Thursday, October 23, 2014

Illustrated Guide to Gun Control

Source  and Lawdogfiles Here

PA House Moves to Spank Scofflaw Governments, Concurs with HB80 (preemption enforcement)

Every one of the 50 states has some kind of firearms preemption law.   This makes perfect sense, as otherwise each town, county, and local government could enact a local ordinance to invalidate your right to keep and bear arms.   You could easily be placed in jail for an inadvertent violation of an ordiance that you never knew existed, just because you crossed an invisible political boundary.

Pennsylvania has such a law, and it is a well thought out example.  There is only one problem; the means to enforce it is weak.   To prevent local governments form flaunting the rule of law, Pennsylvania has passed a simple revision:  If a local government violates the law, they can be sued, and they have to pay the legal fees of the other side if they lose.     Once the suit has been filed, they cannot simply revoke the law and walk away, smug in knowing that they cost those attempting to enforce their rights, and did not have to pay anything.  It is a trick that has been used successfully in Pennsylvania, but it seems that it is headed for the dust bin of history.   HB80 started out as HB 2011.  It passed the House on 6 October, 143 to 54.    It went on to the Senate as HB1243.   In what has become a common legislative maneuver, it passed the Senate 36-14, on 16 October.    The vote was originally reported as 32-16, then later revised to 34-14

Because of the amendment maneuver,  HB80 had to have a concurrence vote in the House.   On 20 October, it passed,  138 to 56.    It has been signed in the Senate, and now goes to Governor Corbett. 

Governor Corbett has said that he will sign the bill

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

The Good Old Days (when guns were less lethal)

There were anti-aircraft cannons and ammunition for sale through the mail back then as well.  I  remember buying my first pistol, a Colt Woodsman, across state lines without paperwork,  for cash, just before the Gun Control Act of 1968 went into effect, at age 17.  It was all legal, and the crime rate was lower than it is now, even after it has dropped by half in the last 20 years.

 ©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Is Strict Scrutiny Really a Trojan Horse to Defeat the RKBA?

I don't understand the opposition to the ballot measure for Amendment 3 in Alabama, which would direct judges in the state to apply strict scrutiny to cases where the state's compelling interest is opposed to the individual and fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

For example, the Bama Carry organization, both at the state level and local chapters, have had officers tell their members to vote NO on Amendment 3. Ol' Backwoods heard this personally at the Bama Carry Rivers Region chapter meeting this past Monday in Elmore County.

Why? Is strict scrutiny really such a Trojan Horse that it will bring the loss of our right to keep and bear arms?

More Here

Dave Workman: I-591 Backers Press Charges in Yard Sign Theft

A former city councilwoman takes a yard sign, and may face repercussions.  Dave does his usual good job.

A former Bellevue city councilwoman who supports gun control Initiative 594, and donated to that campaign, could face a misdemeanor charge for removing at least one and possibly two yard signs promoting rival Initiative 591, after two gun rights organizations decided to press charges, Examiner confirmed today.

Former councilwoman Margot Blacker acknowledged in a telephone interview with Examiner that she removed a “Yes on 591” sign, and apparently “picked up” a second sign that she claimed had been blown over. A Bellevue police officer returned both signs to the I-591 campaign after contacting Blacker.

More Here

Dave Workman: Seattl3e Times Plays Politics with Ferguson Story

Dave does a good job exposing the agenda in the Seattle Times story.  

Saturday morning’s on-line Seattle Times carried a report gleaned from the New York Times that offers some details about Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson’s account of the Aug. 9 shooting in which he fatally shot Michael Brown, touching off days of racial unrest and protests that continue now.

Some details, but not all, if one compares the edited Seattle version to what the “Gray Lady” detailed in its far lengthier account; details that make a considerable difference in determining whether the teen was shot dead in cold blood, or whether there was a life-or-death struggle that demanded a lethal act. KIRO Eyewitness News also has reported on the current situation.

More Here

MI: Gun Beats Knife in Flint

FLINT, MI -- A robbery didn't go quite the way one suspect planned when the intended target ended up holding him at gunpoint until police arrived.

More Here

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Open Carry at the San Simon Rest Stop

On my way back to Yuma, I switched from concealed carry (open carry of modern handguns is illegal in Texas) to open carry.   Just past the New Mexico border, in Arizona, is the San Simon rest stop, at exit 388 on I-10.   I have been to this rest stop many times.   The Rest Area Guide is old and weatherbeaten.    There is no prohibition on the carry of arms, because of open carry activists actions at the Sacaton rest stop in 1998.   No one had a problem with me having a pistol in the rest area.  A friendly truck driver was happy to take my picture.

I noticed a number of collared doves at the rest stop.   They are an invasive species.   There is no limit on taking them in Arizona.

This one sat, unconcerned, just a few feet from my truck.

In spite of the doves, the rest area is not always a peaceful place.   This stop has special significance to me because of what happened to one of my students there.

He had driven a long ways, coming from New Mexico, and was very tired.   Open carry was the only way to legally carry in New Mexico and Arizona at the time.  He was openly carrying in a shoulder holster.

Just as he got out of the car, another vehicle abruptly stopped behind his car, blocking him in the parking space.   Two men quickly exited the vehicle, the passenger rapidly moving to flank him on the passenger side of my student's car, the driver getting out of the car and starting to move toward him.

The passenger flanking him saw the student's holstered firearm, yelled "Gun!", slammed to a halt, and ran back to the car.  The driver jumped back into the vehicle, the passenger entered with considerable rapidity, and the vehicle screeched off and away.

My student said that it happened so quickly, that he did not even realize that he was under threat until the pair started to accelerate away from him.  His fatigue had slowed his perceptions and reactions considerably.

A number of assaults and murders have happened at Arizona rest areas.   It did not happen this time.   This time the mere presence of a firearm stopped the assault cold.

Peaceful people do not block your exit and rapidly approach you from two directions.  Peaceful people do not yell "Gun!"  and retreat as fast as they can.

I firmly believe that his open carry stopped an assault that day, through tactical deterrence.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

OK: Homeowner fires at Intruders

TULSA, Okla. —

A midtown homeowner took matters into his own hands Sunday morning, after he woke up to suspected thieves in his house.


The neighbor didn’t want to share her name, but she said she’s glad her neighbor protected himself and his stuff.

More Here

FL: Motorcycle Chase ends in Shooting

What startled Osowiecki was the end of a nearly 1/4-mile chase where a motorcycle shop owner shot one of two suspects who had just stolen two of his motorcycles at about 3:30 a.m., according to the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office.

More Here

OR:Warning Shot Brings Help

Devon Woltring
I am not a fan of warning shots.   The bullet has to go somewhere;  in densely populated areas, there is a chance that an innocent person could be injured.   Still, I run across stories where warning shots seem to have "worked".  That is, the warning shot seems to have accomplished some good purpose, whether to defuse the situation without anyone being killed or wounded, or, as in this case, to bring help.

The suspect above is accused of stealing money from a resident, then returning to attack a resident of the home involved.  From
"The resident was armed with a 9 mm handgun, and the two struggled over the weapon," Sytsma said. The suspect then assaulted a guest in the home.

The resident fired a warning shot and a neighbor then intervened, dragging the suspect from the home and detaining him until police arrived.
"Warning shots" were often used prior to the late 1970's.   They went out of favor with the liability and litigation explosion that was occurring at the time, and with better communications and higher concerns over police responsibility.  During the same period, the courts neutered many of the "fleeing felon" statutes on the books.  

In most situations resolution without anyone being killed or wounded is better than the alternative.   I do not know the details involved in the altercation mentioned in the news article, but I suspect that the armed homeowner was pleased that he did not wound or kill anyone.  

We would have  to follow the career of Devon Woltring through any legal action, and for the rest of his life, to have an understanding if he will contribute to society, or at least not be a detriment.  By 21, peoples personalities are pretty well formed, and hard to alter.  Maybe this experience will be a "road to Damascus" moment, and he will come to Jesus.  The odds are against him.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Police South of the Border are Often Disarmed

I do not know where the above picture was taken.   I recall that I saw many empty holsters on police in Panama at shift change.   The practice was that the police did not keep a pistol with them; they were issued one at work, and turned it in at the end of the shift.  I vaguely recall seeing a banana or plantain in a couple of them.

I understand that Mexican police generally keep their firearms with them, but several other countries in Central and South America have the same policy as I saw in Panama.   Police in Panama might not take kindly to having their picture taken.   One of my friends sketched the local palace guard during the Noriega regime, and ended up in a Panamanian jail for a week before we could get him out.

I am curious if this practice is seen much in Europe, Asia, or Africa.  

I much prefer the American practice of the police having their own personal arms.   It is likely to increase their proficiency.    Many stalwart defenders of second amendment rights have been police, or spent a career as police.    They are a valuable part of the gun culture in the United States.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Monday, October 20, 2014

NY: Intruder Killed by Homeowner

Lt. Frank DiPrimo says the intruder was killed by the homeowner who is claiming self defense.

NE: Intruder Shot During

An armed man who allegedly broke into a Bellevue apartment was shot and killed Saturday night.

Police say one of the occupants of the apartment near East 19th Avenue and Main Street confronted 21-year-old Tyrell Dalia of Omaha, who was holding a handgun, and shot him just before 9 p.m.

More Here

CT: Man Shoots Neighbors Violent Boyfriend

Getting into the middle of a domestic problem is always dangerous.   

Their young son then went upstairs and knocked on the neighbor's door, saying that his father was assaulting his mother. When the neighbor walked downstairs, he saw Torres' girlfriend run outside. The neighbor then confronted Torres, who tried to grab the boy, according to police.

The neighbor said he ordered Torres to get on the ground, but Torres charged him, police said. The neighbor then fired his registered handgun.

More Here

Did the University of Idaho just push for "Swatting" of Legal Gun Carriers?

Matt Dorschel, on the left

Last Wednesday, 15 October, the University of Idaho held a forum on "guns on campus".   The main presenter was Matt Dorschel, university executive director for public safety and security.  While the forum attracted only a few students and faculty, the policy presented was radical.   From the Lewiston Tribune (pdf):
Dorschel said any firearm sighting is grounds to call 911 even if a person is not purposely showing their weapon. He said firearm holders have a responsibility to conceal their weapons and they are violating the university's policy if they don't. 
Despite this strict interpretation of the concealed carry law, it is unclear what the repercussions might be if a carrier can prove they have a concealed carry permit and were not intentionally showing the firearm. Aside from being asked to conceal or remove the weapon, Nelson said it's unlikely there would be any further punishment in these minor situations.
On 11 September, Dorschel said essentially the same thing.  From the
Nelson said faculty should contact police even if they see a firearm for a brief moment.
“We will not question a decision to call 911,” he said.
 This is very close to "swatting" people who are carrying firearms, if someone notices them for any reason.  The article says that this is a "strict" interpretation of the law.   It goes far beyond that.   Nothing in the law that I read indicates that individuals with the enhanced permit have to conceal their firearms.   The enhanced permit merely allows them to carry concealed weapons.   It does not *require* them to carry concealed weapons.   Idaho law does not prohibit the open carry of firearms, although the law allows open carry of firearms to be regulated on a college campus for people who do not have the enhanced concealed carry permit.  The wording of the law which restricts the authority of public colleges and universities is clear:
(2)  Notwithstanding any other provision of state law, this authority shall not extend to regulating or prohibiting the otherwise lawful possession, carrying or transporting of firearms or ammunition by persons licensed under section 18-3302H or 18-3302K, Idaho Code.
Neither 18-3302H or 18-3302K, referenced above, requires that holders of these permits always carry all of their weapons concealed.   That would be absurd.  It would mean that they could never carry a rifle or shotgun, even while hunting.  It would mean that they would be *more* restricted than people with ordinary permits or without permits at all, because they would not be allowed to carry weapons openly.   From  the Idaho Constitution:
Idaho Constitution Article I, Section 11
The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.
The state constitution seems quite clear; open carry of firearms shall not be abridged, but the carry of weapons concealed on the person may be regulated by law.

Nonetheless, the UI policy maintains that the law specifically allows the University to prohibit the open carry of firearms on campus.  From
Q 14. Does the new statute prohibit open carry of firearms on University property?
A - Yes. The law specifically allows the University to continue to prohibit open carry of firearms on University property. Open carry of firearms on University property is a violation of the Board of Regents and University policy.
However, the Q & A document never cites any applicable law that grants them the authority to ban the open carry of firearms by people with enhanced permits; they repeatedly only state that it is University policy.   

People who go to the trouble of obtaining an enhanced permit are extremely law abiding.   They do not seek out trouble, but go to considerable lengths to avoid it.   Otherwise they would not go to all the effort to obtain an enhanced permit.   The permit is available to those from out of state, but the intricacies of the requirements effectively mean that you have to go to Idaho to obtain the permit if you are not a retired law enforcement officer.  

Chances of someone challenging the absurd UI interpretation of the law are small.   It is unlikely that a retired, black, female, FBI agent will stroll through the UI campus with an obviously unloaded hunting shotgun over her shoulder.  Still, I think a YouTube video of such an event would be a hit.

Rights not exercised are rights lost.   Perhaps an alumni of UI would perform this act of strong, symbolic, political speech to show that the disarmenters* and hoplophobes among UI officials are all bluff.

*dis·arm·en·ter (ds-ärmn-tr)

1. A political operative who works to disarm political opposition through the use of irrational and/or emotional arguments.

2. A person who believes that disarming citizens will reduce crime or unjustified violence, in spite of contrary evidence or facts.

3. A person who wishes to disarm others because they do not trust themselves to bear arms responsibly.

 ©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

What is a Disarmenter?

dis·arm·en·ter (ds-ärmn-tr)

1. A political operative who works to disarm political opposition through the use of irrational and/or emotional arguments.

2. A person who believes that disarming citizens will reduce crime or unjustified violence, in spite of contrary evidence or facts.

3. A person who wishes to disarm others because they do not trust themselves to bear arms responsibly.

I have long considered various descriptions of people who push to disarm others, in spite of facts, logic, and historical evidence.  Several titles have been used; none have been completely satisfactory.  To be useful, the nomenclature cannot be so long as to be unwieldy.   It has to be easily understood.   It makes no sense to allow those who use irrational arguments to define the language.  Some candidates have been:

Anti-gun proponents, anti-second amendment proponents, those who push for citizen disarmament, those who want to disarm their political opponents, nanny statists, statists, fascists, gun controllers, gun grabbers, and control freaks.   They are all less than satisfactory.

An alternative might be disarmenter.   It succinctly captures the intent, disarmament, with the irrationality, demented.  As a single word, it is easier to use than a phrase, such as "proponents of citizen disarmament".

Senator Dianne  Feinstein, pictured above, fits the first of the proposed definitions, and may fit the second.    As she carried a gun for self protection, at least for a period of time, the third definition does not seem appropriate.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Sunday, October 19, 2014

PA:Barbershop Shooter Acquitted, Case in Shirt Pocket

A jury recently found Albert Dudley not guilty of aggravated assault, simple assault, reckless endangerment, and possessing an instrument of crime.

In 2012, Dudley become involved in an altercation with another barber at the shop where he worked.   Dudley had a concealed carry permit, and during the altercation, his firearm was fired, striking his opponent.  Versions of the event vary considerably.   From the article about the arrest:
Later, Dudley gave investigators a written statement saying he had been at work when the victim arrived, appearing intoxicated. He claimed the other man became physically aggressive during the argument.  
Originally, the suspect stated that during the tussle his gun fired accidentally while in the holster but changed his account several times, according to the criminal complaint. Dudley also said the victim took the gun from the holster and gained control of the weapon, but eventually the suspect regained control of the gun.

While gripping the firearm from the top, the gun fired as the victim backed Dudley into a wall, the gunman said.

At the trial,  Dudley took the stand and told this account:
On Thursday before closing arguments, Dudley took the stand and told the court the victim attacked him and he never meant for anyone to get shot on the day of the fight. He said the victim, whose name is being withheld by The Times Herald, was drunk started the fight. He further testified the man tried to grab his gun and in the struggle of getting his gun back, the gun went off. Dudley said once he realized the gun went off he offered to drive the victim to the hospital, but an ambulance and the police had already been called.
 Given the variation in accounts, and the potential attempt to alter a crime scene (Dudley was found with an empty case in his shirt pocket), I can see why the prosecutors decided to go forward to a jury trial.  Do not alter a crime scene.   It makes you appear guilty.

I have had shell caseings end up in my shirt pockets, so it can happen without evil intent.   Apparently the jury thought so as well.   The prosecutor was gracious at the end of the trial.    
Prosecuting attorney Rebecca Strubel said she respected the jury’s verdict, but did not comment any further.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Gun Free Zone by Heisenburgerking


D.C. Second Amendment Case Moves Forward

In July of 2014, the ban on carrying guns outside the home in the District of Columbia was struck down as violating the second amendment of the Constitution.   The judge granted a stay to the District government. 

In September, the District government passed emergency legislation that it claimed would meet Judge Scullin's requirements for a constitutional law.   The law contained numerous absurd restrictions.   On 2 October, Alan Gura filed a motion asking that the court block the implementation of the emergency law.  From
In a blistering court filing, attorney Alan Gura argues that the Council's bill — which limits concealed carry permits to residents who can prove they face a personal threat and restricts where they can travel with their handguns — does not meet the requirements of the late-July ruling in which Judge Frederick Scullin said the city's ban on carrying guns was unconstitutional. 

"The Court's order specifically instructed, in accordance with Supreme Court precedent, that the right to carry handguns is rooted in a constitutional self-defense interest. Yet [D.C. officials] have replaced their 'no permits are available' handgun carry regime with 'no permits are available merely for self-defense, and not unless we think, in our complete discretion, that it's a good idea,'" he wrote.
Judge Scullin heard the District governments arguments that he reconsider his ruling on October 17.    He denied that request.  From
A District lawyer argued, in part, that the second amendment just guarantees the right to own a gun, not to carry that gun in public. Ultimately, according to the Legal Times, the judge called the District's arguments "somewhat disingenuous" and questioned whether the lawyers had thoroughly read through his decision.
A response to Alan Gura's motion is expected next week.   The stay originally granted by Judge Scullin ends on 22 October.   If Judge Scullin rules that the emergency legislation is unconstitutional, the District of Columbia may once again enjoy the rights protected by the second amendment.

Alan Gura

Courts tend to move deliberately, so it is possible that Judge Scullin will grant more time for the D.C. government to present their case.  He has already granted them 90 days. 

His original ruling was very clear, however, and the emergency legislation does not meet his requirements, as I read them.   The next few days could be interesting.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

David Codrea: House Committees question FDIC on Operation Choke Point political pressure

Darrell Issa, Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Jim Jordan, Chair of the Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee, launched a probe Thursday after uncovering evidence the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation pressured banks to terminate accounts with disfavored businesses. Information was requested from Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry, a Friday committee press release reports. The purpose of the inquiry is to determine actions by federal banking regulators in the multiple federal agency Operation Choke Point initiative.

More here at Gun Rights Examiner

TX:Homeowner Shoots Suspect

The owner told police he heard something, went to investigate, saw a man in his SUV and then fired shots. He said he did not know if he hit the man.

Not long after, a man covered in blood began knocking on doors of homes a few blocks away.


Police said the homeowner was within his right to defend his himself and his home.

 More Here

FL:Home Invasion Shooting Ruled Justified

Investigators say White forced himself into the home against the homeowner's will and said he wanted to "shoot up" the house.

Detectives say the homeowner then fatally shot White, who was armed.


The case is closed and no charges will be filed against the homeowner.

More Here

FL: Woman Arrested for Protecting Children from Water Moccasin

Who would have thought that it would be illegal to defend children from a venomous snake?  This is where the insanity of extreme gun restrictions have brought us.   In Florida, a mother was at a school event during a football practice session.  A water moccasin was discovered on the practice field, but attempts to kill it with sticks were not successful.  From
April Dawn DeMarco, 30, was arrested for discharging a .380-caliber handgun on the practice football field of Bay High School, 300 E. 15th St., during practice last week for the local Pop Warner football team. Demarco apparently borrowed the pistol from Miren Gregory, 31, to protect nearby children after a group of parents found a water moccasin on the field, police reported.

Coaches and parents told the children to get out of the area after finding the moccasin. Gregory told DeMarco she had a concealed carry permit and a handgun after some of the coaches tried to kill the snake by hitting it with sticks.
Snakes can be difficult to kill with a stick, if there are obstacles nearby.  As this was a football practice field, the snake may have been hiding under equipment on the field.  From personal experience, I can say that a firearm is often the only means to stop the threat from a venomous snake that is in a semi-concealed position.   You do not want the snake to escape from view and remain in an area frequented by children.   It is like allowing a living land mine on the school grounds.

Here is where the law gets crazy.  Even if a person has a concealed carry permit, it is illegal to possess a firearm on school grounds during a school related event.   The penalty is a misdemeanor.  From statute 790.06(12):
(d) Any person who knowingly and willfully violates any provision of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree,
It is illegal to discharge a firearm on school grounds, but  there is an exception for using a firearm in defense of self or others.  From statute 790.115 2.(d)
(d) A person who discharges any weapon or firearm while in violation of paragraph (a), unless discharged for lawful defense of himself or herself or another or for a lawful purpose, commits a felony of the second degree,
If I were Dawn DeMarco's attorney, I would certainly be pleading that this was a clear case of defense of others.   It does not matter that Dawn missed the snake with the borrowed firearm.
One parent forewarned the women that having a firearm on school grounds was against the law when DeMarco said, “I will take the blame,” the parent told police.

This might be a good test case for reform of the silly gun free school zone law in Florida.   Even the federal gun free school zone law has an exception for those with concealed carry permits.

The person that Dawn DeMarco borrowed the pistol from was also arrested.   It is unknown if she had a concealed carry permit.

Gun free school zone laws have been a disaster from the beginning.  It is time to stop the idiocy.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Update:  Miren Gregory had the pistol and a concealed carry permit.   It is not known of Dawn DeMarco  had a concealed carry permit.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Gun Free Zone Signs Stopping Criminals

One of several on a theme that I want to have at hand.

How does Banning Citizen Carry of Guns in Kroeger's Stop Armed Robbery?

Bank Robber in a Kroeger's

On, a discussion about the Moms Demand Action push for a gun ban following an armed robbery of a bank inside of a Kroeger's, brought this commonly expressed question.  This one was from rktman:
"Uh, how would this have stopped the robbery again? Please 'splain that to us."
I will explain it.  MDA is playing a very long game.   In order to be effective, they have to reduce the number of guns in society by large, large, amounts.  They have to avoid considering any benefits gained from gun ownership.  Here is how I believe they think it will work:

1.  Bully retail establishments into banning the carry of guns in their stores, as a step to make guns illegitimate in society, as the combination of trial lawyers, legislators, and the old media have done with cigarettes.

2.  Keep incrementally banning guns everywhere possible to make guns more and more socially unacceptable, and legally difficult to own, in order to reduce the number of legal gun owners.

3.  When the number of legal gun owners are reduced sufficiently, ban the legal ownership of guns, except in extremely restricted circumstances.  Think Japan and the U.K.

4.  Gradually, through incremental gun confiscation, "buy backs", increasingly draconian restrictions on ownership and use, perhaps over a couple of generations, reduce the number of guns legitimately owned by 99 percent.

5.   This will start to reduce the number of guns used criminally by some amount, it does not matter how little.   As soon as the number of gun owners and/or guns start to drop, immediately claim credit for any crime reduction, even if the trends started long before your legislation and are not backed up by facts.

6.   Keep up the pressure, and eventually, after several decades, we will have less crimes committed with guns.   This is sure to happen, because even though crime has not been reduced elsewhere when guns were banned or restricted, we have a much larger number of crimes committed with guns than the UK or Japan.  Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, and Jamaica do not count because they are not the UK or Japan.

7.  An increase in crime by other means does not matter.   The goal is to reduce the number of crimes with guns, so only statistics involving guns matter.    It does not matter if overall homicides increase, if they are not committed with guns.   We can always turn our efforts to banning knives, as they have in the U.K.

8.  We know that governments will be beneficent all along the way, because no western democracy has ever been overthrown in the last 75 years.   Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico and Ukraine or other examples do not count, because they were not really western Democracies.   We know this because they were overthrown, invaded or became failed states, so they never were real Western democracies.  Blame their problems on the second amendment or on western democracies. 

9.   The efforts to reduce gun violence will not be rendered useless by 3D printing, smuggling, home made guns, or other technologies.  This is because we will define "gun violence" as violence with guns that were once in legal channels.   If a gun was produced illegitimately, we cannot be blamed.  We will also do everything we can to reduce access to those technologies that can be used to produce guns by anyone outside of governments.  

So you see, sometime in the far, far distant future, after the Constitution has been completely trashed, and the U.S. is a Utopian socialist state like the UK, we will have reduced armed robberies committed with guns by some amount.

This general program seemed to be working until about 1994, except, of course, the crime rate kept increasing with more restrictions on guns.   About 1994 "gun control" peaked, as did the levels of violent crime.  The electorate rebelled against the Clinton gun ban.  Second amendment supporters made serious gains from 1994 through 2013.  The rate of "gun violence" and overall violent crime fell in half.

I do not believe that the disarmenters have sufficient media control to pull off the above program, as illustrated by the failure of the Obama push for more gun control.   We are in the process of seeing  if a combination of old media push and new "progressive" billionaire money can do the trick.

A serious challenge exists in the tens of millions of dollars that are being thrown into initiative processes such as the Washington state initiative I-594.    If the disarmenters fail there, after spending 10 times as much as second amendment supporters, they may fall back for another 20 years.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

MS:Supreme Court Rules in favor of 71-Year-Old Harvell Richardson in Self Defense Case

Harvill Richardson

I recall this case from 2009.  The couple let a homeless man into their home, to help him.  Things quickly went bad.  The couple became fearful as he bragged about his past murders.  From
¶ 2. Because Rudy Quilon was homeless following his release from prison, Harvill Richardson permitted Quilon to move into his home while he got back on his feet. Over the next five months, Quilon became increasingly unwelcome as he bragged about having been convicted for murder and armed robbery, his previous experiences as a gang member, and killing a “snitch” in prison. He warned that he could harm those who upset him.

Read more here:
You have to wonders why the prosecutor wanted to put Richardson in prison so badly. says prosecutorial misconduct may have been involved: 
Since no good deed goes unpunished, Quilon begins a reign of terror that ends only when Richardson shoots Quilon after ordering Quilon to leave. Richardson claims self defense but, as is all too common in the courts of our state, his ability to present that defense is sorely limited by the trial court. Issues include: 1) court’s refusal to allow Richardson to elicit evidence of Quilon’s prior conviction and his conduct; 2) judicial bias and prosecutorial misconduct including the prosecution’s making false statements during closing argument; 3) refusal to allow Richardon to elicit evidence of his PTSD. Richardson’s brief. State’s brief.
The Supreme Court found that the Harrison County judge had erred.  The prosecutors appealed that ruling, again to the Supreme Court, on different grounds.   Four months later, the Court rejected that appeal as well. 

Richardson had never been in trouble with the law before.  The man he shot,  Rudy Quilon, was 55 with a violent criminal history.
Richardson was sentenced to life in prison in 2011 for the fatal shooting of Rudy Quillon, 55, Oct. 20, 2009, at Richardson's home on Old Highway 67.
It reminds me of the Harold Fish case in Arizona. Harold Fish was convicted by a prosecutor with an agenda. The legislature passed legislation designed to give Fish a new trial, at least three times. Governor Janet Napolitano vetoed two bills, and the Supreme Court ruled that a bill did not apply, because Harold was convicted before the bill was passed. It was only after Janet Napolitano was recruited by the Obama Administration, that the legislature was able to pass a bill and have it signed by Governor Jan Brewer. Fish was released after three years in prison.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Read more here:

NC:Intruder with Screwdriver Shot by Homeowner

They tell News 13 when the homeowner warned Hicks to leave he refused.  The homeowner's daughter says her father fired several warning shots before shooting Hicks in the right knee. 

More Here

ID:Court Knocks Down Corps of Engineers Ban on Guns

Senator Coburn of Oklahoma has been attempting to remove the ban on carrying guns on lands managed by the Army Corps of Engineer for several years.   Perhaps the Obama administration should have agreed to the legislative compromise before the ban was challenged in court.   Now the Corps  is faced with a court decision citing Peruta in the Ninth Circuit, that declares that carry outside of the home is a constitutional right

On 10 January, 2014, Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, issued a preliminary injunction against the Army Corps of Engineers to prevent enforcement of the Corps' rules banning guns on the properties that it manages.   Here is a link to the ruling itself (pdf).

In June of 2014, a lawsuit was filed in Georgia asking for an injunction against enforcement of the Corps' ban in that state.  

On October 13, 2014, the U.S. District Court in Idaho granted  summary judgement for the plaintiffs, Morris and Baker.   From the ruling (pdf) at Courthouse News:
 The Court has before it cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court heard oral argument on August 27, 2014, and took the motions under advisement. After further review, the Court has decided, for reasons set forth below, to grant the plaintiffs’ motion and deny the Corps’ motion.
The ruling is written in clear language.  It references the Georgia case, where the judge has refused to grant an injunction.  The Georgia judge cited the Nordyke case from the Ninth Circuit, but ignored the Peruta decision, also from the Ninth Circuit.   Judge Winmill writes that he falls under the Ninth Circuit, and must follow Peruta.
The Court must ask first whether the Corps’ regulation burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment. It does. The Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm for self-defense purposes. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628 (stating that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”). That right extends outside the home. Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1166 (holding that “the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense”).
Then Judge Winmill addresses a key point that is obvious, but which those who wish to disarm their political opponents frequently ignore on internet forums, and which we have seen enacted in various forms of legislation. The claim of the disarmamenters is that the second amendment protects guns ... but not ammunition. This is laughable to anyone who considers it, yet it has repeatedly been brought forth as if it contains a serious thought. Judge Winmill demolishes it below:
The Corps’ regulation bans carrying a loaded firearm for the purpose of self- defense. It also bans carrying an unloaded firearm along with its ammunition. At most, it would allow a person to carry an unloaded firearm so long as he was not also carrying its ammunition. An unloaded firearm is useless for self-defense purposes without its ammunition. While those who use firearms for hunting are allowed greater latitude, the regulation grants no such exemption to those carrying firearms solely for purposes of self-defense. Consequently, the regulation does impose a burden on plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. 
This echos a finding in the Ninth Circuit case JACKSON V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO(pdf).
Thus “the right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right” to obtain the bullets necessary to use them.
It is not known if the Obama administration will appeal this decision.  
They may not wish to risk an adverse decision in the Ninth Circuit.   Until there is an appeal, or an adverse Supreme Court decision, this decision is in force in Idaho.

 ©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Friday, October 17, 2014

MT:Armed Man and Sons hold Burglar Suspect at Gunpoint

The suspected burglar had an active warrant and is now in the CSKT Tribal Jail.

ROLLINS – It appears alleged burglar Cole J. Johnson was more afraid of the neighbor holding a loaded gun on him than he was of the four cops who showed up to arrest him.

The incident started about 10 p.m., Oct. 9, when a woman called 9-1-1 to report that her husband and two sons went to her neighbor’s house with a loaded gun, interrupted an attempted burglary and were holding the suspect at gunpoint.

More Here

Forensic science evidence shows teen shot at St. Louis officer, police say

ST. LOUIS - Gunshot residue tests and ballistics evidence indicate that Vonderrit D. Myers Jr. fired a gun at a police officer before being fatally shot, police and union officials said Tuesday.

The police department issued a statement saying that forensic scientists from the Missouri Highway Patrol crime lab found gunshot residue on Myers’ hands, shirt and inside the waistband and pockets of his jeans. Police said that although gunshot residue can be present on anyone near a shooting, the results show levels consistent with Myers being the shooter, because the police officer was standing too far away.

The residue also was found on Myers’ right hand only, police said.

Ballistics evidence also revealed three bullets that hit the ground where the officer was trying to take cover matched Myers’ gun. A round that pierced a car behind the officer was too badly damaged to be able to match it to Myers’ gun; however, it did not match the type of bullets the officer fired, police said.

Myers was shot to death by an off-duty police officer who was on patrol for a private residents’ association in the Shaw neighborhood Oct. 8. The officer saw Myers and two other young men run as soon as they saw him. The officer, who was driving a marked private security car and wearing his city police uniform, chased the young men.

Myers fired at least three shots at the officer before the officer returned fire, killing Myers.

The St. Louis Police Officers’ Association called a press conference Tuesday afternoon, shortly after the department released the gunshot residue findings.

Jeff Roorda, business manager for the association, said that police shooting cases are being tried “in the court of public opinion” and “we think there ought to be evidence presented” in that court.

“We’re done, as a police union, standing in the shadows in these cases,” Roorda said. Along with the gunshot residue results, Roorda and association president Joe Steiger mentioned photos circulating on social media showing Myers with guns and a prior arrest in St. Louis County in a shooting case.

Protesters also have taken to the streets of the Shaw neighborhood after Myers’ death. The first night, protesters threw rocks through windows of some homes and at least one business, vandalized three police vehicles and burned flags stolen from residents’ porches.

The police union press conference was sparked, in part, by the protests and “silly” claims that followed Myers’ death, Roorda said. Roorda said that after the Aug. 9 fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, “Protesters demanded immediate answers and demanded officers not shoot unarmed suspects. Everything they asked for in Ferguson they got in Shaw, and it still wasn’t enough.”

The officer’s name has not been released. His attorney, Brian Millikan, said the officer saw Myers running with his right hand holding the right side at his waistband, as if he could be keeping a gun in place.

Millikan said that was the same spot where the officer later saw Myers draw a gun. He said that the officer had an “obligation to act” after spotting the fleeing men.

The officer believes Myers fired five to seven times, Millikan said, and believes he would have been dead had the gun not jammed. Millikan said that one live round remained in Myers’ gun.

After Myers’ death, several photographs showing him holding three guns, including one that looked like the stolen Smith & Wesson pistol recovered at the scene, circulated on social media. Millikan said that his client recognized both Myers and the distinctive, two-tone semiautomatic in the pictures.

Documents Obtained by Judicial Watch Reveal that Fast and Furious Rifle Was Used in 2013 Phoenix Gang-Style Assault

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that, based on information uncovered through a Judicial Watch public records lawsuit against the City of Phoenix, the U.S. Congress has confirmed that an AK 47 rifle used in a July 29, 2013, gang-style assault on an apartment building that left two people wounded was part of the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning program.

An October 16 letter sent from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Rep. Darryl Issa (R-CA) to Deputy Attorney General James Cole discloses that “we have learned of another crime gun connected to Fast and Furious.  The [Justice] Department did not provide any notice to the Congress or the public about this gun.”  Grassley (Ranking Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee) and Issa
(Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee) detail:

Based on the serial number [1977DX1654] from the police report obtained by Judicial Watch and documents obtained during our Fast and Furious investigation, we can confirm that the assault rifle recovered in the vehicle on July 30, 2013, was purchased by Sean Christopher Stewart. Stewart pled guilty to firearms trafficking charges resulting from his involvement with Operation Fast and Furious … Stewart purchased this particular firearm on December 8, 2009, one of 40 that he purchased that day while under ATF surveillance” (emphasis in original document).

AZ:Armed Citizen Thwarts Bank Robbers, Kills One

After being shot, one robber dropped the stolen money.

An armed citizen in Arizona has stopped a bank robbery in a dramatic and effective fashion.   It appears that he determined what was happening, took action, and fired on the armed robbers when they resisted.   One robber was killed, the other is in custody.   It reminds one a bit of the famous Arkansas bank robbery that was thwarted by armed citizens in 1922From
"He took the keys out of the car because they left the car running. And so he took the keys out of the car and kind of, I guess, he stood behind it waiting for them (the suspects) to come out," said Therea Sessler, owner of Fix Salon.
The armed citizen used his head to gain tactical advantage.   He disabled the armed robbers means of escape, then took cover.  In the video, the witness above says that he "hid" behind the vehicle.

I suspect that he called the police.   It is not reported, but it makes sense to have reinforcements coming and aware of your presence.   We do not know if the robbers fired at him.  The citizen who thwarted the robbers was not identified, but the word on the street is that he was someone who owns a nearby business.

The Desert Schools Credit Union is located in a strip mall next to a Big 5 Sporting goods store.  Here is what the scene looks like from the air.  The Credit Union is to the right of the Big 5 sporting goods.

There appear to be four vehicles inside the police tape at the scene.   The planned getaway car may have been the gray sedan on the right.   It is blocking the handicapped space directly in front of the Credit Union.   The robber could easily have run the distance to where the money was dropped in front of the Big 5 before collapsing.

In the 1922 Arkansas bank robbery attempt, an armed citizen noticed a running car outside the bank, with a getaway driver in it.   He flattened both tires with a handgun;  the driver attempted to flee, but was shot by another citizen with a shotgun.   Three robbers were killed, two seriously wounded and captured.   Not one citizen was hit with stray gunshots.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Update: This magazine was found at the scene.  Its origin has not been reported.  It appears to be for .40 S&W or 9mm ammunition.

Lyndell Cherry, 29 is the robbery suspect who was shot.  The photo at the source  is several years old.

The armed citizen was extremely careful, and did not draw his gun or fire until the suspected bank robbers attempted to carjack an innocent couple.  The armed citizen is reported to be Sean Quaid.   From
The robbers saw a man getting out of a Chevrolet Silverado pickup and decided to steal his vehicle. Jones pointed his handgun at the pickup's driver -- and Quaid, apparently standing nearby, drew his own gun from a holster and told the pair to stop.

Cherry turned and aimed at Quaid, who fired his gun.

As the robber fell, the couple in the pickup apparently hopped out. Cherry threw his gun to Jones, who jumped in the pickup and drove off by himself. As mentioned, he didn't get very far. He hit a building, ran a red light, hit a car and then fled on foot, shedding clothes as he ran. Police nabbed him moments later.
Phoenix New Times did a good job on reporting details not mentioned in the old media.

PA:Bill to Hold Scofflaw Governments Accountable Passes Senate

HB1243 passed the Pennsylvania House of Representatives on October 6th, 143 to 54.   The bill adds teeth to the Pennsylvania preemption law that has been on the books for years.   Over 50 local governments have made a mockery of the rule of law by passing restrictive and illegal local ordinances.

 The bill allows member organizations to sue municipalities on behalf of their members, so those who push citizen disarmament (disarmenters?)  are claiming that it gives authority for the NRA to sue local governments.

That is true, just as the ACLU sues local governments over first amendment issues, or the environmentalists sue local governments over wetlands.   While I doubt that the founders would have believed that a local government would not be allowed to drain a swamp, I doubt they would have had a problem with states preventing  local governments from disarming their citizens.

Today, 16 October, the bill passed the Senate 32-16, as an amendment to another  bill.  The bill still needs to be signed by Governor Corbett.   He is in a race with Democrat candidate Wolf.   Corbett has an A rating by the NRA, and supports the PA preemption law.  I have not found a direct statement saying that Governor Corbett would sign the law.

With only a few weeks before the election, now would be a good time for Governor Corbett to show his support for the rule of law in Pennsylvania.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Update: Because it is an amendment, the bill will need to go before the House to be approved in a concurrence vote.

.22 Teaser in Oklahoma

I was traveling South on Highway 75 in Atoka, Oklahoma, when I saw the sign pictured above.   I couldn't resist stopping and finding out if it were true.  I have been saying that  the ammunition bubble was going to pop, and I have been seeing a bit more .22 ammunition available than a few months ago.

The sign was for  The Pawn Ticket, and it was open.

Once inside, I was informed that they had run out of .22 ammunition the day before.   They were selling it for $85 a brick (500 rounds) or $10 for a box of 50.   Those prices are a bit high.   I have seen .22 ammo in a gun store in Yuma, Arizona, for $3.19 a box of 50 just a month ago.

The shop has only been open for a year.   They had a nice selection of used guns, but I had miles to go and commitments to keep.

About twice as many guns were stored in a more secure room.  A customer posed for the photo.

I wish them the best of luck.   Starting a new business is never easy.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

Thursday, October 16, 2014

AZ:Intruder Shot, Killed

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. - In Scottsdale, a home invasion ended with the intruder being shot and killed.

Police say the suspect broke into an apartment near Granite Reef & Indian School and got into some sort of struggle with the people inside.

More Here

PA:Dem Rep in Gunfight with Robbers

State Rep. Marty Flynn exchanged gunfire late Tuesday night in Harrisburg with suspects who were trying to rob him and another lawmaker, a spokesman for the House Democratic Caucus confirmed Wednesday morning.

Bill Patton said that Flynn, D-Scranton, and state Rep. Ryan Bizzarro, D-Erie, were walking from the Capitol to the house they stay in when they were approached by their assailants.

More Here

OK: Retired Minister wins Gunfight with Intuder

Guns are great equalizers.  A retired preacher on dialysis, in his 70s won the fight with a younger intruder who had a shotgun.

"My husband just told me to stay back," Frances Banks can be heard saying during the 911 call.

Cardell peeked out of his bedroom and found himself staring down the barrel of an intruder's shotgun.


Cardell had shot the intruder in the chest. Neighbors say they saw him and a second intruder run out the backyard and jump the couple's fence.

They had ignored the couple's security signs, motion sensors and alarm system before the break-in. The injured man was found under a truck and rushed into surgery at OU Medical Center. The couple were shaken up but are OK.

More Here

FL:Shotgun Beats Thrown Dagger

AUBURNDALE | A 32-year-old Lakeland man is in the hospital with a shotgun wound and awaiting charges after deputies say he threw a dagger at a man who then shot him Saturday.


 At the second property, a resident found White on her back porch at 7 a.m. with a 12.5-inch double-edged dagger and asked him to leave, the report said. When he wouldn't, the woman got her husband who brought out a 12-gauge Mossberg shotgun.

More Here

Gun Stolen from Open Carrier was not Loaded; as Required by Law

A week ago I wrote an article about the unicorn event of an open carrier having his firearm stolen by an armed robber.   It is only the second event that has been documented.   Numerous pundits sided with those who want their political opponents disarmed.   An important detail was left out of the story.

Multnomah County, where the robbery took place, requires that openly carried guns must be unloaded.   The ordinance makes it an offense to possess a loaded magazine or speed loader if you do not have a concealed carry permit.  As the open carrier was barely old enough to apply for a CCW permit, it is highly likely that he did not have one yet.   None was mentioned in the news coverage.  From
Although the County website often removes or changes URLs, the most recent one containing the ordinance can be seen here.

While there will be more on this in coming days, including reports from OFF members who attended the hearing, here is the summary:

Open loaded carry will now be illegal in Multnomah County for non-licensees.
Only security guards who work at banks will be allowed to be armed. Armed guards elsewhere would be prohibited   (Apparently much of the “gun violence” is being committed by security guards.)

It will now be unlawful for a person without a CHL to have a loaded magazine or speed loader in any public place, including your car, anywhere in the county.
A severe infringement on the second amendment legally required that the firearm owned by the victim was not capable of being fired. 

It reveals a new perspective on the case.

On a lighter note, did I mention that the pistol was a Walther .22?   Have you tried to find .22 ammunition lately? 

Multnomah County is the location of  the Portland, Oregon metroplex.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Details of Bear Spray/Handgun Defense case in Glacier Park

On 26 July, 2014, 57-year-old Brian D. Murphy defended himself against a charging grizzly in Glacier National Park.  The case is interesting for a number of reasons.  Two months after the attack, Murphy was charged with discharging a firearm in Glacier Park, a misdemeanor that carries a $500 fine.   On 9 October, a motion to dismiss the charge was put forward by the U.S. Attorney's Office after Murphy's attorney said that they would raise the  defense of self-defense.    Judge Keith Strong granted the motion last Thursday.  From
The U.S. Attorney’s Office has dismissed the charge against 57-year-old Brian D. Murphy.

The charge was dismissed with prejudice, meaning a final determination has been made based on the merits of the case. Murphy cannot be re-charged at a later date.

Murphy’s attorney, Jason T. Holden of Great Falls, called it a “perfect scenario to have a case dismissed with prejudice.”
DNA samples of blood and hair taken at the scene confirmed that the bear was a grizzly.  Murphy had time to ready both defenses because he had seen the bear running toward other hikers.  When he yelled to warn them, the bear turned and came straight at him.

Murphy first sprayed bear spray at the bear when it was 15 to 25 feet away, firing one shot from his .357 revolver when the bear had approached to within 7-10 feet.  The bear was charging uphill at the time.     He only fired one round at the bear, which fell back and stopped moving when shot.   Many have suggested that he should have continued firing, but it is hard to argue with success.
The hiker, who was alone at the time, was not injured. He turned over the revolver to rangers, who reported it contained five unspent rounds and one spent casing.
It appears that Murphy was defending others as well as himself.  He quickly retreated back down the trail. 
“The bear fell back and was motionless,” Holden said. Murphy “withdrew and double-timed it out of there, taking the two hikers who were behind him with him. He stopped everyone else on the trail, too, told the first ranger he came to what had happened, and fully and voluntarily cooperated with rangers.”
The bear was apparently stunned, because it had left the area by the time rangers examined the scene.

A charging grizzly, bear spray, short range defense with a .357 revolver; then bogus charges brought two months later, only to be immediately dismissed by a U.S. attorney and federal magistrate.  This case is one that will be remembered and discussed for a long time. 

A warning was issued to a hiker that used a gunshot to summon aid a couple of weeks after the grizzly attack. 

 ©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

TX:Homeowner faces Three, Shoots One

He told officers he wasn't expecting anyone, so he didn't rush to answer it, but that's when he heard someone kick the door down.

Police said that's when he grabbed a gun.

"He was able to grab his handgun in the process of the three suspects  breaking in the front  door into his location," said officer Misty Floyd, San Antonio Police Department. "He was able to fire off several rounds. One of the rounds hit one of the suspects."

More Here

Gary Marbut:Positive View of JPFO and SAF

Gary Marbut of Montana Shooting Sports Association has been an extremely effective activist in restoring second amendment rights.   Here is  an excerpt and link to his article about the JPFO merger with SAF.  It has some interesting insider insights. The article is from 14 August, 2014.

Dear MSSA Friends,

You may be aware that I’ve long been a fan of the organization Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.  JPFO has long been way out front in the gun rights fight with such efforts as their research leading to their publication of Lethal Laws, a documentation of the disarmament laws that led to all the many genocides of the 1900s.  JPFO has done some great work.  Since the death of JPFO founder, Aaron Zelman, JPFO has been struggling and floundering.

I’ve also long worked comfortably with the twin organizations of Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  Both were founded and have been operated successfully by Alan Gottlieb.

Now, there is talk about some association or partnership between JPFO and SAF.  Critics claim that SAF is trying to "take over" JPFO and will effectively neuter it.

In my view, SAF is offering to rescue JPFO from swirling down the drain, and to keep it active in the RKBA fight.  SAF is MUCH better at raising money than JPFO and would bring a lot of financial muscle to any partnership – a much-needed sugardaddy for JPFO.

More Here

Defensive Gun Use and Ebola

The possibility of infection during and after a defensive gun use has long been a matter of concern.   On the positive side, guns give you some "stand off" distance; they are effective without coming into direct contact with the attacker.  On the negative side, if you have to shoot someone, there will be lots of blood and other bodily fluids, so the chances of infection become much higher.

I write this from the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, where my first grandchild was born in the same hospital complex that treated the first U.S. Ebola patient, Thomas Duncan, from Liberia.  He was born while Duncan was being treated, before Duncan died.   That complex was where the first U.S. citizen contracted the disease in the United States.  She is  Nina Pham, a health care worker who treated Duncan.   This morning, a second health care worker has been diagnosed with the disease.

The protective protocols used at the hospital failed.   No one knows how the health care workers were infected.   But Ebola is just one, although extremely deadly, type of infection.    Others, much more common, are HIV, Hepatitis-C, and the whole spectrum of infectious disease that the human body is subject to.

Ebola or not, should a defender render first aid to someone that they have shot?   My answer is that it is an individual choice, but be aware of the substantial risks that follow such activity.

First, consider the possibility that the individual may continue the fight.   Sometimes people are merely stunned, or momentarily debilitated; sometimes an assailant may "play possum", in order to draw the defender in.   Coming in physical contact with them can be extremely perilous.

Second, there is a serious chance of infection.   Blood and bodily fluids are likely to be spattered about in copious amounts.   The chances of you receiving a small cut or abrasion during the interaction are high, making  the risk of infection greater.   A skinned knee from taking cover becomes significant.

Criminals and/or drug addicts are not known for their scrupulous attention to hygiene and sanitation.  They have a higher incidence of infectious disease than the rest of the population.     You shot them because they were a deadly threat; risking your life to provide aid is not a moral imperative.    Personally, I would call 911, and have the professionals who are equipped with the latest prophylactic equipment and techniques handle the situation.

Chances of infection can be reduced.   As always, avoid shooting if possible.   No shooting, much less chance of infectious bodily fluids spread around the area where you are.    Second, keep your distance!   The closer the attacker is to you, the greater the chance of infection.

These two dynamics tend to work against each other.   If you avoid shooting, the aggressor may come closer.   Defensive display laws such as those passed in Montana and Arizona, or the new law allowing greater protection for people displaying a firearm or firing a warning shot in Florida seem farsighted and prudent.

The military uses numerous barriers to prevent attackers from closing quickly.   The zoning codes that prevent protective walls around most homes in the United States, seem short sighted in this light.   Some sort of stand-off barrier may be prudent at house entrances.

My late friend George (Tex) Ferguson, had a reinforced porch with a locked door and a doorbell.   When someone rang the doorbell, he could look at them from 15 feet away, and decide whether to allow them to come closer.   I have seen some homes with a fenced yard utilize a similar system on the fence gate.   It is a good addition to any home's security system.   Modern cameras and intercoms make the system even more usable.   Think of it as an automated doorman.

A high risk of infection may require us to reconsider the utility of warning shots, at least in more rural areas where intruders may be spotted at greater distances, and the dangers to bystanders are small.

If you have the misfortune of having to shoot someone, keeping your distance from their body helps to minimize the chance of infection.    Treat any blood or other bodily fluids as potential sources of infection as well.

If Ebola cases continue to accumulate in the United States, everyone will be wearing surgical masks, at a minimum; gas masks and or respirators are likely, and movement will be greatly reduced.   The very nature of our understanding of what is a "deadly threat" will be changed.

I pray that it does not happen.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch