Advertisements
Home

Illinois Dems Push Bill That Might Result In Dead Kids

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

This ignorance of the DemocRats pushing this bill is mind numbing.

Democrats have these weird ideas sometimes. They seem to think that if they hope really, really hard, bad things will magically disappear and we’ll all live peaceful, happy lives.

That’s the only explanation for this Illinois bill other than pure, outright evil.

Democratic lawmakers in Illinois have drawn up a piece of legislation that would give extra cash to schools that reallocate funds toward replacing armed security officers with unarmed social workers and behavior therapists.

The controversial bill, proposed by Rep. Emanuel “Chris” Welch, D-Westchester, would offer grants to schools that use funds meant for school security and instead spend it on mental health services, including hiring social workers or implementing other practices “designed to promote school safety and healthy environments,” as The Associated Press reported.

16 other Democrats in the House have backed Welch’s plan.

“This increased presence of law enforcement in schools does not necessarily enhance school safety,” Michelle Mbekani-Wiley from the Sargent Shriver Center for Poverty Law told The Associated Press. “Instead it dramatically increases the likelihood that students will be unnecessarily swept into the criminal justice system often for mere adolescent or disruptive behavior.”

However, supporters of school resource officers say their role is essential to keeping students safe, especially from acts of violence.

That’s because SROs are essential. When they’re not cowards, at least. They can meet an armed threat with an armed response. Removing them and replacing them with social workers is absolutely ridiculous.

I’m not saying social workers can’t do some good in some of these schools. I’m sure they can.

But when confronted with an armed threat, talking it out just isn’t really an option. Great Mills High School isn’t remembered as vividly as Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School because the SRO did his job and ended the threat. Period.

The truth of the matter is that this bill has more to do with hopes and wishes than real reality.

When people talk about the presence of law-enforcement in schools “sweeping” kids into the criminal justice system, they forget that unless the law permits the officer to arrest someone for a kind of behavior, they can’t do it. If you want SROs to be used less, then you simply make it so they can only act on things that would be criminal outside of school. Few would take issue with such a law, after all.

But to pretend that SROs represent some threat to students?

I’m sorry, but that’s dumb even by Illinois standards. School Resource Officers fill an important role, a role proven to be essential by the failures of Parkland. Had the SRO acted when he should have, how many lives would have been saved? Would we even be having this current gun debate? My guess is we wouldn’t.

But that SRO is the exception, not the rule, and to try and take SROs out of schools at a time when the public debate about combating violence in our schools is so prevalent isn’t just dumb. It’s potentially lethal.

Seriously, it’s almost like they want kids to be murdered.

Advertisements

Police Chiefs Send Letter Opposing National Reciprocity

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

This 2.6% of the police chiefs opposing National Reciprocity are most likely from DemocRat controlled cities and states. 

As national reciprocity languishes in the Senate, it seems the anti-gun forces aren’t taking any chances on it staying that way. Recently, a group of police chiefs decided it was time to step up and do something about it. You know, just in case.

They sent a letter to leaders of Congress expressing their opinions on the bill.

The country’s police chiefs are rising up against another conservative crime-fighting initiative. They sent a letter Thursday (April 19) to leaders of Congress to oppose a bill that would let gun owners with concealed-carry permits in one state carry concealed weapons in all 50 states.

The letter from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, representing 18,000 police departments across the United States, and Boston Police Commissioner William Evans targets the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,” which passed the House in December and is now pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter is endorsed by 473 police officials from 39 states, from large departments such as Los Angeles and Atlanta to small departments such as Spanish Fork, Utah, and Falls Church, Va.

“This legislation,” the letter states, “is a dangerous encroachment on individual state efforts to protect public safety, and it would effectively nullify duly enacted state laws and hamper law enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence.”

On concealed weapons, states currently issue permits to individual gun owners, and different states have different criteria for issuing the permits. Some states require training and proof of proficiency, while some states require no qualifications. Some states recognize the permits of certain other states, but many do not. And a dozen states now have “constitutional carry,” meaning weapons may be concealed without a permit.

The bill in Congress is described by the National Rifle Association as its “highest legislative priority.” The measure would require all states simply to recognize the permits of all other states, regardless of the conditions imposed by individual states for obtaining the permits.

