The Survivalist’s Odds ‘n Sods:

SurvivalBlog presents another edition of The Survivalist’s Odds ‘n Sods— a collection of news bits and pieces that are relevant to the modern survivalist and prepper from “HJL”. National Reciprocity is making news again as a bill is approved by the House panel.

A Better Mousetrap

Reader P.S. sent in this video on a mousetrap design that is over 427 years old and is still effective today. The video blogger has a number of mousetraps that he reviews. He will profile the mouse trap that is featured, often building them from scratch. He then places them in his barn with a video camera aimed at it to evaluate its performance. The best mouse trap I’ve every owned was profiled by him as well.

Acid Attacks in London

“honor” acid attacks are on the rise in London. In 2017 there have already been 454 acid attacks compared to 261 in 2015 and 166 the year before. This is such a cowardly type of attack which I would put on par with the “knockout game” attacks that plagued the large cities here in the states a few years ago. However, It should be noted that even the victims want the state to control the sale of acid rather than cracking down on the persons who commit the crime. I guess Britons feel that acid jumps from the cup into their face much the same way that American liberal leftists believe that guns fire by themselves in the commission of crimes.

Asset Forfeiture

From reader T.Z. comes the story of Phil Parhamovich who lost almost $92,000 in a state licensed shakedown civil asset forefeiture proceeding in Wyoming. Phil was traveling with his band and had hidden the money in a speaker to keep it safe. Wyoming DCI did not find drugs when they searched his vehicle but did find the money and intimidated him into signing a waiver stating that the money was not his (he was afraid traveling with cash was illegal.) When he came to his senses, he tried to re-claim the money with proof of ownership. Wyoming instead filed a petition claiming the money was abandoned (and didn’t notify Phil that they did so.)

In an update, after the involvement of media, publicly exposing the shakedown, several politicians got involved and it looks like he will be getting his money back after nearly nine months. The state sanctioned shakedown and the constant dribble of lies from the “public servants” have not yet been addressed though.

Online Privacy

A mattress startup is being sued for “wiretapping” its website visitors. The company uses technology similar to Facebook that allows it to capture keystrokes and mouse movements while the visitor is using their website. The difference is that on Facebook, you are using their site and you have already agreed to their terms of service by having an account. The mattress startup is using this software on a publicly available site and is not informing the users that their every keystroke is being recorded. Of course, the company denies it and is claiming that the users are trying to impede their success. Navistone, the company that developed the software claims they were unaware that the software was being used in this manner.

National Reciprocity

A House panel has approved a law that will force other states to honor concealed carry permits issued by any other state as permit holders cross any state line with a hidden weapon. It will certainly make it easier for you to travel from state to state. I still have grave concerns about it. By making it a federal statute, states rights are once again bypassed, consolidating the power in the hands of the federal government.

I can think of no better argument against this than that of marriage licenses. The authority for managing the definition of “marriage” was handed over the to federal government by “conservatives”. When the political winds changed, that same authority was then used to mandate gay/lesbian marriage definitions on all 50 states. I believe this will end up the same. The federal political winds will shift. There will now be precedence that the states can no longer manage their own permitting and reciprocity. We are trading a short term gain for an inevitable long term loss. Thanks to G.G. for the link.

Continuation of Hepatitis Outbreak.

Reader F.M. sent in this article showing the next step in the continuation of the hepatitis battle. San Diego has opened the first of three planned industrial-sized tents. The plan is to house the homeless as part of the city’s efforts to contain the hepatitis outbreak. The tents will be housing a total of 700 people. This is part of the cities long-term goal of moving the homeless people into permanent housing. They have more than $80 million earmarked for the project. Nearby residents are not happy though as they see a rise in drug related problems such as break-ins and violence. Perhaps it’s time to leave the city if yours is participating in a similar plan.


A Texas college newspaper has allowed an editorial commentary spewing a nearly unbelievable amount of hate towards “whites”. This video shows Gutfield and his team commenting on this article. The fact that a school would allow a hate piece like this calling for genocide against anyone based upon their DNA is an indicator of just how far gone our educational institutions have gone. Thanks to T.J. for the link.

o o o

Please send your news tips to HJL. (Either via e-mail of via ourContact form.) These are often especially relevant, because they come from folks who watch news that is important to them. Due to their diligence and focus, we benefit from fresh “on target” news. We often “get the scoop” on news that is most likely ignored (or reported late) by mainstream American news outlets. Thanks!


