Friday, March 18, 2016

MN: Armed Wife Stops Mob Attack on Husband

Image from

 A recent mob attack in St. Paul, Minnesota, illustrated the reason why Second Amendment supporters have pushed so hard to be able to, at minimum, keep a firearms in their vehicle or their workspace.  It also illustrates why disarmists have pushed hard to oppose it.  The last thing that disarmists want are examples of people who use firearms to defend themselves.

32 year old Bruce Chang was assaulted by a mob of 15 to 30 young men. The attack almost cost him his eye, and could easily have cost him his life.  Fortunately, his wife was close by in his home, and armed. The attack would  likely have been prevented if his workplace wouldn't have banned the exercise of his Second Amendment rights on their property. From

“I didn’t know I was stabbed but I felt the pressure and fell to one knee,” he said. “I immediately pushed off, because you got to survive.”

He was assaulted by a mob of 15 to 30 young men gambling on his driveway. They threw rocks and jabbed a stick at his face, striking him just below his left eye.

“With one of my older neighbors, who knows what would have happened,” Chang said.

Chang’s wife also has a firearm-carry permit. Because he can’t take his pistol to his workplace, Chang didn’t have it Monday when he pulled into his driveway.
At least one of Chang's attackers was aiming for the eye socket, endangering Chang's bodily integrity, and his life.  The nature of the mob attack meets the requirements for disparity of force.  Bruce Change would have been justified in using deadly force to prevent and/or stop the attack.  His wife was justified in threatening deadly force with her pistol to stop the attack.

Chang has his own personal defensive handgun, a Smith & Wesson M&P .40 caliber, with him.  He did not have it with him because of his employer's restrictions. He was attacked; he almost lost his eye and his life, because his employer wanted him disarmed.

 Image from

This would be less likely in places Wisconsin and Kansas, where employers are shielded from liability if they respect employees rights to exercise the Second Amendment.  It would have been less likely in  Texas and Florida, where employers are required to respect employees' property rights inside their vehicle, if they allow those vehicles on an Employer's parking lot.

But in Minnesota, there are no such protections.  So Bruce Change almost lost his eye and/or his life to a group of criminal young men who wanted to take his property for their own; and were willing to enforce their taking of his property with deadly force.

Correction: Minnesota protects the rights of permit holders to have guns in their vehicles.

It is time for the Minnesota legislature to recognize and enforce the Second Amendment.  Minnesota is one of only six states that does not have their own protection of the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution.

It will not happen with the current governor's signature, at least as stand alone legislation.  Mark Dayton is adamantly opposed to Second Amendment rights.  But last year Governor Dayton signed off on gun law reforms that were included as part of the budget bill.  It is possible that could be done again.

As the disarmists say:  If it saves one innocent life...

Definition of  disarmist

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


Anonymous said...

I would have been carrying anyway. I always have unless working at an airport OR where you can't get in the gate.

Barbara VanBeber said...

I wouldn't want to be on a list of permit holders.
Thankfully Kansans no longer need a permit to carry.