.

The Liberal media has an attitude of hate for Trump and Conservatives, and they're not afraid to show it. Their prejudice and one-sidedness, the way they color their stories, and way they attempt to sway their followers, the way they distort and slant issues to foster hate.

They are really out in the open about it. You don't need a poll to tell your what you can see for yourself. These people have hate speech about Trump and Conservatives all the time. That's just who I see them to be. They hate anything and anyone that goes against their beloved Democrat Party and Liberal ideology.

One can't help but see it. Liberal hate is out in the open and people see it for what it is.

To say they detest Trump would be an under-statement. They hate him deeply, so deeply that one has to wonder if it's something personal. I hope it's not, but one has to wonder simply because it's such an intense hate that it reminds me of my hatred for child molesters, rapists, baby killers, and those who attack the weak and defenseless.

It's the same sort of hate that I feel for anyone, and yes I know one person right now, who has threatened my family members. Friends, granted this is all just my opinion but that's what I see coming from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and a few people on FOX News.

On November 15th, of last year, just a few days after the election, a post-election Media Research Center poll showed that 78 percent of the voters said that the media coverage during the 2016 Presidential Election was biased. And 59 percent said, the press favored Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. 

While 97 percent said they did not allow any of the bias from the media to impact their vote, 69 percent of voters said the media is not honest and truthful. While I thought the figures would be much higher, I totally agree that the mainstream media is not honest or truthful.

So is their hatred for Trump the same as my hatred for the Obama administration? 

No, it's not the same because I didn't hate President Obama personally. In contrast, the Liberal media apparently hates President Trump personally.

But, while I didn't hate Obama personally, I grew to hate his ineptness in office. And I certainly grew to hate his policies. His policies stunk! He proved himself to be incompetent and a joke to the world. And yes, I hated that. I disliked him on a level of not liking the actions of a bureaucrat or an administrator, I saw his horseshit conduct in office as someone who was just incompetent and uncaring. I saw him as not putting America first. Frankly, I couldn't understand why a president wouldn't put the concerns of our nation first.

So as for hating what he was doing to our nation, yes I admit to hating his actions. I didn't like the constant flow of regulations which he was putting into place on a daily basis. He was strangling our economic productivity, our industry, our ability to provide for our families, our ability to grow food without restrictions, or provide energy for our nation, or properly educate and not indoctrinate our children in schools. I hated the fact that he would not control entry into our nation for the sake of security.

I hated Obama's actions. He implemented policies to benefit his wealthy donors, benefit his voters, benefit the United Nations, and all was being applauded by our enemies and our economic rivals. Yes, all while dividing our nation as never before.

In many of the posts that I wrote taking him to task for his lousy policies, I always stressed why I hated his policies and how I wanted his Socialist policies to fail. I stressed how our nation's principles do not jell with socialist principles. Freedom and Socialism are polar opposites.

I wanted his policies to fail and he leave office in disgrace. I got my wish on January 20th, when he left knowing that he attempt to turn our nation into something that it is not has failed miserably.

His accomplishments, the Obama legacy, is that he added $10 Trillion to our debt with absolutely NOTHING to show for it. In our entire history prior to Obama, through 43 presidents, we accumulated a debt of a little less than $10 Trillion.

What did we have to show for almost $10 Trillion of debt before Obama? 

Well, to name a few things that our nation spent money on, we had a Revolution and the War of 1812 where we had to rebuild Washington D.C. after it was burned to the ground by the British; we had the Louisiana Purchase; two Industrial Revolutions; we had the cost of a War with Mexico and later the Civil War; the cost of the Indian wars in the Old West and our involvements overseas which people really don't hear about; we bought the state of Alaska; we fought and paid for two World Wars as well as other wars such as Vietnam and other recent wars; we've built dams and railroads, and we built the greatest highway system on earth; and yes, among other things, we sent men to the moon. Friends, that's just a small example of why we went into debt prior to President Obama.

So what did Americans get for the almost $10 Trillion of debt under Obama?

New roads, bridges, highways? No. We got nothing for it. Really, nothing. He used the money to create ObamaCare which forces Americans to use it or be fined; he armed Iran and ISIS; he helped build Muslim Mosques in Europe and Africa and Indonesia; he spend a $100 Million on his vacations around the world; he gave over $200 Million to the Palestinians just before leaving office, but seniors on Social Security and disabled veterans did not get a raise in 8 years; he implement more and more regulations, all the while increasing the size of our government bureaucracy; and yes, he made his environmentalist friends rich. Other than that, we have nothing to show for the almost $10 Trillion which Obama spent while in office. .

Did I want Obama's policies to fail? You damn right I did! Did I want his actions to stop? Absolutely! 