  1. The state of Wyoming has taken over $60 million in civil asset forfeitures in the past 6 years.

    A bill was presented in the last legislative season to reel this in; but the RINO legislature killed it off quick.

    These seized monies are given to the police department that took it and not put in the state’s general fund.

    With Colorado cannabis legalization, WYHP has turned I-25 and I-80 into civil asset forfeiture gauntlet, looking for cash and pot.

    Beware traveling through Wyoming, especially if you are innocent.

      1. The dirty secret is that state highway patrol is tipped off by AT&T and the DEA if there are texts or voice communication indicating the transportation of large amounts of cash.

        It’s called the Hemisphere Program, where AT&T (and other carriers as well) sift through cell phone communications, then drop a dime to the DEA if they detect cash or drugs being moved. No warrant is involved, just that long customer service agreement you never read.

        The DEA then calls the state patrol with the cell identifier and where it is, and what direction the cell (and cash) is headed. It’s up to the highway patrol to get the car pulled over and fabricate Reasonable Articulatable Suspicion (RAS). Read that “violate the 4th Amendment”.

        The Hemisphere Program:

        If they work cash and drugs like this, I wonder if there is a similar program with the ATFE and AT&T to finger legitimate gun purchases? Anything was possible under the Obama Regime.

  2. I am against the national reciprocity for similar reasons. The Constitution doesn’t give us rights, it places restrictions on the federal government and restricts it’s power. Our rights are given to us by our creator. The government works for us, we don’t work for it. We don’t need to give the federal government any more ideas about it having more power than it does. I pray for the day the people wake up but I fear the people won’t and this is going to end badly.

    1. Tom & JWR,
      The Constitution is dead and there is no long game in America now. It is about short term victories until it collapses at this point.

      While I’m with you in theory, by approaching things the way you are you are ensuring defeat of even short term victories. You are playing by rules that literally no one else. The game has changed and until we get to start over proceeding under our preferred set of rules, whether we like it or not, proceeding under them in the current environment is a recipe for defeat.

      1. @Robert
        See my reply to OneGuy below. If the Federal Government gets involved, it always ends up with the government enforcing at the point of a gun. When the political winds change (and they will), your disarmament will now be forced at the point of a gun with a national database of who carries concealed. Again, it will eventually happen. Conservatives make this mistake in legislation over and over again and it always bites back. Always!

        1. HJL,
          I understand your arguement, do you mine? Being “conservative” has conserved absolutely nothing. Nothing. Not the constitution. Not western civilization, not family, not marriage, not even the very basic we are male or female. I get the ideal- but it is dead until the US falls. There is such a small minority of people that believe in small government there is not a snow balls chance in…that what you and I want has a chance of being the law of the land. Our choice right now is simply are OUR preferences going to be enforced or will the progessive/liberal/SJW/perverts laws be enforced. That’s it. There are only two choices. By opting out for option C you are literally giving option B the win. Doubt me? In this very same section Wyoming is highlighted. Wyoming- cornerstone of the Redoubt movement. It also loves big government- just in its own form.

          I want what you want- but you are currently fighting an IMPOSSIBLE battle by not adapting to the situation that is reality of the times we live in.