Now, some may accept this as evidence that this is a bad idea. I, however, don’t.

First, it’s just over 2.6 percent of the departments represented by the Association of Police Chiefs. That’s a tiny fraction of the group. While it’s unlikely you’d ever get all the chiefs to sign onto the letter, if this had some overwhelming support from the chiefs, you’d expect to see at least a double-digit percentage represented.

That didn’t happen.

In other words, this was something more than 95 percent of the chiefs didn’t feel like signing on for because they most likely understood there were no risks involved in this.

Every state that issues a concealed carry permit has different requirements, but all include a background check beyond the NICS check used to purchase a firearm. The reality is, we’ve seen that those with permits are far less likely to commit crime than those who aren’t part of that group. Lawful gun owners aren’t the problem and never have been.

It seems that the vast majority of police chiefs understand that and opted to not sign the letter. Those that did represent liberal communities that just don’t know any better and don’t want to be bothered with facts that blow up their preconceived notions.

Wisconsin Court Of Appeals Reinstates Lawsuit Against Armslist

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

This ruling by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals smacks of judicial activism and hopefully this lawsuit will be dismissed.

If you sell a car to someone who then uses it to commit a crime, are you somehow responsible? The answer is no, of course–not if you had no reason to believe he intended to use the car for something illegal, and honestly, who would?

Why are guns treated any differently?

Every time there’s a mass shooting, someone wants to sue the gun manufacturer, as if it’s their fault the guy who bought their product turned out to be a psycho.

However, it also happens on a smaller scale, such as this now reinstated lawsuit in Wisconsin.

The state Court of Appeals on Thursday reinstated a lawsuit against the online firearms brokerage where a man obtained the gun used to kill three people and himself at a Brookfield spa in 2012.

It is the first court in the nation to hold that a web-based gun marketplace might be held liable for negligence in facilitating an unlawful weapons sale.

“There are far too many bad actors out there, particularly unlicensed online gun sellers, who are putting profits ahead of safety. This court decision puts sites like Armslist on notice that they can and will be held accountable,” said Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is part of the plaintiff’s legal team.

For the record, these are either face-to-face transfers from one private individual to another private individual–thus not an actual gun dealer–or they’re someone who routes sales through a licensed FFL.

What Brown is trying to do here is present it like the internet is the Wild West for gun sales, that you can buy whatever you want and it’ll come right to your door or something. It’s not like that.

What happens with transfers like the one alleged to have occurred is no different than advertising in the classifieds. You put up that you have a gun for sale and someone else says they have money and want the gun. Boom.

Let’s not pretend there are a bunch of people out there playing Lord of War or something.

Zina Daniel Haughton and two others were killed when her estranged husband, Radcliffe Haughton, shot up the Azana Spa where she worked. Four others were injured, and Radcliffe Haughton fatally shot himself. Zina Haughton’s coworkers, Cary Robuck and Maelyn Lind, were killed.

Yasmeen Daniel, personally and as administrator of her mother’s estate, sued Armslist.com, on which Radcliffe Haughton found someone to sell him a gun and ammunition while he was prohibited by a domestic violence injunction from having firearms.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Glenn Yamahiro had dismissed the suit in 2016, citing the immunity granted to “interactive computer services” under the federal Communications Decency Act. He found that Armslist only displays content created by third parties and couldn’t be liable for being just the publisher of others’ content on its site.

Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals felt differently.

However, there’s absolutely no evidence that Armslist actually did anything wrong. They simply provided a site where people could engage in lawful trade. If someone misrepresented himself as a lawful purchaser to a private individual who wasn’t required to perform a background check, why are they responsible?

The paper notes that sites like Craigslist and eBay won’t allow guns to be listed, which is true. That’s why sites like Armslist were created in the first place, to give people a chance to find buyers for firearms they wanted to sell and vice versa.

To blame them for this horrible crime is ridiculous. Hopefully, the courts will finally put this to rest.

Defiant Op-Ed Author Refuses To Comply With City’s Proposed Assault Weapon Ban

2 Comments

H/T Bearing Arms.

It is refreshing to see an Op-Ed writer buking against the proposed tyranny from the city of Boulder. 

States that lack preemption laws are starting to see some of the ramifications of that. Communities are deciding to ban the ownership of so-called assault weapons within the city limits, thus forcing owners to either sell their guns or move.