But while I wanted his policies to fail, I've always stressed how I hoped and prayed that he would not be harmed, that his family would not be harmed or attacked, that he would complete his term in office. I did not see violence as the answer to what Obama was doing in office. I knew that if something happened to him that a wave of his stalled legislation would pass and we would suffer for his being killed.

And I guess, that's part of what I see going on with the Liberal mainstream media today. Unlike how Conservatives felt about Obama, Liberals hate Trump before he has even started his term in office.

My friends, I truly believe that the hate coming out of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC has inspired others to assassinate Donald Trump. Yes, I believe that the Left is already coaxing their followers to actually kill President Donald J. Trump right now.

Granted that this is just my opinion, but I see a segment of our population attempting to persuade their followers to assassinate a sitting president.

Of course, while the Liberal media hated George W. Bush viscerally. Yes, deep seated and emotionally without justification or cause. And while there were protests signs calling for the assassination of George W. Bush, I don't remember any network such as those which I've mentioned actually trying to manipulate the emotions of their followers to get someone to kill Bush like they are doing right now against Donald Trump.

Has the Liberal mainstream media been trying to demonize Donald Trump? Fact is the Democrat controlled mainstream media painted a target on Trump's back more than a year ago when they started comparing him to Adolf Hitler.

They give commentary, their opinions, which have consisted of constantly calling Trump "Hitler" and describing him as an evil that must be stopped by any way possible. Even on the day of his inauguration, Christ Matthews called his speech "Hitlerian."

And yes, they have spread FAKE NEWS to discredit him, brought fourth women to make unsubstantiated accusations only to find out that those women worked for the Clintons, and have over and over again made incendiary false claims to incite someone to try to kill Trump. I believe that that's the goal of Democrats.

Since they could not beat him in the election, I believe that they now want to resort to assassination as a way to eliminate him. They see this as a way to stop his efforts to make our nation great again.

Are Democrats trying to manipulate their followers so that one will assassinate President Trump? I believe they are. And friends, right or wrong, that's what I see them doing. That's what I see as their intent.

Democrats know that they can influence the thinking of their followers. They know that many of their followers don't think for themselves. They know their people run on emotion and not logic or intelligence. The rioting, the burning of cars, the looting, the vandalism all proves that they are an emotional group

Liberals are indoctrinated to believe that a weak mind is too easy to manipulate. They understand the old Communist tactic of repeating lies over and over again until people believe them. And really, all it takes is one to believe the FAKE NEWS, the lies, coming out of the Liberal media. If they can manipulate just one, then the Liberals in the mainstream media will get what they want.

Don't think it only takes one? 

Remember the gay Democrat man who accosted and harassed Ivanka Trump who was with her children on a Jet Blue flight. Because she did not have security with her, it was fortunate for her that that out of control Liberal didn't physically attack her or her children.

And how about this from June of last year when a 20 year old British man attempted to assassinate Donald Trump at a Las Vegas campaign rally. 

According to the official criminal complaint, Michael Steven Sandford, a Brit who entered the United States illegally, overstayed his Visa, and had "knowingly attempted to engage in an act of physical violence against Donald J. Trump in the Mystery Theatre in the Treasure Island Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada, a building where Donald J. Trump was receiving protection from the U.S. Secret Service."

The Associated Press reported at the time: 

A British man arrested at a weekend Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas tried to grab a police officer’s gun so he could kill the presidential candidate after planning an assassination for about a year, according to authorities.

U.S. Secret Service agents said Michael Steven Sandford approached a Las Vegas police officer at the campaign stop to say he wanted Trump’s autograph, but that he then tried to take the weapon.

The criminal complaint said Sandford was arrested after grabbing the handle of an officer’s gun while trying to remove it from a holster.

Sanford told authorities that he went to the Battlefield Vegas shooting range the day before the rally and fired 20 rounds from a 9mm Glock pistol to learn how to use it. Police detectives who visited the range spoke with an employee who confirmed that he provided Sandford shooting lessons, according to the complaint signed by Secret Service Special Agent Joseph Hall.

Wonder what made him do such a thing?

Wonder what made him decide to come to America and try to kill Donald Trump? I believe it's a safe bet to believe that it was the constant hate speech coming out of the Liberal media being directed at Donald Trump.

I believe if another assassination is attempted on now President Trump, I will certainly blame the Liberal media for their complicity in that murder. Of course later when questioned about their lack of ethics, their yellow journalism, about the fact that they may have had a hand in what was done? I can see them say they have the right to their venomous speech because of the First Amendment and their right to Free Speech.

Most likely they will conveniently not remember that no one has the right to incite a panic or attempt to create injury upon another by yelling "Fire" in a theater. Yes, just the same as no one has the right to vandalize and loot and set fires in the name of free speech. Fact is even free speech has it's limits.

So do I think the Liberal media will tone it down? I certainly don't see that happening!

I've never made a secret that I'm a Conservative who supports President Trump. I pray for his safety and security. I really believe there are Democrats who want to see him assassinated.

Because I believe that to be the case, my hope and prayer for the future is that President Trump has enough security to stop Liberals from getting what they want. Yes indeed, while I truly believe that Democrat want to see him killed, I will continue to pray for President Trump's safety and security. I will hope and pray that Democrats are not successful in getting what they want.
And yes, that's just the way I see things.

Tom Correa

Obama Is No Longer The President

One cold day in late January, 2017, an old Veteran approaches the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue where he’d been sitting on a park bench.

He speaks to a U.S. Marine standing guard and says, "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama."

The Marine looks at the old Veteran and says, "Sir, Mr. Obama is no longer President and no longer resides here. President Donald Trump is now the President and the occupant of the White House."

The old man says, "Okay, thanks" and walks away.

The following day the same old Veteran approaches the White House and says to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama."

The Marine again tells the old Veteran, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Obama is no longer President and no longer resides here. President Donald Trump is now our President and the occupant of the White House."

The man thanks him and again just walks away.

The third day the same old Veteran approaches the White House and speaks to the very same U.S. Marine, saying, "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama."

The young Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looks at the old Veteran and says, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Obama. I've told you already that Mr. Obama is no longer the President and no longer resides here. Donald Trump is now our President. President Trump is now the occupant of the White House. Don't you understand?"

The old Veteran looks at the Marine, smiles and says, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."

The Marine snaps to attention, salutes, smiles and says, "See you tomorrow Sir!"

We Are Not A Socialist Democracy

By Terry McGahey

Associate Writer / Historian

In the past several years I have heard many statements made by the progressive left and others such as some of the Bernie Sanders followers, referring to our country's political system as a "socialist democracy". This is simply not true!

Even though we may have some socialist programs, such as welfare and others, we are not a socialist run country. Our political system is a republic, not a democracy, and surely not a socialist system.

Even though a republic and a democracy system are very much alike, there is one major difference between those two and the socialist system of government. In a republic or democracy system, there are laws which limit the governments power, in contrast in the socialist system there are no laws prohibiting such.

In other words, the socialist system of government is the law and this puts that system only one small step away from becoming a communist system of government.

As Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU and self proclaimed communist had stated in 1920, "the end goal of socialism is communism."

It's my opinion that socialism and democracy, by the very interpretation of the two are like apples and oranges and the two do not mix, period! Sooner or later one has to overtake the other.

The social democracy ideals began as an ideology that advocated an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using political processes in contrast to the revolutionary approach to transition associated with Orthodox Marxism.

In Western Europe, they rejected this Stalinist model by not committing to either and took an alternate path to socialism or to a compromise between capitalism and socialism. Countries which refer to themselves as "social democracies" are, Bangladesh, India, North Korea, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania.

Below are the rates of poverty within those countries as opposed to the United States:

1. Bangladesh has a rate of poverty at 32 percent.
2. India's rate is 29.5 percent.
3. North Korea rate of poverty is at half of their 24 million people or approximately 50 percent.
4. Sri Lanka's rate is at 23 percent.
5. Tanzania has a rate of 33.3 percent.

The poverty rate here in the United States of America stands at 14.8 percent so why anyone would want to live under a socialist democracy is beyond me. The numbers don't lie. And as we crawl out of the major recession, which we have been mired in for the past many years. the poverty rate here in the United States will drop even further. The difference is the countries listed above are not as likely to do so. Also, below are the examples of the human rights records of these so-called "socialist democracies."

In Bangladesh such human rights offences are, torture, persecution of minority communities, attacks against Hindus, attacks against atheists, attacks against Santels, and control of many other aspects of life through the use of intimidation.

In India, from 2002 through 2008, over four people per day died while in police custody with hundreds of these deaths due to police torture. India has the highest number of people living in conditions of slavery which is 18.3 million times more than the next highest nation. Also in India, there are about 12.6 million children under the age of 14 involved in hazardous occupations, and human trafficking is an 8 million dollar illegal business.

North Korea remains among the worlds most repressive countries and all basic freedoms are severely restricted. North Korea practices extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, and forced abortions as well as other sexual violence against it's people.

In Shi Lanka, Amnesty International stated that since 2006 there has been an escalating amount of political killings, child recruitment, and abductions. There is also concerns with violence against women, several reports of torture while in police custody, and state sponsored disappearances and murders.

Tanzania has a forced labor program which allows the government to compel individuals and groups to forcibly work for purposes of economical development, and trafficking of persons. It's also a source and destination country for men, women, and children subjected to trafficking, specifically under conditions of forced labor and or prostitution.  In Tanzania, there are also uses of excessive force, torture, arbitrary arrests, and corruption throughout the country.

The ideals of a socialist democracy government in the minds of many within our country are not as they perceive it to be. As I stated earlier in this article, the two types of governing ideals of socialism and a democracy are like apples and oranges and mix about as well as oil and water. It would only be a matter of time until one would have to overtake the other.

Socialists and Communists have been trying to gain a foothold within our country for years now and by using this so-called idea of a socialist democracy, or as others like to use the term, progressives, they believe their agendas will gain more steam then by using the term socialist which seems to be working, especially within our schools and colleges among our young people.

Again, as I have written above, Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU stated, "The end goal of socialism is communism."

Dudes In The Old West

Dear Friends,

A reader recently wrote to ask why the word "dude" is used derogatorily in Western movies? He said he was a watching an old Western on television and every time someone said "dude," it was said "with total disdain."

The word "dude" is sort of a sore spot with me. Frankly, I hate the word. I truly hate it. My hating the word "dude" goes back to when I first came to California while a teenager. It didn't take me to long to see that a lot of California people like calling others "dude."

As soon as I arrived from Hawaii, I wanted a job. As a result, I found a job with Hayward Area Recreation Department cleaning a couple of parks on the weekends. Yes, I was the kid who picked up after the Hippies who said they loved the earth yet trashed the parks. Yes, the same Hippies that bathed their kids in the park's toilets.  

It was there in 1972 that I watched drugged out "wasted" Hippies and other druggies interact with each other and beg for change. So for me, the term "dude" always reminds me of some space-case on drugs panhandling and begging, as in, "Hey Dude, got any change man. I want to score a joint dude."

In the early 1960s, "dude" became prominent in what was called the Southern California surfer culture. Also in the 1960s, the term "dude" started to evolve to mean just about any male person. It was a meaning that slipped into mainstream American slang in the 1970s. The term "dude" was widespread by the late-1970s.

The word "dude" is a word used in American slang for just about anyone these days. And yes, sorry to say, there are those people out there who believe the word "dude" applies to women as well as men. And today, well the word "dude" is also used informally to address just about anyone who someone doesn't know.

I remember when I was in the security business, a young man came up to me and said, "Hey dude, some dude is stealing my car. What are you going to do to stop him dude?"

My first thought was, "Dude huh?" My next response was, "Dude, like nothing dude, go call a cop!"

The word "dude" is actually an old word, recognized by multiple generations as a term used for a well-dressed man who is unfamiliar with rural life, someone from the city who is in the country. Yes, the word was used to refer to Easterners. It was a term used in reference to a man with "store bought clothes" and citified ways.

Some say the word "dude" may have derived from the Spanish phrase "lo dudo" meaning "doubtful".  Some say the word may have derived from the Scottish term for clothes, "duddies." This may be true as the term "dude" was first used in print in 1876, in Putnam's Magazine, to mock how a woman was dressed as a man who was referred to as a "dude".

Many years ago, Western movies and television writers did get it right when they had actors use "dude" derogatorily. It really was said "with total disdain" back in the Old West, usually by cowboys and frontiersmen who saw "dudes" as being a lot less than enviable.

In the Old West, the word was used by cowboys to unfavorably refer to city dwellers or even a townie. It was also a term for a "sharpie" -- a dishonest and cunning person, a con artist, a cheat.

Of course from the 1870s all the way up to the 1950s, a "dude" primarily meant a person who dressed like a city boy, a sort of a dandy, a "citified" male, a person who was visiting rural America and stuck out like a sore thumb. Yes, a city slicker!

In the popular press of the 1880s and 1890s, "dude" was a new word for "dandy" which of course meant an extremely well-dressed citified male.  A "dandy" was a man who paid particular importance to how his appearance. He was seen as man who was excessively vain. While some say he was concerned about his dress, appearance, and his manners, many out West referred to Eastern snobs as "dudes".

And yes, some back in the Old West thought gamblers and traveling salesmen known as "drummers," bankers, and others who dressed in sack suits and looked "pretty", were dandies or dudes. Believe it or not, there were a lot of people who saw gamblers like Luke Short, Bat Masterson, the Earp brothers, as dudes because of their "soft" occupations. the way they dressed, and the con men and criminal class that they associated with.

And yes, believe it or not, if shown the picture below most would have thought that the members of the Wild Bunch dressed like "dudes".