          1. @Robert,
            I do understand your argument and it is also a strawman argument. The choice is not a binary choice. You do realize why your elected officials keep making you choose the lessor of two evils, right? It’s because you (meaning the population at large) keep voting for the lessor of two evils. As long as the population is willing to be forced into choosing A or B, then the political system will never put C or D on the table. This works in all areas of politics. Take this last election for example. Neither candidate was a particularly good candidate. Subsequent elections have shown that the “Trump” vote was not a vote for Trump at large, but a vote against Clinton. Yet I can’t remember a time in which we didn’t have to choose between bad candidate A and bad candidate B. Remember, choosing for the lessor of two evils is still choosing for evil. Taking the national reciprocity is still taking the lessor of two evils. How much better is it to stand up for what is right.
            You are correct in that we have very nearly lost our federally constituted republic and replaced it with a democracy. By continuing to “play the game” by those rules, you pretty much guarantee the outcome. The only difference between A and B is how quickly you get there.
            No, Choosing for C is not giving B the win. Choosing for C is called standing on principles. It is what this nation was founded on. As you yourself have noted, it is the right thing to do. Why not do it.
            Yes, I know that if there is no national reciprocity then you can’t travel through California or New York with a concealed permit. Itsthe guarantee of federal abuses in the future worth smacking those two states over the head and forcing your opinion on them? Here is the whole argument in a nutshell:
            The whole point of the Second Amendment is to keep the government from having too much power in the first place. Why would you support giving that power to them? It would be good for states to reciprocate with each other over CCW, but it is definitely bad to use the power of the federal government to force that reciprocity.

          2. @HJL,
            I disagree it is the right thing to do *right now*. Up until 2016 we weren’t given an A or B- we were given B1 & B2. We are in a soft war. My guess is if we were in a hot war you’d not view this the same way because you’d see things more clearly.

            I think you have a break down in logic- and it’s usually because the heart is overruling the mind because you can’t stomach what you have to do. I get it. I was you.

            So I will ask you, when was the last time the Republic and the Constitution prevailed because it was the right thing and it was honored as the law of the land? It was many, many, many decades ago. That is not to say we haven’t had elections or decisions that came down on the side of the Constitution, but that was not because the folks making the decisions were basing it on the Constitution but what they wanted and what they wanted enforced. But even those victories have grown few and far between.

            Again, I want what you want but that doesn’t make it reality. I choose to deal with reality. For many years I believed and argued as you did. I couldn’t stomach what had to be done, but I am more interested in winning for my own than being 100% true to my ideology and belief system as long as I don’t have to not be true to my Lord, faith and Bible.

            We are at the end game. Everything is at stake. You hold out to get exactly what you want, served the way you want it- but it will never happen until the US collapses and we are able to divide it up into smaller, more manageable, less diverse pieces. In the meantime I will do what needs to be done to make sure my own survive until that point. Until you get to that point you are helping the opposition. We are past the point of no return as the country currently stands and are hurdling at light speed to a RESET.

          3. @Robert,
            What you seem to miss in your argument is the contradictions. You want to do what is right, but don’t. Why is that? Do you realize that the Second Amendment is what guarantees the power of the people to maintain the balance of the constitution? Do you realize that giving that that power back to the government will absolutely guarantee that you (or your children) will have to deal with a government that abuses that very same power?

            “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

            You are willing to give up a little bit of your liberty to ensure that you are safe crossing state lines? It will come back and bite.

          4. HJL,
            Two things, kept seperate, so not to confuse the issues. Other than sin or not sin, serve God, not serve God, go with or against scripture- there is not right and wrong in this world. Not black and white, but a whole lot of grey that comes down to situations. I’m telling you straight away that your position is only right in theory, but not in practice because of the situation. Which leads to part two.

            The government already has the power to tell us one way or the other. My liberty was given up over the last 5-6 generations beginning in 1865, if not before. You are hanging on to the guise of liberty. It’s not about liberty anymore-that is dead until there is a reset. It’s now about which power is going to rule.

            You can’t get there because you can’t stomach it. I know, I was you. Your exact arguments I’ve used for my adult life. You’ll get there, hopefully not too late, but right now you are fighting for not only a losing cause but one that was lost so long ago it would be funny to see you doing it if it wasn’t so sad. Simply because not only do I like you and what you stand for, but I want what you want. I have just realized that the path to getting to where we want to go is through a much murkier, somewhat detestable waters- but that is war. And we are in it. I’ve just excepted it and you haven’t.

          5. @Robert,
            So in short, your argument comes down to “The end justifies the means”? Except that the “end” you envision is not the “end” that will actually happen. In every case that the federal government has been given power, they have exceeded and abused that power. There are no exceptions to that. We fool ourselves to think that the government can be anything but forceful.
            No, the actual problem here is that your expectations of government behavior are not realistic. Giving them authority over another aspect of the Second Amendment will ensure that it is abused. I’d recommend that you study the National Firearms Act as an example of how this power will be used against you.

          6. PS. Why after a great many comments am I still in moderation? I understand I have spoken out on only three topics- feminism, race and the Constitution, but nothing I have said has been disrespectful, hateful or mean spirited- and it scares me I even have to say that. I may disagree but it’s hardly been out of bounds. I respect you maintaining control of your site but if I am considered too edgy in my thoughts to not be policed we are flat out doomed.

          7. @Robert,
            Because your comments contain letter combinations that also commonly occur in unsavory words. It’s nothing against you, just a guarantee that the undesirable, offensive language doesn’t make it through. There is a list of letter combinations that flag the comments to moderation so the moderators can vet them.

          8. @ HJL
            I prefer winning and being able to have western civilization- if in your terms that means the ends justify the means- then yes, most definitely as long as I’m not violating scripture. Your path is the first path I want on the table when the reset happens. Between now and then you might as well vote Democrat or Neocon, you will have the same results. My heart applauds you, my mind has great sorrow for you and weeps at the results. Because you still haven’t answered my question- when was the last time the Constitution won because it was the Constitution and not because it aligned with what people in power in that moment?

          9. @Robert
            I have answered your question: “when was the last time the Constitution won because it was the Constitution and not because it aligned with what people in power in that moment?” But I will gladly do so again. Let me phrase it differently this time.
            The Constitution has a difficult time “winning” because everyone – even the “conservatives” – are willing to trade it away when they believe they can gain some short term win. In this case, the Constitution will lose now if the reciprocity bill passes. You may win now because you use the “authority” of the federal government to strongarm those who believe differently than you into doing what you want them to. Tomorrow, you will lose because someone else will take the authority that you just gave them and use it against you to force you into doing what they want. I have given many examples of how this has worked in the past. It works this way without exception. If you destroy the Constitution now (or a portion of it), then you can’t really complain when that power is used directly against you later (and it will be used against you).

          10. Hopefully God has a very special place in hell for the corrupt scum bag cops who would steal from those who they are sworn to serve. Or maybe they need to be treated like the war criminals they are. Greed swine

        2. HJL,

          Why do we keep calling these folks “Conservatives”? An actual conservative would automatically know they need to OBEY the constitution. Instead they claim to be “upholding” the constitution. To them, that means taking their pocket constitution out, holding it up in the air, and saying “here’s my copy of the constitution and I’m upholding it”! Now how many times have you seen one of these scumbag politicians do just that, literally?

          1. @Charles K.
            Good point. Probably for the same reason that we keep calling some people “Christian”. I think we have a tendency to allow people to self-identify rather than be identified by belief and action.

  3. Re: National reciprocity:
    “We are trading a short term gain for an inevitable long term loss.”
    There is absolutely no short term gain from this legislation.
    I don’t see any positive from this legislation, and hope it dies in McConnel’s desk drawer, which it probably will.
    National reciprocity means a national database of every CCW holder in the nation. I can’t even begin to explain the Constitutional flaws with that.
    Imagine being instantly recognised by every law enforcement officer who sees your vehicle, and if you think that’s fantasy, it’s already happened. A case in Maryland a few years ago attributed a traffic stop to the ability of the traffic cop to ascertain the driver as a CCW holder from Florida. He was harrassed, threatened and detained, while his family watched.
    The very last thing we need in this country is expanded or refined gun legislation. Nothing good can come of this.

    1. AS A CCW HOLDER IN north CAROLINA i can tell you that any law enforcement officer can already see this information. All they have to do is run your drivers license or your license plate. First thing that they see is that you have a ccw permit.

  4. ” I still have grave concerns about it. By making it a federal statute, states rights are once again bypassed, consolidating the power in the hands of the federal government.”

    Are you kidding!? Have you read the 2nd amendment? And you are OK with states restricting that right but upset that the federal government takes this minor step to partially restore that right.

    1. @OneGuy,
      Yes, I have read the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution is a control on the federal government. It is a huge mistake to grant power reserved to the states by the constitution to the federal government. With the control at the state level, if they enact legislation that you don’t like, you simply vote with your feet. With the control at the Federal level, you have no option but to expatriate. The Constitution does not grant rights, it only limits what the federal government can do. (With a few exceptions most notably in taxation, national defense, and interstate commerce.)
      In our history, Conservatives have made this mistake over and over again. They are OK using force to mandate what they want but cry when that authority (that they generally granted the government) is turned and used against them. It is much better to keep the federal government out of things and let the states manage their own business.