One community considering such an act is Boulder, Colorado.

At least one resident of Boulder, however, is defiant.

My home town of Boulder is about to define me as a criminal if I do not disarm or move.

Let this column serve as a public notice, I will not comply.

I was raised in Colorado and moved to Boulder in 1984, graduated from CU there and stayed. I proudly represented Boulder on the RTD Board of Directors. My late daughter rests in a Boulder cemetery. I plan to be laid to rest beside her when my time comes. All that to say my roots are deep in my hometown.

But to be who I am, to be true to my values I hold dear, I must choose to leave or go to jail.

Boulder prides itself on promoting inclusion, diversity and tolerance. And there was a time it lived up to those now-empty words — a time when Boulder was diverse enough to welcome such opposites as the beatnik, Buddhist Naropa Institute and Soldier of Fortune magazine.

But it’s getting very clear Boulder doesn’t want my type in their lily-white, homogeneous town.

Boulder City Council is on the verge of passing a sweeping anti-gun ordinance, laughably called an assault weapons ban. So loosely written, this ordinance would ban the first gun I ever owned, a simple .22 caliber rifle, the same type most farm boys get on their twelfth  birthday. Its sin? It can be fitted with a pistol-grip or a folding stock.

The author, Jon Caldara, is right to be defiant. Such a ban is probably unconstitutional anyway, and defiance can lead to a Supreme Court decision overturning such a ban. Possibly all assault weapon bans, even, though I wouldn’t hold my breath. Still, a guy can dream.

However, Caldara is still right.

There are all kinds of problems with the Boulder proposal, but let’s start from a premise that’s actually bogus: that some guns are bad.

The problem here is that trying to ban particular weapons by name is a fool’s errand. The manufacturer will change as little as they can, then rerelease the weapon under a new name, thus avoiding the ban.

So you ban features. The problem is that then you start catching weapons that aren’t actually bad. You start covering guns like that .22 rifle so many kids get in their tween years. You start covering that collector’s rifle because you’re interested in a particular era of history. You start covering a lot of things you never meant to cover. In theory.

The alternate theory is that you want it broad so you can ban as many guns as humanly possible with your assault weapon ban, but that couldn’t be it, right? Nah. No one would do something like that. (Please tell me you can read sarcasm?)

For what it’s worth, I support Caldara’s defiance and I hope others in Boulder will speak out about their own plans to defy such a law. Perhaps if people understand that their neighbors, the people they’ve known for years, would become criminals overnight, they’d stop with this nonsense.

New Bill Seeks To Push States To Require License To Buy Handgun

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

A bill by delusional DemocRats that is intended infringe on and then destroy our Second Amendment Rights.

It’s not enough that the anti-gunners are trying to take away our so-called assault rifles. No, that’s not nearly enough for them. Not that anyone thought it would be, mind you, but I didn’t expect them to ramp it up quite this soon.

The latest effort seeks to push states to establish handgun purchasing licenses in all 50 states. While it won’t require it, at least not yet, it’s still an effort to undermine our Second Amendment rights (emphasis mine).

Sponsored by Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.), Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) and Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), HR 5490—otherwise known as the “Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act”—is framed as a means of reducing firearm homicide rates nationally.

HR 5490 calls for federal grants to be given to state, local and tribal governments. The governments would then develop and implement a handgun license scheme. To qualify, a state must have a law requiring that a handgun license applicant be at least 21. Furthermore, applicants would have to apply through enforcement agency. In addition, all applicants would be required to supply fingerprints and photographs, as well as pass a “background investigation” and a “criminal history check.”

Under HR 5490, a handgun license would be good for five years. After that, a person would have to go through the process all over again.

In addition, the measure is backed by numerous gun control organizations. The groups include the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; CT Against Gun Violence and the Newtown Action Alliance.

Time and time again, Etsy seems convinced that laws like this will actually work, and she presents supposed data that proves it.

But I don’t buy it.

The reason I don’t buy it is that we already know that criminals don’t buy their guns from gun stores. They simply don’t. Further, handgun purchasers–and every other kind of firearm purchaser–already go through a criminal history check and background check. They’re the same damn thing. And it’s because of these existing background checks that criminals tend to get guns through some other means.