Yes, if you didn't know these guys were outlaws, back in the Old West you'd probably think they were just "dudes" from a city back East.

While cowboys in the 1870 and 1880s were known to like bright colorful shirts and did in fact dress to impress young women, a cowboy was definitely not a dude. A cowboy dressed his best to impress the ladies when going to town or a social, his work clothes when dealing with horses, cattle, dust, dirt, sweat, and hard work was not exactly his "Sunday best." No, he was no dude.

As for as a cowboy or farmer getting into his "Sunday best," that meant he was dressed in the best clothing that he had. And yes, getting dressed in fancy clothes also meant getting "all duded up". Yes, it was a version of the word "dude" that's still in use occasionally in American slang today.

But all in all, the word "dude" was used to refer to Easterners and referred to a man with "store bought clothes". And yes, the word was used by cowboys to unfavorably refer to the city dwellers.

In The Home and Farm Manual (1883), author Jonathan Periam used the term "dude" several times to denote "an ill-bred and ignorant, but ostentatious, man from the city." Most cowboys of the time would have agreed with that.

The implication of an individual who is unfamiliar with the demands of life outside of urban settings gave rise to the definition of dude as a city slicker, or an "Easterner" who is in the West. Because "dude" was also used by ranch-and-homestead-bound settlers of the American Old West to describe the wealthy men of the expansion of the United States during the 19th century, the word "dude" also became synonymous with someone coming West for enjoyment and fun instead of hard work.

This use is reflected in the term "Dude ranch," which of course is a "guest ranch" that caters to folks from the cities who seek more rural relaxation and short lived country experiences. Yes, country experiences that they can take back to the city and brag to their friends about.

Dude ranches began to appear in the American West in the early 20th century. They were for wealthy Easterners who came to experience the "cowboy life."

In the 19th and early 20th century, it was very common for working ranches to take in guests from the East during the "tourist season" as a way to supplement their income. In those days those ranches were still raising and slaughtering cattle or sheep as their primary business. With just a little hospitality, a dude came away with all sorts of adventures to tell the folks back in the city.

So successful were dude ranches in America that in 1926 the Dude Ranchers’ Association (DRA) was created. And since then, yes there are more Dude Ranches, also renamed Guest Ranches, than ever before. And yes, today, as amazing as it sounds, dudes and "dudettes" can experience the West by visiting Dude Ranches and actually paying those places to do the work of ranch hands and live in a sparsely furnished bunkhouse. Imagine that.

While the term "dude" still mean "city-slicker" to some, it shouldn't be mistaken with a "Greenhorn" or "Tenderfoot." These terms are apples and oranges. They are not the same.

It is commonly accepted that most "dudes" believe themselves smarter and more sophisticated than cowboys, farmers, and rural folks. They see cowboys and farmers as inferior to them on the social ladder and would never ever think of becoming one of them. They loath rural Americans and see many of us as "hicks." And yes, this was especially true in the late-1800s.

Back in the early to mid-1800s, a "tenderfoot" was originally a cattleman's name for an imported cow. Later it became the name for people new to ranches and the country life. Same as with the term "pilgrim". All in all, a "tenderfoot" is a newcomer, a novice, especially a person unaccustomed to the hardships of pioneer life. Some called him a Monkey-Ward cowboy, a mail-order cowboy, a flat-heeled puncher, among other things one would call a wannabe-cowboy.

There is not much difference between a "tenderfoot" or a "greenhorn." These are people new to rural life, especially that of the cowboy life. But, even though that's the case, what makes them polar opposites of dudes is that they do have a desire to assimilate.

A "greenhorn" is usually inexperienced, maybe a little naive, mostly a newcomer to cowboy work, a person who makes a lot of mistakes and does things wrong, someone who is unacquainted with local manners and customs of rural America and ranch life. But like the "tenderfoot," they also want to be a part of the community or be good at their job.

My grandpa once told me, "Every cowboy starts out a greenhorn in some way simply because he doesn't have the experience yet. But even with experience, though not a greenhorn anymore, a good cowboy, a good hand, never stops learning."

Cowboys once saw dudes as city slickers who think they know it all and are never open to learning what others can teach them. And that's especially true since many a dude visiting the Old West arrived with the attitude that "there's nothing to be learned from poor farmers and uneducated cowboys."

That may be why many in the Old West believed that a visiting dude really didn't care to be a part of things. It may be because dudes really saw themselves above others, snobs who saw country folks as less then them. And there stands the difference between a greenhorn who has the desire to be a cowboy and that of a dude who doesn't.

Where a greenhorn will one day be a cowboy if he keeps at it, a dude is just a dude and will always be a dude from the city.

And yes, that's just the way I see things.

Tom Correa

The Old West - Interesting Facts - Part 6

There were four Shield Brothers from Texas. They served in the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. They were considered "Texas Giants" because they were all over 7 feet tall.

Supposedly the habit of spreading sawdust on saloon floors started in Deadwood, South Dakota.

The story goes that this was done because of the amount of gold dust that would fall on the floor. The sawdust was used to hide the fallen gold dust. At the end of each night, it and was swept up and the gold dust was separated.

Hilario Hidalgo and Francisco Renteria were hanged on July 31, 1903, at the Yavapai County Courthouse in Prescott, Arizona.

The Los Angeles Times reported the hanging as follows: During the reading of their death warrant one of the condemned cried out — “I have heard that repeated so often that if it was a song I would sing it to you,” — and with “perfect nerve” checked out, calling only “Adios! Adios!” from the scaffold. 

It was the last hanging in Prescott, Arizona.

James Black was an Arkansas blacksmith and the creator of the original Bowie knife designed by Jim Bowie. Bowie was already famous for knife-fighting from his 1827 sandbar duel. But his killing of three assassins in Texas and his death at the Battle of the Alamo made him, and the blacksmith's knife, legends.

James Black's knives were known to be exceedingly tough yet flexible. Black kept his methods for creating the knife very secret and did all of his work behind a leather curtain.

The skeletons of Buffalo were strewn across the Great Plains after the mass buffalo hunts between 1870 and 1883. Eastern firms bought them up, gathered them, and use them the production of fertilizer and bone china. "Bone pickers” earned eight dollars a ton for the bones.

The famous Reno Gang's claim to fame is that they are responsible for the first American train robbery. They are the first to rob a moving train and to net nearly $13,000 for their trouble. Some sources credit the Reno Gang for inspiring other train robbers such as the James Gang and others.

And yes, America’s first train robbery took place on October 6, 1855 in Jackson County, Indiana, and not in the West as some think. The two bandits, John and Simeon Reno robbed the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad.
During the Civil War, Frank and John Reno were Union Army "bounty jumpers." Those were Army soldier who signed up for the enlistment fee but then disappeared only to re-enlist elsewhere under a different name to collect a new fee. Most "bounty jumpers" tried it more than once.

Of course they were also considered Union deserters. There are questions if Reno brother Simeon was a bounty jumper. There is proof that he was definitely was a deserter. William Reno apparently deserted for a brief enough time to return and be granted an honorable discharge from the Union Army. He is the only Reno brother to have the distinction of having an honorable discharge.

Estimates of how many people lived in North America before the arrival of the European explorers vary from 8.4 million to 112 million. This population was divided into about 240 tribal groupings speaking an estimated 300 different languages.

Born in California in 1859, Charlie Meadows is often called "Arizona Charlie" because he started calling himself that after his family moved there when he was a teen. He wore his hair long for a theatrical effect, and he claimed to be the best sharpshooter in the West.

Of course, if he were a good shot, it is surprising that Bill Cody never used him as one instead of as a wrangler in his Wild West Show.

Yes, in reality, he was just one of the many cowboys hired on by Bill Cody for his Wild West Show. One report that I read said that Meadows found dressing up as an extra exciting.

In fact, he loved acting so much that he opened up his own traveling Wild West Show and billed himself as the "King of the Cowboys". That was before going to Alaska during the gold rush there. There he made enough money to built a theater to preform rope tricks and hire entertainers. But as fate had it, he finally went bust in a card game.

The Oregon Trail, from Independence, Missouri to Fort Vancouver, Washington measured 2,020 miles. An estimated 350,000 emigrants took the Oregon Trail. Out if the those, 1 out of 17 would not survive the trip. The most common cause of death was cholera.

The cowgirl above is Vera McGinnis. She was the first cowgirl to wear pants in the rodeo arena. That took place in 1918. Vera was a World Champion Rodeo Trick Rider and Rodeo Relay Rider.

In late 1849, the famous Kit Carson led the pursuit of a band of Jicarilla Apache who had kidnapped Mrs. J. M. White and her child from an emigrant caravan. The story goes that Carson and a company of Taos soldiers tracked down and killed the Apache, but they were too late to save Mrs. White.

She was found with an arrow through her heart. Along with Mrs. White, Carson's group discovered a Dime Novel lying near her body. The Dime Novel featured Kit Carson as the hero of a story where he single-handedly fought off eight Indians.

During his life Wyatt Earp operated saloon in Nome, Alaska. In the late 1890’s U.S. Marshal Albert Lowe slapped an intoxicated Earp and took his gun away after Wyatt threatened to demonstrate how guns were handled "down Arizona way." This is just proof that the myth that Wyatt Earp didn't drink is just a myth.

Last but not least, Thomas "Black Jack" Ketchum holds the dubious distinction of being the only person ever put to death in the New Mexico Territory for the offense of "felonious assault upon a railway train".

And there you have it.

Tom Correa

Concealed Carry Reciprocity In All 50 States

Dear Friends,

According to my Concealed Carry Gun Permit, I can carry anywhere in the state of California. And, since a number of other states recognize my California issued CCW permit, I can legally carry a concealed weapon there as well.

As for the states that honor California CCW permits, there are a number of states that do. Below are the states that honor a California CCW.

Alaska will honor a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun from another state. Alaska has also recently passed a law that says you may carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

As for Arizona, that state recognizes all other states valid permits. Idaho recognizes a concealed weapons permit from another state. In fact Idaho will honor my California CCW and will allow me to carry a concealed weapon in my car as well on my person.

Idaho Code 18-3302 is very specific about this issue. It allow for reciprocity if a citizen from another state or jurisdiction has a valid concealed weapons permit. The only requirements are that the person have the permit on their person at all times and display it upon request of an enforcement officer.

The state of Indiana honors any right-to-carry permits issued by another state. The state of Kentucky recognizes valid carry concealed deadly weapons licenses issued by other states and, subject to the provisions of Kentucky law, a person holding a valid license

As for Michigan, I read if you are a non-resident of Michigan with a valid concealed pistol permit from your home state, Michigan will recognize your permit. Missouri's carrying concealed law is the same way as it recognizes all out-of-state permits.

Montana recognizes concealed weapons permits from some other states. The Attorney General’s Office has determined that concealed weapons permits from California are recognized under Montana law.

Oklahoma recognizes any valid conceal carry license from any other state. The state of South Dakota also recognizes any valid concealed pistol permit issued to a non-resident of South Dakota.

Tennessee has voted to now recognizes a facially valid handgun permit, firearms permit, weapons permit, or a license issued by another state so that an authorized holder of such an out-of-state permit or license can carry a handgun in the state of Tennessee.

As for Texas, Governor Perry issued a proclamation that allows persons with concealed handgun licenses from California to legally carry in Texas. In Utah, they will honor a permit to carry a concealed firearm issued by another state or county. 

In Vermont, folks up there are special in that the state of Vermont does not require a citizen to have a CCW permit. Yes, folks may carry a concealed weapon there without a permit. 

In actuality, while some restrictions may apply, Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Vermont, and West Virginia are states that have permitless carry. That means, they allow anyone that can legally possess a firearm to carry a concealed weapon.

Of course, we in California already know that our counties limit us to the specific guns on our CCW permits. Most states know that that's the way things are in California, so most states that you visit will also limit you to the same listed guns even though that state might not have such limitation for their own CCW holders. That's just the way it is. And frankly, when visiting other states that do recognize our California CCW permits, we shouldn't try to carry something that we ordinarily wouldn't. 

So now that we all know what states a California CCW permit holder can carry in, and as we can see there are a number of them, why concern ourselves with Concealed Carry Reciprocity in all 50 States? 

Well, one reason is that the state of California, like that of New York, Illinois, and few others, does not recognize valid CCW permits from any other state. 

The second and more important reason is that it goes to the heart of our Constitution which makes marriages, driver's licenses, trade marks, copy rights, and a number of other legal situations and documents recognized within all of our 50 States and territories. Yes, Concealed Carry reciprocity should be recognized in the same way that other things like marriage and a driver's license are recognized by way of the Constitution of the United States. 

So what am I talking about? Well, according to Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution: The Full Faith and Credit Clause: It provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

That means, by law, all of our states shall recognize valid Concealed Carry permits of other states. That is called Concealed Carry reciprocity, and the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, makes it clear that all states are to do so. 

So right now, if a Concealed Carry permit holder from California wants to carry a concealed weapon in Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and about 20 other states, they cannot do so legally with their California CCW permit. In reality, they would need to obtain a second CCW permit from a state that has more reciprocity.

Of course, what some may say is even worse is that California does not recognize any other state's CCW permit even if their standards and training requirements exceed what is require in California. And friends, that is not right. 

What does it mean that states do not abide by our Constitution when it comes to recognizing Concealed Carry permits? Well, they're breaking the law. Yes, just as with marriages and driver's licenses, all states should be compelled to recognize a CCW permit issued by other states. Not doing it is in violation of our Constitution.

And yes, that's just the way I see things.

Tom Correa

William Owen "Buckey" O'Neill

By Terry McGahey
Associate Writer/ Old West Historian

William Owen O'Neill of Rough Rider fame was born in either St. Louis Missouri or Washington D. C. on February 2nd 1860. Over his life time he had become a miner, newspaper editor, politician, sheriff, and a captain in the army.

He earned the nickname "Buckey" because he enjoyed bucking the odds at the game of faro. Little is known of his early days, but in 1879 Buckey O'Neill made his way to Tombstone in the Arizona Territory where he joined the Tombstone Epitaph as a reporter. During this time period in Buckey's life, he had a casual relationship with the Earp brothers. And when the gunfight at the O.K. Corral had taken place, it is highly likely that he would have been one of the on scene reporters after the fray.

Buckey left Tombstone in 1882 heading for Prescott with a short stay in Phoenix. By the time O'Neill landed in Prescott to put down roots. he was 30 he had served as court reporter, probate judge, superintendent of schools, tax assessor and newspaper editor and publisher.
While in Prescott he took a job as editor of the Prescott Journal Miner newspaper, then a court reporter, and afterward started his own paper called the Hoof and Horn which was directed toward the livestock industry.

After starting his own newspaper, Buckey joined a local unit of the Arizona Militia called the Prescott Grays in 1886 where he held the rank of Captain.

Also in 1886, on April 27th, he got married to Pauline Schindler. They had a son who was born premature, but he passed away shortly after his birth. Buckey also served as the Yavapi County, Arizona, Judge in 1888, and during this time he was elected to the position of County Sheriff.

During his position as sheriff, Buckey led a four man posse in pursuit of four other men who had robbed the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad passenger train in Diablo Canyon on March 20th 1889. 

He and his posse caught up with the desperadoes on the following day, March 21st, where a short shootout had ensued with Buckey's horse being the only one killed. The four robbers surrendered and were sentenced to eight years in the Yuma territorial prison.

Once Buckey's term of sheriff had ended, he was then elected as the mayor of Prescott. One odd side note, during this time period Tom Horn was one of his best friends.

In 1879, Buckey O'Neill began speculating on mining prospects and sold a group of claims near the Grand Canyon to some Chicago brokers which proposed the building of the railroad from Williams, Arizona, to the South Rim for the mines. This rail service still runs today for tourism to the canyon.

O'Neill then began to work at doing railroad surveys, mining development, and he also built a smelter.

In 1898, Buckey joined the Rough Riders when the war broke out between the United States and Spain. He became the Captain of Troop A.

The Rough Rider regiment was made up of cowboys, miners, gamblers, athletes, Native Americans, and other adventurers. They trained for several weeks in San Antonio and then shipped out to Tampa, the departure point for Cuba.

On June 22nd 1898, the Rough Riders landed at Daiquiri, Cuba, where two buffalo soldiers fell overboard and Buckey jumped in the water trying to save them wearing his full uniform as well as his saber. After a few minutes of searching for the men, he had to give up.

They fought a battle at Las Guasimas shortly after landing, suffering a handful of casualties. Some might not realize that despite their name, the Rough Riders fought on foot.

William Owen "Buckey" O'Neill was killed on July 7th, 1898, around 10 a.m. while at the bottom of Kettle Hill. Although his men pleaded with him to lie down, Buckey walked back and fourth down the line of his men under heavy fire. 

He felt that an officer should do this for the effect on his men. While doing so, a bullet struck him in the mouth and crashed through the back of his skull killing him instantly. He was 38.

Once the battle had come to a close Captain O'Neill's men buried him on the slope of San Juan Hill. But after the war had ended, friends and family, with the help of the State Department, recovered his body and he was reentered in Arlington National Cemetery in section 1, site 294. 

Buckey O'Neill, Arlington National Cemetery in section 1, site 294. 

In Prescott, Arizona, there is a monument of Buckey O'Neill built by Solon Borglum. It is located at Courthouse Plaza there. On July 3, 1907, the monument was dedicated to O'Neill and the other Rough Riders.

During his time at the Grand Canyon Buckey built a cabin in 1890 right near the edge of the canyon on the South Rim. This cabin is a one story structure set upon a stone foundation and is now one of the guest accommodations of the Bright Angel lodge. It is listed on the National Register Of Historic Places.

About the author:

Terry McGahey is a writer and Old West historian.

This once working cowboy is best known for his fight against the City of Tombstone and their historic City Ordinance Number 9, America's most famous gun-control law.
He was instrumental in finally getting Tombstone City Ordinance Number 9 repealed and having Tombstone fall in line with the state of Arizona.

If you care to read how he fought Tombstone's City Hall and won, please click:

The Last Gun Fight -- The Death of Ordinance Number 9 (Chapter One)