      “For libertarians, freedom entails the right of people to live their lives any way they choose, so long as their conduct is peaceful. For conservatives, freedom entails the right of government to do just about anything it wants, even if its conduct is violent.” – Jacob Hornberger

      The government can only enforce its rules at the point of a gun. If it’s not appropriate to make someone do something at gun point, you really don’t want the federal government involved.

    2. JHL is entirely correct here. The Constitution restricts the federal government, not the states. If a state wanted to pass a law restricting firearms, and it didn’t violate their state Constitution, then they could. I wouldn’t like it and would leave the state if I lived there but it is the way this Republic is supposed to work. We have allowed the federal government to gain too much power and it is responsible for the debt and divide we are currently suffering under.

      1. You almost got that right. The constitution does restrict the federal government AND it defines the citizens inalienable rights. How did you forget that very important part of the constitution? The states CANNOT constitutionally take away or deny you your inalienable rights. It doesn’t matter what their constitution says they cannot do it legally. Now I admit that they do. But that is OUR fault we elected presidents and congress that would appoint Supreme Court judges that would in fact deny us our inalienable rights. If our Supreme Court had nine honest and moral judges we would not need permission to carry a gun concealed or openly across state borders.

        1. @OneGuy,
          the Constitution only addresses what the federal government cannot take away. Remember that those inalienable rights are not granted by the Constitution and therefore the Constitution cannot regulate them. It cannot pass those rights on to states. The verbiage in the Constitution is addressing the limitations upon the federal government only. There are some poorly done amendments that attempt to grant that power to the constitution and have the associate abuses that come with that.It is up to the state constitutions to deal with inalienable rights at the state level.

        2. The Constitution simply lays out a form of government. Article 1, Section 8 defines what congress can do and thus what the federal government has the right to do. If it isn’t there then it is up to the individual states. If we had not given the federal government so much power, we would not be as divided. Because the federal government has so much power we now have a huge stake in who is elected. If it was still in the hands of the states it would not matter so much. I fear we won’t be able to return the federal government to it’s proper, Constitutional role and it could result in internal conflict.

  5. I am glad to hear you express grave concerns about national reciprocity for concealed carry. You either support the Constitution and State’s rights or you don’t. Liberty trumps convenience. You have the liberty to choose which States to enter.

  6. National Reciprocity
    Look at what the feds have done with drivers licenses. First they said that you could only have one DL then they started setting the requirements on that DL. Now if you don’t have a federally approved DL you can’t get on an airplane. Do you see where this is going? BUT why is a DL good in every other state but not a CCW?

  7. Once you have a ccw permit, you will be identified as a ccw holder, even if it has lapsed for fifteen years. You will be “requested” to turn over you piece if you are involved in a car wreck or anything requiring an ambulance “So that there isn’t a loose weapon in the car, ambulance or ER.” Personal experience.

  8. One comment to those who are confident that the Constitution only applies to the Federal Government, and that States can pass laws restricting CCW with impunity. Are you willing to grant States the power to control your religious practices? Or your internet blog comments? Or your abity to petition the Legislature? Those are all First Amendment rights that are observed by the States, but under your theory, could be ignored. I believe that a federal law requiring reciprocity is a good thing. And no single database is needed, you carry the CCW hard copy permit with you and can prove your status with it.

    1. @Steve,
      That is the reason states also have constitutions. This is a strawman argument and is not correct. The Constitution of the U.S. is about limiting federal power. It specifically states that all power not enumerated and specificaly granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states.
      Also, most states tie their CCW permits to the drivers license databases. There is already a problem with law enforcement targeting out of state license plates.

    2. It’s not theory. It is Constitutional law. I don’t know what state you live in but in Michigan we have a Constitution that protects rights. If you don’t understand that the Constitution only limits the federal government then you need to read more history.

  9. Under our constitution, the Federal government must have specific granted authority, as HJL has already stated so well. Also under our constitution the States must have a specific denial of a right, also for we the people. The first amendment is a specific denial of a right to the feds; “Congress shall make no law”. However, as in religion some of the states actually had state sanctioned religions. So that is why only the feds were restricted.

    Under the second amendment, we have a specific restriction on all of government, at all levels. “A well regulated militia (a product only of the individual states) being necessary to the security of a free state (not the USA, but the individual states) the right of the people (a specific right reserved by the people, to the whole body of the people) to keep and bear (own and carry) arms, shall not be infringed. (By whom?)

    The answer is, by anybody! Except by due process of law, the laws of the individual states.

    Due process does not mean a bunch of scumbag politicians sitting around in that proverbial smoke filled room making their little rules and regs to restrict us. It means: first there must be a crime committed, then an investigation, then an arrest, a charge, a trial, and a conviction, before a individual’s human rights can be restricted.

    To say differently, would be to say that the states do not have to live up to their constitutional requirement to maintain a citizen militia (the act of congress that created the National Guard was unconstitutional, there had to be a constitutional amendment to lawfully do what they did). To say that the feds cannot restrict our fundamental human right to self defense, but that the individual states can. Also to say that the framers of the constitution and founding generation who spoke so elegantly about the right to keep and bear arms, were just blowing smoke up their collective ***** and ours. I don’t think so.

  10. Those are several good mousetrap designs by the youtube guy in that link. Very unusual & creative. Those with barns or sheds that store animal feed or houses w/ rodent problems may want to invest in 1-2 of those.

  11. National Reciprocity:

    I’m with Barry Goldwater on this, I don’t think the new law is going to help, after the bureaucrats finish with it, any more that the Affordable Health Care for America Act (2009) made Healthcare better for average Americans.

    The Editors’ Quote of the Day: By Hugh James Latimer | October 25, 2017

    “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution.” – Barry Goldwater

  12. Wyoming CAF reminds me of scenes from “Mad Max,the Road Warrior”, and “Mad Max, Beyond Thunderdome”. Sometimes searching a vehicle with the intent of stealing it or what’s inside it can end in surprise.

  13. The 2A ” Right” has long since passed the point of debate. We gave the Government power to set the narrative. Your ” Right” to protect yourself has been reduced to a license.. and we all know how that goes. Just like your cars…

    First, your Guns will have to be approved for public carry. It will need to be inspected and certified it’s ‘safe’ to carry. You will then need to register it,then license it and carry liability insurance. Next, your ” right” to carry will hinge on things like going thru firearms training, paying those costs, paying your taxes,paying traffic fines and tickets. Next, Government will use carrying your firearm as a way to further restrict your ‘right’ to defend yourself by insisting that the ammo you use is also regulated Just like Gas it will also be regulated.. A Box of 50, 115 gr 9mm will reflect the 9/10 ammo tax, just like gas, will also be regularly tested to comply to federally regulated, factory loads… and in turn, after all the control you have given up to Government so you can enjoy your ” Right” to keep and bear arms your rights, have now been reduced to a ” PRIVILEGE ”
    It’s the same Government that convinced people to give up their “right” to travel by convincing them they need to be licensed for movement.

  14. I am very thankful for the article and comments on National Reciprocity. Speaking for myself here, it still fascinates me how window dressing can set you on a position and how taking a step back to see the bigger picture can show it in a new light.

    I was for the bill passing as I have often been in the situation of driving across our country and having the fear of becoming a criminal by crossing state lines while carrying.

    Handing over that power to the Federal government is now a bigger fear than my original one. ‘I’m from the Federal government and I’m here to help.’ The more “walls” we can keep between my State and DC, the better.

    I have no doubts that a collapse is inevitable and this is but a small dent, though I don’t want to hand the keys to the burglar.

  15. I’m in agreement with E in the Northwoods. I, also, supported National Reciprocity until I read and considered the threat of how the federal government would most probably use it in the long term. Thanks to all opinions expressed on this topic. It has been food for thought.

  16. Be very careful with the CCW law. If your state allows 15 rounds and you drive into MA which limits you to 10 or NY with a limit of 7,you can be arrested. And then large cities have their own restrictions also. Same goes for knives.

Comments are closed.