Now, as bad as this bill is, it could be worse. It’s trying to provide a carrot rather than a stick to urge states to adopt this nonsense. I seriously doubt many states that don’t already use some kind of licensing scheme will adopt it just because the feds are offering money for it.

Then there’s the fact that the bill was first introduced a week ago and has a whopping two co-sponsors.

In the world of politics, the number of co-sponsors a bill has is a useful gauge as to how much support the bill has. Even in this rabidly anti-gun environment, liberal politicians don’t want any part of a bill like this.

While gun control activists love it, the average person doesn’t want their right to buy a handgun inhibited by this. Handguns are the preferred choice for self-defense weapons for most people, after all, and if they need a gun right away, licenses get in the way of them getting one.

“But why would anyone need to buy a gun in a hurry unless they have something bad planned?” an anti-gunner may ask.

To that, I simply point out that the moment you start getting death threats or you realize you have a stalker, you have a good reason to want a gun. The last thing you need to do is jump through hoops to get a license just so you can exercise your Second Amendment right to buy a pistol.

Luckily, I think this has a snowball’s chance in hell of passing, but it warrants keeping an eye on just in case.

Students For Concealed Carry Lash Out At Repeated Claims Of Astroturf

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

 Students For Concealed Carry is grassroots unlike David Camera Hogg and his followers. 

               

Grassroots organizations tend to come with a certain appeal for politicians. After all, these are groups that represent a groundswell of support from the real people of this country. That’s why charges of “astroturf” are so damaging to such a group.

A while back, the Students for Concealed Carry got such a charge, and as the author seems intent on repeating it, they’ve decided to defend themselves.

Anti-Campus Carry “Journalist” Persists in Touting Conspiracy Theory About SCC

AUSTIN, TEXAS – When The Trace, the “news” arm of gun-control conglomerate Everytown for Gun Safety, published a 2015 article claiming that Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) was founded by a wealthy cabal of gun lobbyists rather than by a poor group of college students, SCC not only denied the accusation but also offered to make a $5,000 charitable donation in the name of any gun-control group that could corroborate the accusation. When nobody tried to collect, SCC considered the matter settled. Sadly, the freelance journalist who wrote the original article refuses to let the issue rest.

In 2015, Adam Weinstein, now a senior editor for military magazine Task & Purpose, was working as a stringer for The Trace when he wrote “The Secret History of the Campus Carry Movement.” In the article, Weinstein notes that approximately one year before SCC was founded, the gun-rights group Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the libertarian-leaning Leadership Institute (LI) had preliminary talks about starting a college-based gun-rights organization. Weinstein then makes the unsupported leap to the conclusion that SCC was actually founded by GOA and LI and not, as SCC has always claimed, by a handful of students.

When neither Weinstein nor his editors at The Trace responded to SCC’s offer to donate $5,000 in the name of any group that could substantiate Weinstein’s claims, SCC leaders felt vindicated enough to let the matter drop. However, in the wake of former congressman Steve Stockman’s multiple felony convictions, Weinstein is now touting his conspiracy theory—which attempts to tie Stockman to SCC—on social media.

On April 12, Weinstein tweeted, “Former congressman Steve Stockman was just convicted on 23 felony financial fraud counts. Good time to recall that he was instrumental in funding and organizing the right’s astroturfed, paid ‘campus carry’ activist network in US colleges.”

In recent years, The Trace has seemingly backed away from Weinstein’s conspiracy theory—a theory that at least two mainstream journalists, one writing for The Chronicle of Higher Education and the other writing for Rolling Stone, have failed to corroborate. So SCC decided to reach out to the editors of The Trace and ask them pointblank whether they stand by Weinstein’s 2015 article.

In an April 17 tweet to The Trace’s five editors, SCC writes, “@TraceBurnett, @ben_hallman, @KO_616, @3ba, and @MilesKohrman, does The Trace stand by @AdamWeinstein’s assertion that Students for Concealed Carry is a paid ‘astroturf’ organization?”

In a series of follow-up Tweets, SCC adds, “@TeamTrace, what does it say about your credibility when the same journalist who wrote your 3,400-word article accusing @NRATV of ‘fake news’ and baseless ‘conspiracy theories’ also wrote your 3,200-word article espousing a baseless conspiracy theory about a gun rights group?”

As of the morning of April 18, nobody from The Trace has responded to SCC’s inquiries.

As has been the case since the day Students for Concealed Carry was founded (by a political science major at the University of North Texas), all of SCC’s leaders and activists are unpaid volunteers.

###

ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY — Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other organization. For more information on SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus. For more information on the debate over campus carry in Texas, visit WhyCampusCarry.com or tweet @CampusCarry.

Now, in the grand scheme of things, it probably doesn’t matter too much who started SCC. They’ve done great work, and I say that as someone who now can carry on a college campus thanks to the good work of people like SCC.

That said, though, the charges SCC are leveling are serious. A claim was made by a journalist, one he’s still not backing down on, that a group was created by two larger organizations rather than a college kid who wanted to defend himself. The Trace ran it, seemingly without fact checking to make sure the claims were accurate or possibly even reading it.

A claim like that calls Weinstein’s journalistic integrity into question, as well as that of The Trace. While The Trace is a biased entity, that doesn’t mean they are above journalistic ethics. Bearing Arms is a biased entity as well, but I wouldn’t run a claim, present it as fact, without having actual proof.

What Weinstein did was see a piece here, a piece there, and figured he had the whole blasted puzzle figured out. SCC argues that he wasn’t even close since those two pieces weren’t even from the same box (just to strangle the crap out of this metaphor).

Either way, SCC has done some good work, and I hope they continue.

             

Two Florida Police Officers Killed In Ambush

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

  Sergeant Noel Ramirez and Deputy Taylor Lindsey were murdered by a coward inspired by the toxic atmosphere aimed at the police brought on by Bathhouse Barry Obama. 

Sgt. Noel Ramirez, 29, one of two sheriff’s deputies killed in Trenton, Fla. Credit Gilchrist County Sheriffs Office

Deputy Taylor Lindsey, 25. Credit Gilchrist County Sheriff’s Office

 

 

 

Being a police officer is a job with inherent risks. Most officers understand those risks. Officers are killed responding to domestic disputes or pulling over dangerous people without even realizing it. It’s a tough job.

However, in Trenton, Florida, two police officers were apparently ambushed and murdered simply because of the badge they wear.

Sergeant Noel Ramirez and Deputy Taylor Lindsey, the Gilchrist County Sheriff’s Office deputies fatally shot in an ambush at a Chinese restaurant in Trenton, Florida, were remembered as “the best of the best” and officers who were men of integrity and loyalty.

A statement from the Gilchrist County Sheriff’s Department indicated the shootings were completely unprovoked and that the deputies were executed through a window as they simply sat there eating a meal. The double shooting occurred in Trenton, Florida.

I can’t disagree with Schultz.

Look, bad cops deserve to be called out. They should be called out and prosecuted if appropriate. But we should all strive to remember that a lot of officers are good people who are just trying to help folks.

But police officers have been demonized to a significant degree. It’s okay now to hate the police. There are places trying to disarm their police, for crying out loud. They’ve been called everything except decent human beings.

And now two are dead, gunned down while eating lunch.

What remains to be seen is whether this is an isolated event or part of something bigger. Immediately after the Dallas Police Shooting, there were several more ambush-style killings of law enforcement officers. Eventually, it all died down. Thankfully. Or at least seemed to.

Was this a delayed follow-on to that series of police murders? Or is this an attempt to spark it back up? Or was this something else entirely?

Police officers make enemies simply by doing their jobs well. It’s entirely possible this is personal. Maybe these two deputies arrested the killer at some point for something and he’s holding a grudge.

In the grand scheme, I’m not sure it matters. Two officers are dead today, and they shouldn’t be.

Folks, blue lives do matter. I don’t give a damn what the left wants to tell you on this. Those lives matter because they’re people, people with families and friends, and all those people are now having to deal with the loss.

Gun Control Advocates Paint Law-Abiding As Dangerous Lunatics In New Op-Ed

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

The shrill rantings of the unhinged gun control crowd.

Last week, the National Catholic Reporter decided to attack gun rights supporters with a typically alarmist headline: “Gun rights advocates pursue their goals with no restraint.”

The actual copy didn’t get any better.

As part of Time magazine’s recent article on the Parkland, Florida shooting, several steps were identified that could be taken to reduce gun violence. They represent common-sense, logical steps that would seem to be acceptable to any reasonable person.

Reasonable by whose definition? Note then that, if I disagree with them, they’ve already painted me as “unreasonable” and “lacking common-sense.” Certainly they cannot be expected to have a civil debate with such a person.

Not only do gun rights advocates reject these ideas, but their attacks against them expose these advocates as failing to care about the carnage they are contributing to by their recalcitrance.

Or maybe we just don’t think the things you people call “common-sense” are anything of the sort, lacking — as they do — any basis in objective reality. Moreover, isn’t it a bit bigoted to paint an entire class of people with such a broad brush. Oh, wait, they’re only gun owners, not “people.”
Doctors in some states are not permitted to talk to their patients about guns. Such restrictions hinder the ability of doctors to discuss safety issues with their patients. What kind of mentality would propose laws that prevent doctors from doing their jobs?
First off, it’s none of my doctor’s business if I own or don’t own firearms. Second, note, once again, the implication that any one who proposes such laws is nuts.

Aligned with that stance is the refusal by Congress to allow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the effects of guns and gun violence on our communities. In 1996, Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, which mandated that no CDC funds could be used for research that might promote gun control. What are politicians and the National Rifle Association afraid of discovering about the gun culture in our country?

Where to begin? As the Federalist notes, the CDC is not prevented from doing such research. They are, however, prohibited from advocating for gun control.

In 1996, a few years after the Center for Disease Controls had funded a highly controversial study that has since embedded itself into the “scientific” case for gun control, Arkansas Republican Jay Dickey added an amendment to a funding bill that dictated “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control” should be used to “advocate or promote gun control.” That same year, Congress also cut $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the amount it spent on gun control efforts. Bill Clinton signed it into law.

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little.

But never let the facts get in the way of a good narrative, such as “smart guns.”

Even more alarming is the failure to invest in safe gun technology. Technology exists through biometrics that would ensure that only the legitimate owner of a gun would be able to use it. While such technology would not prevent all shootings, it is estimated it could save 500 lives each year. While there is growing interest in the technology, opposition seems almost criminal. The idea that it is somehow more important to advocate for gun manufacturers than it is to save the lives of our young people is patently indefensible.

Of course, as multiple articles across the net have pointed out, Smart Guns simply aren’t, well, smart. Even Wired admitted they would do zip about mass shootings.

So, if smart guns are no good, then we at least ought to be able to sue gunmakers for the misuse of their product (which functioned as designed), right?

Finally, the fact that Congress passed a 2005 law that prevents gun manufacturers from being sued for the misuse of their products is astounding. While our society has certainly become overly litigious, how can it be that we have a right to sue anybody for anything, except gun manufacturers?

Really? Because we don’t sue car makers when some yo-yo plows through a crowd. Even NPR pointed out back in 2015 that you don’t sue a manufacturer for misuse of their product.

Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, said in an email to NPR:

“The 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design. Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product.”

NPR expanded on this:

In other words: If you aim and fire a gun at an attacker, it’s doing what it was intended to do. If it explodes while you shoot and hurts you, though, then you can sue the manufacturer. Likewise, if you had told the gun-store owner you planned to commit a crime with that gun, your victim could potentially sue.

That law was necessitated by the fact that cities were lining up to sue gun manufacturers for the criminal misuse of their project as a way to get at the gun industry.

Break this whole article down and it’s just one more attack on normal, law-abiding folks who happen to own guns, painting them as deranged lunatics who do not care about other people.

Straight out of Alinsky folks. They never change the playbook: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

 

Armed Homeowner Holds Burglars Until Police Arrive

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Once more a gun stops and crime and saves lives.

If the average gun owner will ever need to draw a weapon in self-defense, facing a burglar is probably one of the most likely possibilities. It’s still rare, but it’s probably the case that’s most likely to occur.

That possibility became reality for one North Carolina man.

Oakly was barking.

That was unusual, because she seldom actually barks, especially at 7:20 a.m.

That’s why Oakly’s owner, Owen Turman, decided to get out of bed and head downstairs to quiet the dog. It was Sunday morning, after all.

What Turman didn’t expect was a strange man in his outdoor sunroom, trying to get into the house.

Turman, who lives on Culpepper Road off Wilkesboro Highway, quickly snatched his .22-caliber bolt-action rifle and went around back to confront the stranger.

