TX: Armed Neighbor stops Theft of Guns

The men walked toward the road and the neighbor told the suspect to lay on the ground while he called the sheriff's department. Instead, the man "took off running away" while the neighbor fired a shot in the direction opposite of the running man.

The house had been entered. Two shotguns and a rifle were found laying on the ground behind the house, the report said.


More Here

IL: Armed Veteran Drives off Intruder

Police said the homeowner, a Marine veteran, was asleep and heard a noise coming from the back porch about 11:50 p.m. Thursday. He investigated, and reportedly saw a man on the back porch attempting to break in.

The homeowner got his gun and ordered the man, later identified as Price, to leave. Price saw the gun and fled, police said.

More Here

NM: Coin Shop Owner Fights Robbers, Kills One

KOB has confirmed that at least two suspects tried to steal from the store but their attempt was cut short when the store owner started fighting them back.

"While he was confronted by the subjects they hit him with a blunt object in the head he was able to fire back at a round at one of the subjects and he hit one of the subjects,” APD Officer Daren DeAguaro said. “There was blood everywhere.


More Here

NJ Man who Shoots Three Problem Bears gets $4,000+ Fines and Fees

In October, 2014, a 76-year-old New Jersey resident shot three problem bears on his property.  One was an adult sow that was on his deck and looking in through his sliding glass door.  The location of the two juvenile bears when they were shot, is disputed, but was either on the deck or close to it.  Bears are more dangerous as they are larding up for the winter hibernation.

Bears that display this level of familiarity with humans, who associate humans with food, are a severe problems waiting to happen.  It is why the conservation community has come up with a well used phrase: A fed bear is a dead bear.

Judge James G. Devine handed down the fines against Robert Ehling on the 28th of January, 2016.  I found the judges attitude a bit disturbing in one particular sense.  He thought that Robert C. Ehling acted as a "vigilante".  From njherald.com:

ANDOVER TOWNSHIP -- A Sparta man was found guilty of illegally killing three bears and possession of a loaded firearm within 450 feet of an occupied dwelling on Thursday and ordered to pay a total of $4,332 in civil penalties and restitution.

The verdict and fines were levied against Robert C. Ehling by Municipal Court Judge James Devine, who called the 76-year-old man's actions on Oct. 10, 2014, the acts of "a vigilante, usurping the right of the state."

Wow.  New Jersey is one of the most anti-Second Amendment states in the Union.  They have effectively nullified the Second Amendment if you can be fined for mere possession of a loaded firearm, on your own property, while you are defending your property from bears.

As a matter of policy, bears that exhibit the behaviour of these three should be shot.  They were going to cause a serious problem, sooner or later.

Robert C. Ehling brought part of the legal problem on himself by not reporting the shooting, and by what looked like an attempt to dispose of the bodies.  A police officer, called by neighbors, testified that Ehling was dragging one of the juvenile bears' body toward a nearby ravine when the officer arrived.

The attempt practically screams of a failure of the "SSS" policy often suggested by Internet commandos - Shoot - Shovel - Shut up.

Ehring's lawyer has recommended an appeal to a state Superior Court.  Ehring appears to be fighting the case on principle; it is hard to believe that the legal costs will be less than the fines involved.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.  Link to Gun Watch

Barbershop Shootout Video: Wait for the Right Opportunity

At a barbershop in South Carolina on the 26th, of January, 2016, at about 7 p.m., two armed robbers assaulted the customers of the Next Up Barber and Beauty Shop.  The robbers appear to be career criminals, but they made fatal mistakes, as can be seen in the video.  It is very difficult to keep focused on everyone, the loot, and maintain control of the scene. When the robbers become complacent, the legal gun carriers make their move.

The Pistol Robber in the light colored hoodie comes in first, from the left side of the screen, from the front entrance.  It appears that the Legal Gun Carrier (LGC) with the concealed carry permit in the center chair is considering drawing.  His right hand goes under the barber sheet, then comes out as the Shotgun Robber appears on the scene.  The Shotgun Robber in the dark hoodie provides over sight of the crime scene for his partner and superior firepower.  The shotgun looks to be a pump, maybe a Winchester 1400, probably a 12 gauge.

Link to video

The legal gun carrier (LGC) is in a tough position; the Handgun Robber on his left, the  Shotgun Robber on his right.  He makes the right decision and decides to wait for the right opportunity.  His patience is rewarded.  The wait also gives him time to assess the situation and make a plan.

Then the robbers become complacent and careless.  The Handgun Robber switches the handgun from hand to hand as he concentrates on picking up money and looking for valuables. 

The Shotgun Robber decides that he needs to do some looting as well, switches from a two handed hold to one hand, and becomes careless about watching the situation and covering his partner. A full sized pump shotgun in one hand makes an awkward pistol.

At one point, neither robber is watching the Legal Gun Carrier (LGC) in the center chair.  Neither of the robbers' guns is pointed at him or ready for quick action. He decides to make his move.

He draws, fires shots at the handgun man, who backpedals and goes down, hard.  The wounded robber tries to get out the back door, but it is jammed. The LGC immediately pivots and fires at the shotgun man who appears to have retreated off screen.  He is likely headed for the frond door.

The LGC quickly pivots back to Handgun Robber and fires another shot, pivots back toward Shotgun Robber and moves to secure the front door.

Reports state that Master Barber Elmurray Bookman also had a CCW permit and a pistol and fired shots, but I do not see him draw and fire in this video. It is possible that he fired shots at the Handgun Robber as he attempted to get out the back.

The Handgun Robber is mortally wounded.  No one else is hit.  It does not appear that either robber was able to get a shot off.  In this crowded barbershop, with two legal gun carriers firing at two armed robbers, only the robbers are hit.  The Handgun Robber dies; it is not known if the Shotgun robber was wounded or not.

 ©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.  Link to Gun Watch

CA: Long Time CCW Permit Holder Detains Burglar for Police

The homeowner had been working in his yard before he tried to enter his home through the front door, Botti said. The security door was locked, but the man remembered leaving it open. He drew his registered handgun from his pocket and entered through a window.

He found Garza inside and pointed the gun at him. The man ordered Garza to put his hands up, go outside and sit down in the front yard until police arrived. The sheriff’s Eagle One helicopter captured footage of the homeowner detaining Garza.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/crime/article57425373.html#storylink=cpy

More Here

NC: Military Mother Shoots Intruder

LUMBER BRIDGE - No charges are expected to be filed against a Robeson County woman who fatally shot a man who broke into her home Friday morning, but the final determination will be left up to the district attorney, the Robeson County Sheriff's Office said.
More Here

IL: Man Justified in Fatal Shooting near Chicago Mayor's Home

No mention of an FOID card or a CCW permit.

The 25-year-old and a 23-year-old man were attending a party in an apartment when they began to argue, police said in the hours after the shooting.

The older man pulled out a gun and began shooting, hitting the 23-year-old man in the neck, police said. The shooter also hit another 25-year-old man in the abdomen. That man returned fire, fatally shooting Ulloa in the chest.

More Here

Followup FL: Aston, Grady Shooting at Drive Thru Ruled Justified

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A Clay County man who shot and killed another man following a dispute outside a Fleming Island fast food restaurant on New Year's Day last year won't face charges in the shooting.

Prosecutors have ruled Matthew Aston, 29, was justified in the use of deadly force when he fatally shot Daniel Grady, 22, according to a report by the 4th Circuit State Attorney's Office obtained Thursday by First Coast News.

More Here

OK: Homeowner Fires Shot, Stops Break-in Attempt

According to police, the man attempted to enter the home around 3 a.m. but the home owner heard him. The suspect took off after the home owner fired one gun shot into the air. No one was injured.

More Here

KY: Self Defense; Home Invader Shot and Killed

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WHAS11) – Police say a suspect in a home invasion was shot and killed in a neighborhood west of Iroquois Park early Thursday morning.

More Here

AL: Father Rushes Home to Rescue Son, Shoots and Kills 1 of 3 Intruders

Authorities said an 8-year-old boy was alone in the residence shortly after arriving home. He called his father and told him three men were knocking on the doors. The child then hid under a bed and waited for his father to get home.

Authorities say the father arrived home and discovered three men inside. The father confronted them and fired shots from a handgun.


More Here

Senator Portilla, R-Miami, Holds the Key to Florida Open Carry

Senator Portilla, Chair of the Judiciary Committee

The Florida open carry bill has moved out of Committee in the Florida House.  It will likely be voted on by the full House in the next few weeks.  From cbslocal.com:

TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami) – A bill that would allow Florida gun owners to openly carry their weapons is headed to a full vote.

The bill cleared a committee vote 12 to 4 on Thursday.

The next step will be a full vote by the Florida House in the next few weeks.

The difficulty lies in the Senate, where Senator Portilla is Chair of the Judiciary Committee holding he bill.


From tcpalm.com:

Diaz de la Portilla, R-Miami, said he would consider the failure of the House amendment and may decide to block Gaetz's bill.

Portilla says that he is concerned about the effect of open carry on the tourist trade:

Diaz de la Portilla said he was concerned the proposed law would create a bad impression on tourists who would see Floridians walking around with handguns.

This is the best chance in years to pass licensed open carry in Florida.  Florida is one of only five states where the open carry of handguns is generally banned.  The ban is the creation of Janet Reno, the former Clinton Attorney General, of the Waco massacre fame.  In 1987, when Florida passed its highly successful shall issue concealed carry license law, open carry was legal, except for a few urban areas.  With the concealed carry reform, the legislature passed state preemption to make gun laws uniform throughout the state.

Janet Reno created a government led coalition to lobby for an open carry ban.  She was able to have the ban passed in a special session without going through the usual committee or public vetting processes.  It has been in place ever since, though there have been several attempts at reform.

The open carry reform is popular with Republicans.  The Florida Police Chiefs Association has come out in favor of the law, with some qualifiers:

• Those who display a firearm “intentionally … in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense” are not protected by the open-carry law in question.
• Currently, the proposed law lets people or police officers who impose on someone’s right to bear a handgun openly to be fined, unless probable cause for the interference exists; the amendment makes it easier for officers, requiring only “reasonable suspicion” before stopping people to investigate.
• The bill could currently inhibit police officers from conducting investigations against open carriers, and the third amendment specifies that nothing in the bill would be intended to restrict a law enforcement officer’s ability or authority to conduct legal investigations.
• The firearm must be carried in a holster.

The Florida Sheriffs Association has voted against the bill, with a minority in favor of it.

Senator Diaz de la Portilla, R-Miami, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, seems to be the obstacle to the bills passage at this time.  The major objection to the bill appears to be aesthetics.

People who do not want citizens to have guns, do not wish to see them, even though the concealed carry law has been an unqualified success, and the same people would be carrying openly as are now legally carrying concealed.

The concealed carry permit holders have been an extremely law abiding group, about six times more law abiding than police officers.  From yourobserver.com:

Consider, too, these facts, courtesy of Rep. Steube: “After 28 years of data in Florida, licensed conceal-permit holders are six times less likely to commit a crime than law enforcement officers. Specifically, permit holders only commit misdemeanors and felonies at a rate of .0002% annually.”

This bill is likely to be in play for the next few weeks at least.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.  Link to Gun Watch

Illinois Supreme Court Confirms old Illinois Gun Law Unconstitutional

The Illinois has reconfirmed its ruling in 2013 that a basic Illinois weapon law is facially unconstitutional.  It ruled in People vs Burns that the Aguilar decision stands and was correct.  From courthousenews.com:

While a state may prohibit felons from carrying readily accessible guns despite the Second Amendment - and in fact Illinois has a law forbidding felons from possessing any kind of firearm - the AUUW law applies to everyone.

In reversing the appellate court ruling and vacating the conviction and sentence, Justice Anne Burke wrote for the court: "The offense, as enacted by the Legislature, does not include as an element of the offense the fact that the offender has a prior felony conviction. An unconstitutional statute does not 'become constitutional' simply because it is applied to a particular category of persons who could have been regulated, had the Legislature seen fit to do so.

The Legislature may not pass broad laws and leave it to the courts to decide to whom the statute may constitutionally apply, Burke said in the Jan. 22 opinion

It took me a bit to unravel this ruling.  Under the old Illinois law, it was illegal to carry a weapon in public, period.  There was no shall issue concealed carry law.  The law contested in the Illinois Court system was Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon, the AUUW.  That law was ruled unconstitutional under the Second Amendment by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2013 in the People v. Aguilar case.

There is another law, Unlawful Use of a Weapon, the UUW.  The UUW law was changed in 2013 to allow for the exception to carry with a concealed carry license. Here is the exception in the law for people with a concealed carry permit:

  (iv) are carried or possessed in accordance with the Firearm Concealed Carry Act by a person who has been issued a currently valid license under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act.

The addition of the above exception means that the UUW does not suffer from the fatal, unconstitutional, flaw discussed in the Aquilar decision, because there is a legal way to carry weapons for self defense outside the home in Illinois. The Illinois Supreme Court decision was based on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Moore v. Madigan, which ruled that Illinois cannot ban the carry of firearms outside the home for the purposes of self defense.

The decision of the Illinois Supreme Court in People vs Burns mostly affirms the decision in Aguilar.  It does not change anything in the UUW.  The AUUW is dead, the UUW is intact.  The invalidation of the AUUW may open up an opportunity for the legislature to reform some more of Illinois' concealed carry law, which has some silly and stupid restrictions; but it does not invalidate Illinois' ban on open carry or concealed carry without a license. 


©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.  Link to Gun Watch

Gun Reform, AB13, Passes Wisconsin Legislature, Goes to Governor Walker

A gun law reform bill passed the Wisconsin legislature on 20 January of 2016, with little fanfare.  It was approved by both the Milwaukee Police Association and the National Rifle Association.  Overall, the bill makes reforms in the way that courts treat the return of firearms when they are taken into custody by police.

The bill creates a rigid legal framework for gun owners to regain possession of their property.    It does this by requiring courts to issue orders to police to return guns under rigidly defined conditions.  It is an incremental reform, as it provides a clear vehicle for a person to have a firearm returned; but there are significant flaws.

The most obvious flaw is the burden that is placed on the owner of the firearm.  The police took the private property.  The burden should be on them to return it if it becomes clear that no charges will be filed, or for other reasons that are stated in the legislation.  Instead, the burden will lie with the property owner.  Time and expense required to retrieve the firearms may well be more than modest firearms are worth.  Here is the analysis of the law by the legislative Reference Bureau.  I have added spacing to make the analysis easier to read. From AB13, Wisconsin Legislature:

Current law specifies a process and criteria for courts and police officers to use to determine ownership of property that has been seized by a police officer and to decide if, how, and when to return the seized property.

Under this bill, if a person claims the right to possess a firearm that has been seized, he or she may apply to the court for its return.

If a person makes such a claim, the court must order the firearm returned if one of the following occurs: 

• all charges connected with the seizure are dismissed;
•  six months have elapsed since the seizure and no charges in connection with it have been filed against the person;
• the final disposition for all charges is reached and the person is not adjudged guilty of a crime in connection with the seizure;
• the person establishes that he or she had no prior knowledge of and gave no consent to the commission of the activity that led to the seizure;
• or the district  attorney affirmatively declines to file charges connected with the seizure against the person. 

If the person applies to the court within eight business days after the  applicable event occurs, the court must order that the firearm be returned within ten  business days of the event.

If the person applies to the court later than eight business days after the applicable event occurs, the court must order that the firearm be returned as soon as practically possible but no later than five business days after the  order.

Under the law, police may return firearms without a court order, but they are not required to do so. The law will likely be signed by Governor Walker in the next week or two. 

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.  Link to Gun Watch

Daily Caller: McAuliffe Capitulates, Reverses Virginia Gun Action

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe will announce Friday his administration will restore handgun reciprocity agreements with almost all 25 states his attorney general, Mark Herring, previously announced the state would stop recognizing, The Washington Post reported.

The surprising reversal came after Virginia Republicans struck a deal with McAuliffe.

In exchange for Herring withdrawing last month’s state reciprocity cancellations, Republicans agreed to legislation that states anyone with a permanent protective order for a domestic violence offense will be banned from carrying a firearm for the two-year life of the order.

“This is a bipartisan deal that will make Virginians safer,” McAuliffe spokesman Brian Coy said. “It also demonstrates that Democrats and Republicans can work together on key issues like keeping guns out of dangerous hands.”

The NRA praised the deal.
More Here

TX: Concealed Permit Holder Credited with Saving Deputy

The department plans to honor Perkins with a sheriff’s commendation for his efforts to help Dorris, Jones said.

“I think it’s important to note, with the uproar that we have on gun laws, that had Mr. Perkins not had his concealed gun on him, that suspect would have likely not paid attention to him,” Jones said.

“This is a situation where being a license to carry holder truly did save a life.”


More Here

LA: Man pulls Gun on Construction Worker, is Shot

A 41-year-old man was shot Wednesday (Jan. 27) outside his 7th Ward home after refusing to drop the gun he had pointed at a 30-year-old construction worker who was renovating a neighbor's house, New Orleans police say.

Edmond Brown, who initially pulled out his gun on the worker, now potentially faces assault charges, NOPD spokesman Frank Robertson said.

More Here

OR: Duck Hunter Shoots at, Capture Car Burglar

The press release says the duck hunters confronted the man after they found him breaking into the car, but the suspect took off with stolen property on bicycle. One of the hunters fired a 12 gauge shotgun at the man, striking him with several shotgun pellets.

More Here

NC: Clerk Wins Gunfight without Firing

One suspect then fired in the direction of a second employee standing nearby, but did not hit the worker. The clerk then retrieved a gun and pointed it at the suspects, who ran from the business, according to the release.

More Here

KY: Man Shot, Killed while Breaking in to Home

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) -- Police say a man was fatally shot in south Louisville this morning as he tried to break into a home.

Louisville Metro Police were called to a home on Manslick Road near Iroquois Park just before 4 a.m. on the report of a shooting.

LMPD spokesman Dwight Mitchell says when officers arrived they found a white male dead outside the home. Mitchell has confirmed that the man was in the process of breaking into the home when he was shot.

More Here

AL: Possible Domestic Defense; Husband shot, killed

Investigators say Martha Ann Stice, 65, shot her husband, John Donald Stice, 75, one time. He died from the gunshot wound.

Authorities say it was the result of a possible domestic dispute between the two. They found lacerations on Martha's chest and shoulder. She was taken to the hospital for those injuries.
More Here

MN: Victim of Craigslist Robbery Fires at Suspect

According to the victim, when the buyer approached him, he grabbed the cell phone without paying and ran.

The victim told police he ran after him, into the parking lot, when the suspect turned around and pulled a revolver from his front waistband and pointed it at the victim.

"The victim fled, kind of zig-zagged through the lot," Tate said. "The victim has a conceal carry permit and he was carrying at the time. Once he got cover, he pulled his gun out and fired multiple rounds at the suspect."
More Here

2016 Looks Favorable for Constitutional Carry in West Virginia

Last year, West Virginia came within a cats hair of enacting Constitutional carry into law.  The law passed with veto proof margins in the House and the Senate.  It was only through insider shenanigans that the bill was sent to Governor Tomblin late enough for him to veto it without a chance for a veto override.  From wvgazettemail.com:

Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a similar bill last year, by a 32-2 margin in the Senate and 71-29 in the House. Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin vetoed the bill, citing “overwhelming opposition” from law enforcement officers statewide.

“In light of those concerns, and in the interest of public safety, I believe a veto is appropriate,” Tomblin said in the veto message issued March 20, about a week after the 2015 regular session adjourned.

Legislative leaders are taking the bill up early this session, with the intent of assuring that the Legislature still will be in session to vote to override a potential gubernatorial veto this year.

Judiciary Committee members advanced the legislation to the House floor Wednesday evening on a 17-6 vote, with a bill that closely resembles the final version of the bill that passed the Legislature last session.

West Virginia is very likely to pass Constitutional carry into law in 2016.  West Virginia Citizens Defense League is guarding against such underhanded tactics as were employed last year. From WVCDL LOBBY DAY 2016:

Last year the WVCDL membership was able to successfully pass 3-22 Carry (also known as permitless or constitutional carry). The bill had bipartisan support, and an overwhelming majority in the House and the Senate. Unfortunately Governor Tomblin chose to veto the bill.

3-22 Carry will be the primary focus of the WVCDL again in 2016 and this year we want to see the bill pass through the legislature with plenty of time for a veto override.

Several other states are looking to join the once exclusive, but rapidly growing Constitutional Carry club. There are about as many Constitutional carry states as there are states that still issue concealed carry permits on a "may issue" basis.  Given the Supreme Court decisions of Heller and McDonald, it is hard to see "may issue" as defensible in court.  The Ninth Circuit is currently re-hearing the Peruta decision en banc.  Peruta struck down "may issue" in the Ninth Circuit.

Depending on how you define the issues and count the states, there are between 7 and 10 Constitutional carry states.  There are 6 "may issue" states concentrated in the Northeast, with California in the West and Hawaii in the Pacific.

The proposed West Virginia law has a few limitations:

That includes limiting conceal-carry without a permit to people age 21 and older who are not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms. People between 18 and 21 would be able to obtain a provisional conceal-carry license, upon completion of a background check and a gun-safety course.

Given the overwhelming approval of Constitutional carry last year, it should not be too long before the West Virginia Legislature passes it again.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

Sanders Goes all in for Destroying Gun Manufacturers

Embracing gun control has always been a toxic issue for Democrats.  It has played well deep in their darkests bases, like New York City and the District of Columbia, where ignorance about guns and gun law is pervasive and cherished.  On the national stage, they have been careful to approach it sideways, with code words like "gun safety" and "common sense".   In 1994, when Bill Clinton pushed it the hardest on the national stage, the Democrats suffered one of their most emphatic defeats; the Republican revolution of 1994.  President Clinton even acknowledged that his gun control push was a major reason for the Democrat loss of the House.

Democrats shied away from gun control for the next 20 years.  Then, safely reelected in 2012, President Obama made another major push, in 2013.  Again, Democrats suffered stunning defeats, losing the Senate and losing so many seats in the House that Republicans have majorities that they had not achieved in 85 years.

On the primary trail, and fighting for ever smaller numbers of ideologically rigid primary voters, Hillary and O'Malley are pushing for more gun control.  Sanders shows that he cannot withstand the pressure, even as he gains ground.  He has come out for a gun control bill designed to destroy gun manufacturers in the United States.  From politico.com:

Sanders had said repeatedly that he was open to “changes” in the liability protection law. His official change of heart came just hours after his Senate staff met with activists from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. It also came a day after he met with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office. While it’s unclear whether the question of gun control came up in that meeting, Obama has urged people to be “single-issue voters” on guns, and in an op-ed in The New York Times, Obama said he would not support even Democrats who don’t share his positions on guns, including industry liability.

In explaining his 2005 vote for the liability shield, known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Sanders has pointed to the fact that his predominantly rural home state of Vermont has few gun restrictions. In what he called a “complicated vote,” the Democratic presidential candidate said he was trying to protect mom-and-pop gun dealers in his state from getting sued and having to shut down because a customer used the gun in a crime.

Bernie Sanders demonstrates, above, that he can read, and that he understands the issues in the bill. It was passed because the disarmists in the United States had a plan to destroy gun manufacturers as a way to disarm the public. Sue the manufacturers with frivolous lawsuits, using tax money. Sure, the lawsuits would lose. But they did not cost the politicians pushing them; they were paid for with tax dollars. The activist tort lawyers would get paid; but the manufacturers would have to pay millions of dollars to defense lawyers, over, and over, and over again. Eventually, they would be bankrupted.

Second Amendment supporters saw through the deception, and sponsored the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to prevent this end run around the Second Amendment.
The problem for the Democrats is that even the modest support for gun control that existed in 1994 has been reversed as more and more citizens become informed on the issue.  For the first time since 1958, a majority of people believe that protecting the right to bear arms is more important than restricting access to arms.  Without tight control over the major media, as existed for "progressive" ideologues from 1972 to 1994, simply lying about what a bill does no longer works.

Hillary repeatedly says that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act grants immunity from prosecution for gun manufacturers. It does no such thing. Gun manufacturers are subject to all the criminal prosecutions any other manufacturer is. What they have is immunity from lawsuit for their products being misused by third parties, just like all other manufacturers have. The difference is that the protection was put into law because of an open conspiracy of disarmists to file frivolous lawsuits to destroy gun manufacturers. The lawsuits did not even use the plaintiffs own money; they mostly used tax dollars.

The problem for the Democrat primary contenders is that they will not be able to walk this back after the primary is over. Digital recording and the Internet have created long and accurate electronic memories for the voters .

This is the first time such a vitriolic attack on the Second Amendment has been done in a Presidential cycle. Not even George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, or Barack Obama campaigned for President on Gun Control as a major issue.

This does not bode well for the eventual Democrat candidate.

Definition of  disarmist

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

TX: Store Owner Wins Gunfight with two Robbers, Frees Wife held as Hostage

Picture from Fox4

A gunfight in Dallas on 26 January, 2016, shows that you do not need to be a professional gunfighter to win.

Bunthan Te owns the Shop-N-Go store in the 4900 block of Columbia Avenue, in east Dallas, with his wife.  Three robbers go into the store at about 10 p.m., with weapons. 

Te sees what is happening.  He attempts to draw his gun, but it hangs up on his clothing or the holster.  One of the robbers sees him struggling, and comes after him.  Te retreats to the inside of the cooler.  Coolers are somewhat bullet resistant.  Inside the cooler, the robber and Te engage in a gunfight at close range.  Te is not hit, and it is not clear if the robber is.  The robber flees the store, and Te emerges from the cooler to find his wife being held hostage by a second robber.

At the critical moment, she breaks free, and Te engages the second robber.  A gunfight ensues as the second robber flees the store.  The third robber had already fled at this point.

Police arrive.  Outside, in the parking lot, police find one of the robbers, dead.  From fox4news.com:

There was a brief shootout at close range in the cooler. Te wasn’t hit and he doesn’t remember hitting the suspect, but the man ran away after that.

Te then went to help his wife. She was able to break away and he took the opportunity to fire shots at the other suspect.

Police believe there were actually three suspects involved in the robbery. Two of them got away and the man the store owner shot died in the parking lot.

Te said he doesn’t like guns, but keeps one at the store always to protect himself and his wife.

Notice that Te does not like guns.  He is not a quick draw artist.  His gun got hung up when he tried to draw, and he had to retreat to draw it.  His tactics and use of cover are only fair at best.  But he won.  He prevailed and saved himself and his wife, partly because his attackers made more and worse mistakes; and while he was fighting for his property, family, and life, they were just trying to score some cheap cash. 

“That's why I shoot. To protect her. To protect my family,” Te said.

I give Buntham Te high points for courage, initiative, aggressive action and the sense to have a gun in the first place.  His wife deserves accolades for having the moxie to support him at the critical junction.  She assessed the situation and made the right move.  Consider how much better the tactical situation would have been if she were armed as well. We may never know how many other lives have been saved because of this couple's valuable, positive actions to improve society. Career criminals who organize armed robberies usually go on to commit many more violent crimes. Buntham Te and his wife are valuable citizens, and deserve our thanks.

Now, Buntham Te, get another gun, for your wife.  Get some good holsters that will work for you in critical situations.  Get some training and Texas concealed carry permits.  If you are willing to do so, I will donate $100 to start, and I bet we can raise the rest of the $1,000 necessary in about one day on the Internets.

Americans appreciate courage under fire, and you have proved that you have the right stuff.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.     Link to Gun Watch

VT: Homeowner Holds Burglary Suspect at Gunpoint

The husband held him at gunpoint while the wife called 911. Police say Fitzgerald fled the house, but as officers arrived he went back inside. After some tense moments, officers sent their K-9 in and officers were able to capture Fitzgerald.

More Here

VA: Armed Man Shoots at Attackers

The men then robbed the victim of his cellphone — at which point he pulled out a gun and fired as self-defense against any assaults.

Police say there were no injuries from the weapon being fired. However, police say Salley, McCoy and Turner left the scene in a silver sedan.
More Here

KY: Woman with Gun Shoots Man with Knife

Louisville Metro Police said a man with a knife approached a woman downtown Tuesday night and said "give me everything you have."  Authorities said that's when the woman pulled out a gun and shot him.

More Here

MI: Homeowner Uses .45 to Stop Intruder

The caller told dispatchers he shot the man as trying to enter the home through a bedroom window.

When deputies arrived, they found a 23-year-old man dressed in all black outside the home with a gunshot wound to the chest.

He was later pronounced dead at McLaren Oakland Hospital.

Police took as evidence a .45-caliber gun that was registered to the man who fired shots.
More Here

OK: Victim Fires Multiple Shots at Intruders; Hits, Kills 1

Police say soon after, the suspects started kicking the victim's door and entered the apartment. Police say the victim was waiting inside with a gun.

"He had retrieved a gun from the back of his home. He did fire his gun and struck one of the suspects, which was fatally hit," Sgt. Peters said.

More Here

FL: Employee Shoots at Robbery Suspect

The store's owner told WESH 2 News that one of his employees called him and said someone who looked like he had a gun tried to rob the place, and that he shot him.

The store owner was unsure if the robber was actually hit, but said his employee was not injured.
More Here

IL. Vet in 50s Disarms, Shoots Robbery Suspect in 20s

CALUMET CITY, Ill. (WLS) -- One of two masked men who attempted to rob a Calumet City pawnshop Monday morning was shot and wounded when a customer grabbed the offender's gun.

(skip)


Police said the customer is in his late 50s and is a veteran.

"Heroic. It's good to see that that happened, unfortunately, someone was shot, don't want to see that, but at least we have an offender in custody because of it," DiFiore said.
More Here

IL: Chicago Liquor Store Owner Fires at 4 Robbers

The owner of a Northwest Side liquor store fired shots at four people who robbed his business late Sunday in the Old Irving Park neighborhood.

More Here

Steven Crowder: HIDDEN CAMERA: Buying Machine Guns without Background Checks?

This video is hilarious, and well worth watching!

If you’re a leftist who believes other leftists, it’s probable you think guns (even fully automatic ones) can easily be purchased without a background check. You hold this notion for a simple reason: your leftist leaders in political circles reaching as high as the White House, say such silly things as “Guns are easier to buy than books.” A myth which is as true as receiving a college scholarship from the tooth fairy.

To prove how wrong leftists are about guns, we took a hidden camera to gun shows and gun dealers. We tried weaseling through the “gun show loophole” and even tried getting automatic weapons without background checks. It went as well as anyone who’s ever purchased a gun legally would expect it to go.

Video Link Here

MA: 7.8% Increase in Gun Ownership in 2015

In 2015, the number of Massachusetts legal gun owners increased nearly 8 percent, according to the Boston Globe. In Massachusetts, all legal gun owners are required to be licensed by the state.  Massachusetts is one of a small minority of states that requires gun owners to be licensed.  From bostonglobe.com: January 7, 2016

Tens of thousands of new gun licenses were issued to Massachusetts residents in 2015, continuing a recent surge, according to state data.

There were 342,622 active Class A firearms licenses statewide, according to figures provided by the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services earlier this month. That was up about 24,700, or 7.8 percent, from the same time a year ago.

The Class A licenses catch the important trend, because 90 percent of all gun licenses in the state are in that category.

This helps answer a question that has been raised by national polls and gun sales records.  Gun sales are at record levels, and have increasing for a decade.  The total number of private guns in the United States has increased by about 90 million in the last seven years.  At the same time, the number of people who are willing to admit to gun ownership in national polls has varied considerably.

Some polls have shown gun ownership up, some have shown it going down.  The issue is clouded because polls ask different questions; some about whether there is a gun in the house; others as to whether the person answering the poll owns a gun.

Disarmists who wish to reduce the number of guns and gun owners claim that while there are more guns, they are being concentrated in a smaller number of hands.  Second Amendment Supporters claim that the number of gun owners is increasing, especially among minorities, women, young people, and urbanites.

Because Massachusetts requires a license to own a gun, it serves as a reality check.  If more guns are going into fewer hands, the number of Massachusetts gun licenses would be decreasing.  But in 2015 alone, the number increased by nearly 8 percent.

Three months ago, WWLP reported that total gun licenses in Massachusetts had increased by 66% since 2010.  From wwlp.com: 

378,642 people or one in every 14 adults has a gun license in Massachusetts. Up from 227,612 in 2010. A 66% increase.  

Other states that register gun owners also show strong increases.  In Illinois, the number has increased about 75%, from a little over 1 million in 2010, to 1.8 million in 2015.

It seems unlikely that gun ownership is increasing in states that actually track it, but decreasing in states that have less restrictions, especially with the dramatic increases in gun sales nationwide.

It is likely that gun owners, especially new gun owners, are leery of admitting gun ownership to unknown pollsters.  Gun owners in Massachusetts cannot refuse to be licensed, if they wish to avoid breaking the law.

 Definition of  disarmist

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

Politically Correct Flip-Flop by Military.com White House Correspondent on Active Shooters Story

A few days ago, on 21 January, Military.com White House Correspondent Bryant Jordan wrote an article about the Air Force reviewing its policies on allowing trained military personnel to carry concealed or openly, on and off duty, to supplement official guards and military police. From military.com:

The Air Force on Wednesday said its review of "active-shooter incidents across the country" found that many ended without police intervention because someone present with a weapon stopped the shooter.

(skip)

 The Air Force also did not release the data showing how many active-shooter incidents were stopped by someone on the scene carrying a weapon. A spokeswoman said the data came from the FBI, and cannot be released by the Air Force.

Three days later, Mr. Jordan published another article that seemed an attempt to contradict or minimize the previous Air Force statement.  From the second article on January 24th, Military.com:

FBI data on the number of active shootings thwarted by armed citizens appears to contradict an Air Force argument for authorizing off-duty airman to open-carry and conceal-carry weapons while on base...

But the data, which the Air Force said came from the FBI, states that only 5 of the 160 active-shooter incidents between 2000 and 2013 -- or 3.1 percent -- ended "after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters."

This is interesting for several reasons.  First, because the Air Force made the correct call in the first place.  Those who have been watching the active shooter situation know that many are stopped by armed people before responding police arrive. I detail 21 of those incidents in one of my most popular articles "Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens".

Second, the misleading parsing of the FBI study cited in the second article does not contradict the information in the first article.

 "3.1 percent -- ended "after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters."

Five incidents can certainly be "many".  Between 2000 and 2013, far less than 3% of the population had concealed carry permits. "Exchanging gunfire with the shooters" is a strange way to limit the participation of armed citizens.  If we apply the same criteria to responding law enforcement in the study, law enforcement personnel "exchanged gunfire with the shooter" in only 28% of the incidents.  Applying that criteria, armed citizens stopped 5 incidents, police stopped 45.

Using the studies own criteria, armed citizens were effective in 10% of the incidents where people "exchanged gunfire with the shooter", not 3.1%.

That is only one example. The study has many flaws that show its biases.  In one of the 5 cases above, the New Life Church incident, the volunteer church member who had a concealed carry permit is described as a "security guard".

The case of the Appalachian school shooting is described as one where "unarmed citizens" restrained the shooter, without mentioning that two students at the scene retrieved guns and pointed them at the shooter; then he was tackled by other students.  The armed students are only mentioned as "off duty law enforcement officers".

In the study, they completely missed (or ignored) these shootings in only 2012:

April 24, 2012  Destiny Christian Center Shooting

Kiarron Parker rammed his car into another in the church parking lot, got out and attempted to kill multiple church members. He was only able to kill one before a member of the congregation, the nephew of the lady killed, and an off duty police officer, drew his handgun and shot Parker, stopping the killing.

29 July, 2012  Peach House shooting, Texas

In Early Texas, armed citizen Vic Stacy shot and stopped a deranged man who had just murdered two neighbors and was firing at police with a rifle. Stacy made a very long shot with his revolver, three times as far as the perpetrator was from the police officer, who had an AR-15 type rifle.

Vic Stacy was awarded a rifle and ammunition by Governor Perry for his valor in this incident.

Updated link to Peach House Shooting one Year Later

9 September, 2012   Plymouth PA shooting

Consider that the Plymouth shooting incident happened just three months before Sandy Hook.  Mark Ktytor, a concealed carry permit holder, stopped a likely mass killing. From the citizensvoice.com:

"Mark Ktytor?" the latest in the stream of reporters asked, trying to put a face to the name of the man investigators credited with preventing a fatal bar shooting last weekend from escalating into a massacre.

The study ignores the concealed carry permit holder involvement in the Clackamas Mall shooting, simply characterising it as a case where the shooter "committed suicide before the police arrived".  Academic integrity should have required a footnote about the controversy of whether the shooter was deterred by the permit holder or not.

We can never know if the shooter at the Clackamas Mall decided to commit suicide because he was confronted by Nick Meli, the CCW holder, as the shooter is dead. However, many mass shooters commit suicide when they know that armed resistance is at hand.





If we ignore the Clackamas event, and include the other three 2012 events excluded by the study, and the two events involving armed citizens who were off duty peace officers of some type, we double the number of cases where armed citizens involved in the active shooter events "exchanged gunfire with the shooter" to 10, or 22% of the number where responding police "exchanged gunfire with the shooter".  Quite a difference in perspective about how armed people who are involved in active shooter incidents can be effective, isn't it?

One has to wonder what events in the other 13 years of the study were excluded, ignored, or defined out of existence by the authors or their data selection process.

Another commentator sums up the 2014 FBI report this way:

Last fall, we noted that the FBI used bogus stats in its pre-election mass shooting report. Researchers counted some mass shootings that weren’t “mass” at all, and entirely omitted actual mass shootings that occurred early in the carefully selected timeframe. All of it was an effort to show an increasing trend of “gun violence” since 2000, we suspect in concert with Democrat campaign talking points about the necessity of gun control.

In the comments section at military.com, it is clear that military personnel are more informed about the subject than the general population.  Here are a couple of comments:

From 3441058:

Don't trust the FBI. It is after all a politically influenced group that does its best to support the bosses politics. So what really is "many"? The anti-gun people wont accept the facts that several shootings have been stopped by private people, packing privately owned guns. It harms the narrative of guns are bad, and people with guns are bad. They like to say, "If we can only stop one death, taking guns from the public will be worth it". Except, individuals have interrupted mass shootings. The Tacoma Mall, Oregon Mall, Pearl High School, a college in Virginia and more. Using the logic of the anti-rights people should then apply. "If we can only save one life by allowing people to use guns for self defense, it is all worth it". Seven states no longer require permits to carry. NO state should limit the use of guns for self defense.

James Smith

 Think about it it says 3% so if more people had a weapon just maybe that percentage would be higher. The percentage is low because when crime happens very few people that are armed are in the location to change the stats

Ben W • 2 days ago

The FBI study is limited due to the definition used and the over looking of many short term events (seconds).
The events studied ended were from 2000 to 2013. Looking at the list of events studied we can easily see that several were missed:
The Aurora church shooting, Apr 2012: 2 killed outside church, shot down by church security officer.
Early, Texas, August 2012: man kills neighbors and opens fire on officer, shot dead by bystander
These are just a couple citizens stopping shootings, how many were over looked?

What caused the author, Bryant Jordan, to write the article designed to throw doubt on the remarks of an Air Force officer he quoted, just three days before?

He is military.com's White House correspondent.  Perhaps the White House was a little irked at the Air Force for putting out a message that contradicted the talking points on its gun control push?  Maybe someone at the White House staff sent an email, "suggesting" that an article include the FBI study, for "balance".

It would have been an easy article to write, given that most of the work had been done in the previous article.  Who wouldn't want to be owed a favor by the White House Staff?

 ©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Rob Morse: The Mainstream Media Hides Gun Owners

The mainstream media hides gun owners. That isn’t an accident, any more than it is an accident that some news reporters look like fashion models.

What do gun owners look like, and why does it matter? Part of the progressive playbook is to make the rights of gun-owners appear inconsequential and not worth defending. To do that, gun owners in the United States have to be seen as different than the general public. Democrat politicians and the democrat media have to make us think they are disarming them rather than disarming us. They have to alienate gun owners before the politician’s take our rights with their phone and their pen. First, gun owners have to be repackaged and redefined before they are disarmed. Gun owners have to be sold as abhorrent, extremist and ugly. That is a marketing job.

We want to believe beautiful people. That is why media broadcasters look like fashion models. Our prejudices go farther than that. We want to believe our enemy is both wrong and ugly so we can mistreat them without guilt. That is why the mainstream media distorts the image of gun owners. That is why the media invites ugly old men to defend the right of armed self-defense.

More Here

LA: Resident Wins Gunfight

A second man, who was wearing a mask, came from behind the bushes and pointed a gun at the homeowner’s face.  The homeowner pulled out his own pistol and they exchanged gunfire before the two men fled in a dark-colored pick-up truck.

More Here

CT: Police "Gotta Cover Our Ass" on Open Carry (video)

The First and Second Amendments protect and reinforce each other.  In a free society, there is always pressure to expand the power of the government to suppress freedom of speech.  Those in power, for the last 100 years, have been infringing on our right to bear arms, and claiming that those who support the Second Amendment are kooks, in an attempt to suppress our First Amendment rights.  With the voice provided by the First Amendment and the Internet, brave activists have been rolling back those attacks on the First and Second Amendments, and have been winning important victories. 

Michael Picard is one such activist in Connecticut.  It takes a brave man to stand up to several Connecticut State Troopers, and calmly and rationally demand his rights.  It takes more guts to decide to continue the fight in court, when an easy out is offered.  Here are the words of Michael Picard:

Back on Friday, September 11th, 2015, in West Hartford, CT, I was illegally detained, frisked and searched, and my gun, permit and camera were seized, I was threatened with arrest for interfering (apparently, freedom of speech passes for interfering), and the Connecticut State Police fabricated a story, on camera, to trump up the charges because they needed to charge me with something ("Let's give him something.") to cover their ass ("Gotta cover our ass."), charging me with "creating a public disturbance" for legally open carrying my firearm and "negligent pedestrian" for legally holding up a sign on public property, as well as being threatened with arrest (again) if I did not pay the fine. I was detained for 40 minutes and charged for nothing more than legally open carrying and holding up a sign on public property. I never touched my gun once and I am a legal gun owner. My lawyer and I went to the first court appearance back on Thursday, January 14th, 2016, where the prosecutor offered a $25 fine, in lieu of the original $300 fine, to make the case go away. I rejected the deal because I did nothing wrong. As of now, the prosecutor has not dropped the case despite having video evidence of police misconduct. The trial date has been set for Monday, April 25th, 2016, at 9:30am, at the New Britain courthouse (20 Franklin Sq., New Britain, CT).

The video speaks for itself.  I found particularly chilling the words of an Unidentifed Trooper:

"And then claim that, um, in backup, we had multiple people,um, they didn't want to stay and give us a statement, so we took our own course of action."

There are several felonies in that statement.  It shows how far down the path to a police state we have gone. There is obstruction of justice.  There is conspiracy.  There is denial of rights under color of law.  And, I am not a lawyer.

See the video, decide for yourself.

Sure, the police have a tough job.  But it is not too much to ask that they follow the rules. If the rules are too complex for them, they are far too complex for those who are not lawyers, and need to be rolled back.  It appears to me that Michael did not break any laws.  He is an activist.  In our litigious society, he has to be very careful that he does not break the rules.  He knows he has a target on his back.  The police did not like what he was doing, but even they admitted that what he was doing was legal, on the video.

If the prosecution is smart, they will cut a deal now, including a cash settlement and retraining for the police department.  It is likely to be the cheapest that they will get out of the situation.  

Think of yourself on a jury, in Connecticut, not that far from where the Freddie Grey incident occurred.  Consider listening to the police discussing how they will concoct charges against you.  It might not happen.  In Detroit, a judge ruled that such video, from a dash cam, could not be seen by jurors.  In that case, the jury found the open carrier not guilty, very quickly, without the dash cam video.  But Connecticut is not Detroit.

We need activists to keep the police honest.  Digital recorders and the Internet are helping make that happen.  The police could simply have ignored Michael and done nothing, as it appears they should have done.  Or, they could have calmly approached him and asked what he was doing.  Instead, the video shows that they concocted a scheme to harass Michael with false charges to "Cover their Ass".  It is a grave miscarriage of justice, and it should not be tolerated.

The police work for us.  We are not their servants or their serfs.

Even in Connecticut.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Air Force: Many Non-Police with Weapons stop Active Shooters

 Picture from Human Events

One of the most popular articles that I have written was "Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens".  The article is a compilation of documented cases where armed citizens stopped what would likely have become mass killings before they occured.  Such incidents are usually spiked by the media because the body count is either non-existent or too low to meed the FBI criteria of a mass killing.

It appears that the Air Force has got the memo.  In an article From military.com:

The Air Force on Wednesday said its review of "active-shooter incidents across the country" found that many ended without police intervention because someone present with a weapon stopped the shooter.

(skip)

 The Air Force also did not release the data showing how many active-shooter incidents were stopped by someone on the scene carrying a weapon. A spokeswoman said the data came from the FBI, and cannot be released by the Air Force.

I do not know what data the Air Force or the FBI have to make such a pronouncement, but from public sources, haphazardly obtained over the Internet for a few years, I have listed 21.  That is certainly enough to qualify for the "many" label.

The idea that armed people could *not* stop a mass killing would have been so laughable 50 years ago as to never be given serious thought.  Throughout the past, the only defense against being slaughtered and enslaved en mass has been armed defense (having God on your side certainly helped).  If you were not armed, organized, and pro-active, you ended up dead or someone else' slave; your women their concubines, your children; slaves, concubines, castrati, or worse.  In much of the world, including historical times, you were eaten.

Only in the last 50 years, in "progressive" circles, has the claim has been made that being unarmed makes a person "safe".

When politically correct politicians get into power, they insist on armed guards, and lots of men with guns at their command.  The ones in power know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, to quote Mao.  They do not want their subjects and serfs to have arms, and create the fable that somehow, in some way, being unarmed makes them "safe".  It is a fable for children and slaves.

All militaries are based on the idea of armed protection.  Republics have always relied on armed citizens. 

I applaud the Air Force for stating a politically incorrect fact.

I hope they will give it more than lip service.   Maybe in the next administration.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.     Link to Gun Watch

NM: 15% of Homicides Self Defense in Albuquerque

Eleven months ago, police say a homeowner awoke to a strange noise, grabbed his gun and went to his kitchen, where he found a man crouching, clutching a knife. The homeowner opened fire, killing the suspected burglar. Detectives said the homeowner’s actions were justifiable and didn’t arrest him.

Throughout 2015, similar scenarios played out over and over again across the city as civilians shot would-be burglars. Six of the eight justifiable homicides occurred during attempted burglaries or robberies – more than in the previous four years combined.
More Here

TX: Homeowner in Gunfight with Four Intruders

SEABROOK (KTRK) -- Brian Johnson says he had company over Friday night, five adults and four children, when four uninvited masked men arrived with weapons in hand.

"That's when I grabbed my gun. The first thing I grabbed is my gun and grabbed my friend and told him what was going on and after that we took the kids, put them in the bathroom, told them to turn the light off, shut the door and don't make a sound," Johnson said.

More Here

CO: Owner Escapes Bonds, Accesses Gun, Shoots Attacker

LITTLETON, Colo. –  One man is dead after a Colorado homeowner selling an item on Craigslist was tied up during a home invasion, got free, grabbed a gun and shot a suspect.

More Here

Followup CA: Man who Shot Drunk Found Justified in Civil Lawsuit

After years of civil litigation, a San Mateo County judge tentatively ruled a man was justified when he shot an intoxicated intruder who accidentally entered the wrong home.

San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Gerald Buchwald issued the tentative ruling Tuesday that Joseph Balistreri, a 45-year-old Brentwood resident, reacted appropriately in 2013 when he shot then 24-year-old Patrick O’Neil.

Representatives from both parties agreed the entire incident that occurred at Balistreri’s elderly parents’ Foster City home around 4:30 a.m. March 25, was a tragedy.
More Here

TX: Domestic Defense?

Kless said the man's ex-wife showed up at his home and they had an argument in the front yard. The man then choked his ex-wife and the woman's cousin then pulled a gun and shot the man in the thigh.

More Here

FL:Woman Runs for Help, Neighbor Shoots Boyfriend

At some point, Lazaro ran to her neighbor's house for help. The neighbor, identified as Ryan Panzegraf, came back to the house with Lazaro.

Deputies say another physical altercation ensued, during which Panzegraf shot Ratliff in the chest.


More Here

AK: Employee Wounded in Gun Fight

"The male suspect fired one shot at the employee, hitting the employee in the leg," police wrote. "The employee fired several shots from his own gun in return."

The suspect fled the area on foot 'and was last seen jumping the fence which surrounds the tow yard.'

The victim was taken to the hospital with non life-threatening injuries.


More Here

The Guardian equates Suicide to Self Defense in SHOT Show Coverage

The left loves to use false comparisons of unrelated numbers to make bad arguments.  In a recent article about the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT)  Show in the Guardian, a far-left British newspaper, the reporters start with an off the cuff remark from an economics professor.  From the guardian.com:

“People are buying guns as part of the American dream of freedom and liberty,” said Brauer, who is based at the Hull College of Business at Augusta University. “And also, the hope and the dream of being able to use guns in self-defence.”

The Guardian then adds this:

People very rarely get to live out that dream, with FBI data showing that gun owners are 78 times more likely to kill themselves than they are to carry out a “justifiable homicide”, which the agency describes as “the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen”.

Taking an interpretation of an economics professor about motivation for buying guns for defensive purposes as indicative of a desire to kill, is a large stretch.  Even if you start with the given statement,  "the hope and the dream of being able to use guns in self-defense" hardly means that people want to fire guns in self defense.

The desire to be able to prevent a tragedy does not translate to the desire to participate in a tragedy.  People have a desire to be able to prevent their house from burning down.  That does not mean that they want to put out a fire at their house.

The reporters take it a step further, to absurdity, implying that gun buyers want to kill criminals in self defense.   They do this by only considering the FBI numbers on justifiable homicides as legitimate acts of using firearms for self defense while ignoring the millions of cases where firearms are used for defense without a shot being fired.

The reporters mention a partial definition of the FBI reporting requirements for justifiable homicide, without mentioning that the FBI Uniform Crime Reports under reports justifiable homicides.  Studies by criminologists indicate that the FBI Uniform Crime Reports only catches about 20% of justifiable homicides. 

The reporters then compare that select, small slice of justifiable homicides caught by the Uniform Crime Reports, to an unrelated number;  suicides.  The underlying, unstated assumption is that guns cause suicides. The Guardian reporters frame the debate as a comparison of suicides to justifiable homicides, an absurd comparison.

It is similar to comparing car accidents to the number of times cars are used to disable a criminals' car, without considering the benefit of transporting victims to a hospital.  The claim would be made that you are far more likely to be in a car accident than involved in disabling a criminal's car.   Both are absurd comparisons.

Suicides, because they are an individual choice that does not depend on others actions, are not caused by guns; if guns are less available, many effective substitute methods are available to individuals who wish to end their life. 

South Korea and Japan have far higher suicide rates than the United States.  Both countries have fiercely restrictive gun laws.  No regulations that are proposed in the United States have any reasonable chance of preventing suicides in measurable numbers. If an attempt were made to confiscate all firearms in the United States, some small number of suicides might be prevented, but the resulting social upheaval and death toll would overwhelm them.  Few are willing to admit the elimination of most privately owned guns is the goal, and it is not a viable option.

The vast majority of suicides in the United States committed with firearms are old white males who have owned guns for a long time. When one form of suicide becomes less available, others are picked up rapidly.  Due to the copycat effect, mass publicity of suicide methods may lead to more suicides than the availability of particular methods.  From nih.gov:

 This paper examines the emergence of a new method of suicide in Hong Kong by carbon monoxide poisoning generated by the burning of charcoal. In just 6 years, it has become the second most common means of suicide after jumping from heights.

Framing the debate as a comparison of suicides to justifiable homicides was a policy decision on the part of the Guardian.

The reporters could have as easily compared the number of fatal accidents involving firearms (about 500 a year) with the estimated 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms each year, thus making the case for the utility of firearms in preventing crime and for self defense. Their choice indicates their agenda.

It is not news to "frame" a 'news' article to advocate for a political agenda that you wish enacted. It is a political tool used extensively by advocates everywhere.  It is worthwhile to point out how it is done; once people become educated and more sceptical, they are less likely to be fooled into making rash decisions based on advocacy disguised as journalism.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.     Link to Gun Watch

Dave Workman: Suicide Prevention Bill in WA State Cooperative Effort

The Washington state House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on an ambitious measure aimed at suicide prevention that not only has bipartisan sponsorship, but also the support of gun rights groups, it was announced today.

Sponsored by State Rep. Tina Orwall (D-33rd District), House Bill 2793 has been “in the works” for several months, according to Bellevue gun rights advocate Alan Gottlieb. He is the executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and he's been on the "ground floor" of this effort.

More Here

MA: Citizens must Write Essay to Obtain Gun Permit

Is it a right, if you have to write an essay to exercise it?
LOWELL -- A new firearms policy will go into place despite a final plea from gun-rights advocates Tuesday for looser restrictions.

The policy requires anyone seeking a license-to-carry to take a gun-safety course. Anyone applying for an unrestricted gun license must state in writing why they should receive such a license, and to provide additional documentation, such as prior military or law-enforcement service, a prior license-to-carry permit, or signed letters of recommendation.

More Here

FL: Senator Portilla Blocks Vote on Campus Carry

Campus carry hit a major roadblock Thursday when the chair of a key Senate committee said it will not consider SB 68 this session. The measure would have allowed Florida’s 1.4 million concealed weapons permit holders to carry a gun into classes on university and college campuses..

Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, R-Miami, also fired a fatal shot into a campus carry proposal last year by refusing to schedule the bill for a hearing. He said he does not see a Second Amendment issue when university security policies prohibit firearms on campus.
More Here

Air Force: Commanders can Authorize Carry

The attack last July on a recruiting office in Tennessee has prompted the Air Force to remind commanders they may authorize qualified airmen to carry weapons on base while off duty and out of uniform.

The Air Force on Wednesday said its review of "active-shooter incidents across the country" found that many ended without police intervention because someone present with a weapon stopped the shooter.

(snip)

The Air Force also did not release the data showing how many active-shooter incidents were stopped by someone on the scene carrying a weapon. A spokeswoman said the data came from the FBI, and cannot be released by the Air Force.

More Here

Followup SC: More on Barbershop Shooting

According to witnesses inside, two armed men entered the shop in an attempt to commit a robbery.

They took money from several victims before someone inside fired shots at the suspects.

One of the armed robbers has been taken to the hospital to treat an apparent gunshot wound.
More Here

Followup MI: No Charges for Man who Shot Belligerant Drunk

The screaming woke up Groetsema in a nearby home, according to the Kalamazoo County Sheriff’s Office. He grabbed his gun, ran outside, and found Bigham hiding behind a shed in his neighbor’s yard.

When he told the Bigham to come out, Bigham charged at him, and Groetsema shot him, police said.
More Here

CA: Armed Victim Shoots Attacking Dog

EL CENTRO — A retired federal agent shot and killed a dog that had allegedly bitten him on the leg at 5 p.m. Wednesday in the 1500 block of Elm Avenue, according to El Centro police Cmdr. Robert Sawyer.


More Here

TX: Possible Domestic Self Defense Shooting

A man was in critical condition at University Medical Center after he was shot by an ex-girlfriend Friday afternoon in a domestic dispute.

Lubbock police Lt. Ray Mendoza said a woman picked up her children from school and went to her sister’s house in the 2800 block of 41st Street when the woman’s ex-boyfriend also entered the house.

A confrontation occurred, and the woman shot him with a shotgun, Mendoza said.

More Here

TX: Shooting may be Self Defense

Witnesses told police the the two men were involved in a heated argument in front of 1818 40th St.

Police say initial evidence may indicate the shooting was in self-defense. They found two guns at the scene.
More Here

Followup SD: Hanson found not Guilty in Shootng of Anthony Gabriel

After more than 10 hours of deliberation, a jury on Wednesday found Conner Hanson, 18, not guilty on all counts for the killing of Anthony Gabriel, 18, last January, according to a report from KELO-TV.

More Here

SC: Two Armed Victims Shoot, Kill Robbery Suspect

COLUMBIA, SC
One of two masked men who allegedly robbed patrons at the Next Up Barber shop on Ft. Jackson Boulevard Friday night was shot and killed when two of the patrons pulled weapons and shot at the suspects, Columbia police said.

The two victims who shot at the suspects had “valid concealed weapons permits,” Columbia police chief Skip Holbrook said in a news release late Friday night.

More Here

Does the Media Have More Blood on its Hands with the Canadian School Shooting?

Picture from The Canadian Press

Details about the school shooting in Canada are still in short supply.  But it seems likely that the shooting was motivated by the media coverage that is given to mass shooters, especially school shootings, in the western world.  From thestarphoenix.com:

“The community usually pulls together really strong in times like this,” said Clearwater River Dene Nation Chief Teddy Clark on Friday.

“Both Clearwater and La Loche, a lot of people are in shock. This is something that you only see on TV most of the time.”

(skip)

Desjarlais-Thomas forwarded to The Canadian Press a screenshot of a chilling exchange that had taken place on social media a short time before the shooting between a young male and his friends.

“Just killed 2 ppl,” wrote the young male. “Bout to shoot ip the school.”

The shooter is in custody, so we will likely get more information.  But we know that this small town of about 2,600 is not an isolated Canadian village without communications to the outside world.  They have electricity, paved streets, television, Internet, and most of the modern amenities that exist in Canada and the United States. 

It is fairly certain that this small town has been saturated with media coverage of mass school killings, just as most of the Western world has.  The media know that such coverage tends to motivate additional mass shootings.  The copy cat effect has been extensively written about and researched.

These mass killings still recieve far more media attention than comparable mass killings involving other instruments, such as arson, automobiles, knives, or other items.  It is highly likely that the number of these killings would be substantially reduced if the media simply followed a few simple guidelines that were recommended by Loren Coleman in his book, The Copycat Effect, in 2004.  The book details strategies for reducing media incentives for mass killings. 

(1) The media must be more aware of the power of their words. Using language like "successful" sniper attacks, suicides, and bridge jumpers, and "failed" murder-suicides, for example, clearly suggest to viewers and readers that someone should keep trying again until they "succeed." We may wish to "succeed" in relationships, sports, and jobs, but we do not want rampage or serial killers, architects of murder-suicide, and suicide bombers to make further attempts after "failing." Words are important. Even the use of "suicide" or "rampage" in headlines, news alerts, and breaking bulletins should be reconsidered.

(2) The media must drop their clichéd stories about the "nice boy next door" or the "lone nut." The copycat violent individual is neither mysterious nor healthy, or usually an overachiever. They are often a fatal combination of despondency, depression, and mental illness. School shooters are suicidal youth that slipped through the cracks, but it is a complex issue, nevertheless. People are not simple. The formulaic stories are too often too simplistic.

(3) The media must cease its graphic and sensationalized wall-to-wall commentary and coverage of violent acts and the details of the actual methods and places where they occur. Photographs of murder victims, tapes of people jumping off bridges, and live shots of things like car chases ending in deadly crashes, for example, merely glamorize these deaths, and create models for others ­ down to the method, the place, the timing, and the type of individual involved. Even fictional entertainment, such as the screening of The Deer Hunter, provides vivid copycatting stimuli for vulnerable, unstable, angry, and depressed individuals. 

(4) The media should show more details about the grief of the survivors and victims (without glorifying the death), highlight the alternatives to the violent acts, and mention the relevant background traits that may have brought this event to this deathly end. They should also avoid setting up the incident as a logical or reasonable way to solve a problem.

(5) The media must avoid ethnic, racial, religious, and cultural stereotypes in portraying the victims or the perpetrators. Why set up situations that like-minded individuals (e.g. neo-Nazis) can use as a roadmap for a future rampages against similar victims?

(6) The media should never publish a report on suicide or murder-suicide without adding the protective factors, such as the contact information for hot lines, help lines, soft lines, and other available community resources, including email addresses, websites, and phone numbers. To run a story on suicide or a gangland murder without thinking about the damage the story can do is simply not responsible. It¹s like giving a child a loaded gun. The media should try to balance such stories with some concern and consideration for those who may use it to imitate the act described.

(7) And finally, the media should reflect more on their role in creating our increasingly violent society. Honest reporting on the positive nature of being alive in the twenty-first century might actually decrease the negative outcomes of the copycat effect, and create a wave of self-awareness that this life is rather good after all. Most of our lives are mundane, safe, and uneventful. This is something that an alien watching television news from outer space, as they say, would never know. The media should "get real," and try to use their influence and the copycat effect to spread a little peace, rather than mayhem.

David Kopel, in an article published in the Wall Street Journal, wrote about the copycat effect and Coleman's book in December of 2012. 

The media cynically benefits from coverage of these events.  The media benefit from ratings and from politicization of the event.  The old media use these events to further their agenda to impose severe restrictions on gun ownership and use.  The restrictions called for often have no relationship to the mass killings committed.

How much more blood will be on media hands before they stop cynically using these events to promote their political agenda, without regard to the devastating toll of innocents that they are encouraging?

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.     Link to Gun Watch