He asked the man what he was doing, told him to get away from the door and to lie on the ground. The stranger followed orders, but didn’t answer questions, like who he was or what he was doing. Turman, still in his underwear, called police.

And he waited.

 

The suspect didn’t wait patiently either, which is to be expected. Apparently, he started throwing needles at Turman’s vehicle.

Turman was also worried he’d have to fire his weapon and his little girl might see it.

It’s a terrible thought, the idea that your child might see you take another life. It’s not difficult to imagine how such an act might change the way a child looks at you. That’s terrifying.

Luckily, it was never more than a hypothetical.

In time, the police arrived and took the suspect into custody. Turman and his family were safe, at least in part because he was an armed citizen.

It’s important to remember that there are people in this country who would have preferred Turman and his wife have been murdered by a drugged out criminal than have the means to end the threat peacefully.

Keep in mind that this particular incident is unlikely to show up in any official number. When anti-gunners claim using a firearm in self-defense is rare and cite statistics of justifiable homicides, they’re ignoring people like Mr. Turman here. They’re pretending people like him don’t exist.

But they do. There are hundreds of thousands of them each year. They far outstrip those who illegally misuse firearms.

Guns, quite simply put, save lives. They save far more lives every year than they allegedly cost. Mr. Turman and his family are safe and sound, in part because of a firearm.

After all, if he didn’t have a gun, we might be talking about something far worse than a homeowner holding a suspect for the police. Instead, we could be talking about how a family had been slaughtered in the most horrific of ways. We’re not. With luck, we’ll stop seeing cases like that entirely.

But it won’t be in a world without guns. That gun free, crime-free Utopia simply doesn’t exist. It cannot exist. A pesky thing like “reality” will keep getting in the way.

Arizona Woman Shoots Hatchet-Wielding Man Outside Store

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

 Female Concealed Carrier 1- Hatch-Wielding Carjacker 0. 

While guns get all the bad press these days, there’s something terrifying about a maniac with a blade. Maybe it’s because Hollywood has us all thinking gunshot wounds are clean, almost sterile, while blades kill with horrible messes. Maybe it’s something else. I honestly don’t know.

What I do know is that a guy wielding a hatchet is the kind of scenario that I like to think I train for but don’t think would really happen.

For one Arizona woman, however, it apparently did.

The Tucson Police Department said officers responded to the area of south 6th Avenue and east Pennsylvania Drive around 8:40 p.m. for a report of a shooting. Police arrived at the scene and located a man on the ground with an obvious gunshot wound, TPD said.

Officers provided aid to the man before paramedics arrived. He was transported to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, TPD said.

Police said the woman who shot the man stayed on scene and complied with police.

Investigators said the woman was leaving a store in the 4400 block of south 6th Avenue. She entered her vehicle and as she attempted to close the door the man approached her and demanded her car keys while holding a hatchet.

A carjacker with a hatchet.

And the alleged carjacker got shot for his trouble. I find I am unable to muster any sympathy for the guy. Not that I tried, mind you. If he did what he’s accused of then he got what he deserved.

It should be noted that the man is still alive. What that means is that when anti-gunners present their statistics claiming that self-defense isn’t that common–statistics that only count self-defense fatalities–this is one that won’t be in that number. After all, if the guy doesn’t have life-threatening injuries, he should recover.

He should take this opportunity to consider his life choices, however. A bullet wound could just as easily have been fatal, so this is an invitation to change is (alleged) ways. For example, he should probably stop trying to jack people’s cars while using something that’s only generally a viable weapon in a horror movie where the killer covers his face with some kind of mask.

Once he learns that lesson, he should start working on not stealing cars at all. Keep going down that road and maybe he’ll stop being an alleged scumbag criminal.

Here’s hoping.

I’m very glad the woman is unharmed. It sounds like she did everything right from the minimal description we have. She took down the bad guy and made sure to cooperate with police. That always looks better for the armed citizen if at all possible.

She also has the added bonus of having ended the threat without the loss of life.

While it’s easy for people to sit back and think it would be better if she’d killed the scumbag, the act of taking a life often comes with a lot of psychological baggage that few of us are really ready for.

What matters is that she’s safe and sound and the bad guy gets to explain himself to the legal system.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: