WaPo Confirms Constitutional Carry in D.C.

Emily Miller tweeted yesterday that Washington D.C. Police Chief Lanier has issued an order that police will not arrest non-felons who are carrying pistols in the District of Columbia.  This morning the Washington Post confirmed her report:

In an order approved by Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier, police were told that District residents are permitted to carry pistols if the weapons are registered. Those who had not registered their handguns could be charged on that ground, the instruction said. 

The number of registered pistols is thought to be low. 

Lanier’s instructions to police also said that residents of other jurisdictions without felony records would not be charged under the ban on carrying pistols.

 The District attorneys have said that they will be "seeking a stay shortly".  It is not clear if the court will grant a stay. 

It is worth noting that the paper cites the 4th circuit as upholding Maryland's restrictive "may issue" carry law, but ignores the Peruta Decision in California.

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

Via Emily Miller: Police Chief Recognizes Carry Reciprocity in D.C

Emily Miller reports:

STUNNING DEVELOPMENT: DC Police Chief Lanier just told force not to arrest a person who can legally carry a gun in DC or any state.

As of 6:24 p.m. on July 27, 2014, this is a welcome development.   Many have said that the D.C. political establishment will ignore the judges order.   This shows that Police Chief Lanier is, at minimum, unwilling to be found in contempt.   Notice the broad extent of the order: no arrests for a person who can legally carry a gun in D.C. or any State.

With 30 states having open carry without a permit, and over 11 million concealed carry permits valid in the United States, that is a lot of people who may legally carry in the District.

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

Giving up Rights for Politicians' Fear is Silly

According to Emily Miller, the famous investigative reporter, DC Council Chairman Phil Mendelson emailed her this message in reaction to the District Court finding that the constitutional rights of Americans did not stop at the District borders:

"Because of the District's unique national security concerns, the right to carry a firearm in public must be more heavily restricted than any place else in the nation. Four U.S. presidents have been assassinated by gunfire, and at least five others have been shot at, including Ronald Regan who was seriously wounded in 1981. Neither the Secret Service nor the Capitol Police will disclose all incidents where they have recovered firearms, but we do know that just two years ago someone hit the White House with gunfire, and there are frequent threats on the foreign diplomatic corps."

Consider the preposterous assumptions inherent in that statement.  It comes down to two.

1. Americans have to give up their rights to add some highly questionable measure of unproven protection to politicians and foreign diplomats.

2. Politicians are so much more important than other citizens, that no sacrifice on the part of the people is too much, if it makes the politicians feel a little safer.

This turns the core values of our constitutional republic on their head.  Politicians are there to serve *us*.   We do not exist to serve *them*.     There is no lack of politicians.   For every powerful politician, there are dozens; no, hundreds; no, thousands; of people just as able, that would love to have the opportunity to serve.  They should assume the position in full knowledge that they assume some risk.   They should realize that they serve *us*, and if a little more risk comes with the service, so that our rights are protected, that is something that every soldier already accepts.  They should have to accept it as well if they want to represent *us*.    Every single one of them has volunteered.   All have fought hard for the position that they are in. 

Politicians are plentiful and easily replaced.   There is a virtual unlimited number of them.   Our rights, however, are fragile flowers, constantly under assault by politicians.   Once degraded, they are not easily built back up; once destroyed, it takes enormous effort, blood, and treasure to restore them.   A great many Americans gave their lives to protect our rights.   It is not too much to ask that politicians take a little risk to preserve them.

Life is risk.  To live is to be at risk.   Politicians, as public servants, should be willing to shoulder as much risk as the ordinary pizza delivery person or soldier.  Most do.  In return, they get the perks and privileges of representing us and wielding power in our name. 

The Imperial accouterments that we have given the President are shameful for a free people.   The Obamas' flagrant squandering of treasure for their ostentatious displays is more reminiscent of French Kings, Eastern Potentates, or Albanian Dictators, than a President of the United States.  

The security that we have lavished on presidents, but not on lower levels of government officials, is far more than it should be.  

Cut it back by half, and threats to the President will not be increased in any substantial amount.    Shutting down an airport so that a President can get a haircut should be a thing of the past.   Shutting down traffic in most of a city because a president is due to come that way, is insane. 

Let us have no more foolish talk of the People giving up Rights for insignificant increases in a politician's security.

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

Will Dick Heller Carry in D.C.?

Dick Heller (yes the famous Heller of the Supreme Court case) is celebrating the resounding victory in the Palmer v. D.C. carry outside the home case that was released yesterday.    From Dick:

Within minutes of getting home and sitting down at my kitchen table, I received a phone call. It was George Lyon, a plaintiff in the case as well as an attorney. He shared the good news that Judge Scullin, who was appointed by Justice Roberts, had issued a decision striking down the ridiculous and useless restrictions on self-defense with a firearm outside my home.

With George on the phone, we noted that at least for the next few hours (or even days) Washington D.C. joins states like Arizona and Vermont in being “constitutional carry” jurisdictions. George went on to advise against strapping on my Buntline Special lest I run into an ill-informed member of the MPD and wind up “ventilated.”

Dick would not have to parade around with his Buntline special. That could be dangerous. He could however, put it on under a large shirt, go to a few iconic D.C. landmarks, and briefly display it for photographic proof to future generations that for at least a few hours, it was legal to openly carry weapons in the modern District of Columbia!   He has minimal worry, because his handgun is already registered in the District of Columbia.

Dick has shown that he is courageous and smart.

I would love to see those photographs!

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

Will Emily Miller Carry in DC?

Emily Miller is the famous investigative reporter who wrote the series  "Emily Gets Her Gun" about applying for a permit to legally own a firearm in the District of Columbia.  The series led to her successful book of the same title.   An autographed copy sits near my elbow.   I met Emily a couple of years ago at a Gun Rights Policy Conference.   She is a sharp woman, intimately familiar with the insanity of D.C. gun laws, who owns a legally registered handgun in the District of Columbia.

She recently tweeted:

Stay tuned- I'm writing a story with the details on the #Palmer decision -- and how DC will be forced to allow gun carry rights.

What I find fascinating is that Emily is in an ideal position to actually exercise her second amendment rights in the District of Columbia tomorrow.   She has always wanted to be able to carry her handgun, a Sig Sauer P229, if only with the 10 round magazines allowed in the District.   Now she may legally do so.

She may only have a short window of opportunity, as it is possible that the District's attorneys will be able to convince an appeals court judge to issue a stay against the decision.   I do not think this is likely, at least not immediately.  After all, tomorrow is Sunday, the House of Representatives just voted to defund any gun law enforcement by the D.C. government, and two fairly high profile cases have been brought against obviously law abiding citizens with the very laws under question.   All this works against any kind of "emergency" stay.

The summary judgment by the court does not differentiate between open and concealed carry.   Emily could commemorate her celebration of freedom for men and women everywhere with a picture of her carrying with a recognizable D.C. landmark in the background.

I wish Emily the best.  She is a real trooper.   I would love to see that photograph!

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

D.C. Has "Permitless" Carry for an Unknown Time

Alan Gura reports that the District Court, after nearly five years of stonewalling, has found for the Constitutional right to bear arms outside of the home.  It has struck down the prohibitions on carry outside of the home in the District of Columbia, for both residents and non-residents.   It took five years and two petitions for a writ of mandamus to obtain this decision.  The wording below is from the decision.   From alangura.com:

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

No doubt the D.C. government  will work quickly to place some restrictions on carry outside of the home.   But today is Saturday, the 26th of July.  I refuse to beleive that they will be able to enact an ordinance or obtain a stay from the appeals court before Monday.   For some period of time, it will be legal to carry a firearm outside of your home in D.C. without a permit to carry.

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

Alan Gura: Victory in Palmer v. D.C.

Justice never sleeps…. not even on a Saturday afternoon, when this opinion was just handed down.

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

In 2012, I won Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), which struck down Illinois total ban on the carrying of defensive handguns outside the home. With this decision in Palmer, the nation’s last explicit ban of the right to bear arms has bitten the dust. Obviously, the carrying of handguns for self-defense can be regulated. Exactly how is a topic of severe and serious debate, and courts should enforce constitutional limitations on such regulation should the government opt to regulate. But totally banning a right literally spelled out in the Bill of Rights isn’t going to fly.  My deepest thanks to the Second Amendment Foundation for making this victory possible and to my clients for hanging in there. Congratulations Americans, your capital is not a constitution-free zone.

Source

LA: Another Gun Owner Stops Attack by Multiple Pit Bulls

It was only  a week ago that Dennis Williams saved a neighbor that was being attacked by ferocious Pitt Bulls.   He retrieved a pistol when baseball bats were not enough, and killed one dog before the others ran off.   He used a .22 revolver.   Now, in Louisiana, on the north side of Lake Ponchartrain,  a very similar incident has occurred.  A young woman was attacked along a walking trail by two Pitt Bulls.   A neighbor heard the screams, just at Dennis Williams did.  He brought a 9mm pistol, killed one of the attacking Pitts, and severely wounded the other.  From nola.com:

Two pit bulls were shot on a walking trail near Slidell after they attacked a woman and her miniature collie Wednesday morning, authorities said. The woman was taken to a hospital with bite wounds to her left arm and left leg, and her dog was transported to a local veterinary clinic to be treated for its wounds.

(snip)

 A neighbor who heard the woman screaming responded and fired a shot from a 9 mm pistol, killing one of the pit bulls and injuring the other. The wounded dog fled, the Sheriff's Office said.

The owner of the Pitt Bulls was given a misdemeanor summons  for violation of the leash law.

In both circumstances, the people attacked were walking their own dogs.  Pitt Bulls are often more aggressive toward other dogs than they are to people, but when people defend their pets, the Pitts may turn on them.   Neighbors who have weapons and who know how to use them may be one of the reasons that fatal dog attacks number less than 20 per year, in spite of total attacks that require treatment numbering in the hundreds of thousands.   From dogbites.org:

The breeds that the CDC considers highest risk are pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas.

While I have not seen any studies on packs of dogs, my experience is that dogs are most aggressive when running loose in a group.  At that point they seem to express a "pack" mindset, much like "mob rule".

Without a human to restrain them, they revert to pack hunting instincts.

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

FL:Court Uphold Florida Law Limiting Doctor Snooping and Recordkeeping of Patients Gun Ownership

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbV3cK91SB5j6mSSAiHEZSA0TMwRMvPrNFbH3zxBEdhGbMZq2jcHLnW4OCFMRYeUx_MZYvc7DXvS1UNDtgvHGrHTXRa5ZYT4eq2pqDQ6trLonLZBKghyphenhyphenX7J4qBOjbXj7XfmkXDJg/s1600/Doctor+Big+Brother.jpg

The old media in Florida tried to frame the issue as one of the limiting of Doctor's speech, but it was never about that.   The law was in reaction to Doctors inappropriately asking questions about gun ownership, and potentially feeding that information into government databases.  This is known as a "boundary violation" where a professional uses his power in inappropriate ways.

The 11th Circuit Cout of Appeals upheld the law yesterday, the 25th of July.  It is possible that the rulling will be appealed to the Supreme Court.   From the startribune.com, Marion Hammer, a proponent of the law speaks:

"The intent is to protect the privacy of firearms owners and to stop the political interrogation of gun owners and the children of gun owners when they seek medical care," Hammer said in an email.

A majority of the judges agreed:

"The act simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient's care," states the opinion written by U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Tjoflat.

From the decision:

The Act seeks to protect patients’ privacy by restricting irrelevant inquiryand record-keeping by physicians regarding firearms. The Act recognizes that when a patient enters a physician’s examination room, the patient is in a position of relative powerlessness. The patient must place his or her trust in the physician’s guidance, and submit to the physician’s authority. In order to protect patients, physicians have for millennia been subject to codes of conduct that define the practice of good medicine and affirm the responsibility physicians bear. In keeping with these traditional codes of conduct—which almost universally mandate respect for patient privacy—the Act simply acknowledges that the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters.

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

Another Citizen Ensnared by D.C. Gun Law

A prominent veterinarian and farmer, who is also a member of the North Carolina State University's Board of Trustees, was arrested in the District of Columbia after police discovered a holstered, loaded handgun in his briefcase.   He apparently was scheduled to attend a meeting in the Cannon House Office Building.  Capitol police discovered the firearm in an ankle holster inside of his brief case.   I suspect it was the Ruger LCP, a popular, small, pistol.



A friend believes that the small gun was inadvertently left in the luggage.  From the comments at thestate.com:

I know Ron personally and he is an honest upstanding citizen and I truly believe he forgot it was in his brief case. He wasn't planning on committing any crime with it. My husband has often forgotten he was carrying a gun in his car but has been very lucky and hasn't been stopped in states that don't reciprocate with our state.

This points out the wisdom of Representative  Massie, who wants to reform the draconian D.C. gun laws:

“Gun free school zones are ineffective. They make people less safe by inviting criminals into target-rich, no-risk environments,” said Massie. “Gun free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by criminals.

This is the second time in a week that an upstanding citizen has been ensnared by these laws of questionable constitutionality.   Ryan Lee Shucard, press secretary to Representative Tom Marino, Pa, was tripped up in the same way on 18 July.

The D.C. law has been challenged in the Courts, but the court refuses to rule on it.   It seems likely that the court simply does not want to rule the law unconstitutional, and so has chosen to make no ruling at all.   The case will have been pending for five years on August 6th.   A writ of mandamus, to require the court to make a ruling, has been requested twice.

Update: Since this was written, the District Court has ruled the D.C. laws unconstitutional!   Now is the time for those being prosecuted under the laws to move for the charges to be dismissed!

A related case is pending in New Jersey, where a young black mother with a concealed carry permit is facing three years in jail because she was truthful with the police officer who stopped her for an "improper lane change".

Congress has the votes to pass legislation requiring all U.S. jurisdictions to honor state issued gun carry permits, just as they do state drivers licenses, but Harry Reid has blocked any progress on the issue.


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

SC: Marine takes Robber Suspects Gun, but does not Advise it

Classic defensive training, as I received 40 years ago.  Evaluate the situation.  Use a disarm technique only if you think you are likely to get shot anyway.  They are high risk techniques.  Kudos to Mr. Morris.

He says his reaction was instinctive, but he only did it because he was sure the guy was going to shoot him even if he had turned over his money.

 "The look in the guy's eyes, I was going to get shot whether I gave him my money or not," said Morris, a Desert Storm veteran. "I had nothing to lose. It's dumb to try it, but in that situation, with his demeanor, I did not think I had a choice. It was either stand there and get shot or get shot trying to get away or take the gun from him."

More Here

UK Paper Gets it Right: Hero doctor stops hospital shooting rampage

The UK is a very unfriendly place for the gun culture, yet compare this headline from the dailymail.co.uk with the old media in the U.S.:

Hero doctor stops hospital shooting rampage: Psychiatrist uses his own gun to shoot patient who killed caseworker in front of him

Here is the Washington Post:

Authorities search for motive in gunfight between psychiatric patient and doctor

Consider that the doctor had just witnessed a murder of a coworker in front of him, and was wounded in the head and hand while defending himself and others.

It says a great deal when a British paper delivers better reporting than a supposed "elite" American paper.   I am waiting for the Post to find that somewhere in his past, the good Doctor Silverman had some military or police training.   Then all will be explained... because, you see, it wasn't really a "civilian" defensive gun use after all!   Sarcasm alert.

I would like to see Shannon Watts public apology for her statement, when asked about shootings in public places being stopped by a "good guy with a gun", to use Wayne LaPierre's phrase.

Watts responded: "This has never happened. Data shows it doesn't happen."

That was a lie at the time, of course, as illustrated numerous times here:

 Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens

I do not expect Shannon Watt to apologize.   If she would, it would undercut her whole media campaign, and likely stop the Bloomberg funding.

But it appears that the Washington Post has a long way to go before it regains any reputation as a reliable news source.   I had great hopes after the paper changed hands last year...


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

MA: But, Nobody Wants to Take Your Guns!

We hear the tired old shibboleth trotted out in the debate over the second amendment again and again: "Nobody Wants To Take Your Guns".  Except when they do.  Here is Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans on Boston Public Radio, second hour, starting about 9:20:

“For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun, nobody needs a rifle, and I don’t know a lot of people who are into hunting who, being lifelong residents, would actually want that who lives in the city, but, especially here in the city I want to have discretion over who’s getting any type of gun because public safety is my main concern and as you know it’s an uphill battle taking as many guns off the street right now without pumping more into the system.”

There are several minutes of ignorance of crime statistics and simple desire for more power over peoples lives shown in these few minutes of discussion.  But what is abundantly clear is that the Police commissioner does not think people need any kind of guns in the city, and that the police should have full authority to decide who has one and who does not.   At one point, the "moderator" says, well, if it was unconstitutional, then it would be unconstitutional for handguns as well, wouldn't it?  Clearly the moderator never read the Heller decision.   It is just as clear where her sympathies lie.

The police commissioner, several times says that he doesn't want people to have rifles or shotguns, because they might be stolen and used by criminals.  Wow.  So we will trample on the rights of honest people, because we are afraid that criminals will steal.   It is obvious that he does not consider the right to be armed of any importance at all.

So, if you are from the 95 percent of the country where police cannot prevent you from owning guns, and you move to Massachusetts, the police commissioner thinks he should be able to tell you whether you can own one or not.   And if he decides that you should not own them?   I suspect that he will either come to take them or force you to turn them in.  

The end game has always been to reduce the number of firearms owners until it is politically insignificant.   The police commissioner is obviously miffed that it has not happened yet.

Yes, he wants to take your guns.  Or he wants to decide whether or not you can have them.   It amounts to the same thing.



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

MS:Judge Overrides State Law to Keep Baliffs Armed

 Judges are generally immune from lawsuit.

Kingfish reports that Hinds County bailiffs carry and can use firearms even if they fail their weapons qualifications test.   Bailiffs are deputies who work for the county sheriff and are assigned the courtroom.   State law requires all deputies qualify with their weapon and the law sets the minimum standard they must achieve.  If a deputy can not achieve the minimum standard they are not allowed to carry a firearm on duty.

(snip)

 Hinds County Circuit Judge Tomie Green barred the Sheriff from demoting or firing any bailiff in a 2012 court order.  Even though the bailiffs failed to meet the minimum score of 75 out of 100 in their annual qualification they are still allowed by order of the court to carry a side arm and maintain their job as bailiff.

More Here

Deputies, Police Reserves, and Militia

There were no police at the time the Constitution was written and the Bill of Rights ratified.   Police as we know them did not come into being until a couple of decades later, in the UK, with Sir Robert Peel.   There, giving the police power was resisted as an infringement on local power for a considerable time, and police only gradually spread across the United States.

Police forces have taken over many of the functions of local militias, and are for the most part, locally controlled.   The closest modern equivalent of to the militia of the constitutional era are reserve deputies.   While the Militias traditionally elected their officers, sheriffs are elected by county voters.   Police chiefs are not elected, but are appointed by people who are, an unfortunate remove from responsibility to the electorate.

Sheriffs have traditionally been able to appoint deputies at will.   In northern Wisconsin, we called them "dollar a year deputies" because the nominal stipulation was that they were paid a dollar a year.   Deputies have arrest powers, but dollar a year deputies rarely exercise them, wisely choosing to avoid the type of entanglements that come with acting outside of emergency situations.   I would bet considerable money that reservists commit far fewer crimes per capita than police do, just as concealed carry permit holders.   It makes sense; people who are reservists or CCW holders tend to be self selected as the most responsible group in the community.  I suspect that much the same could have been said of militia that took their duties seriously.

In the United States, police, deputies, or other officers who have  HR 218/Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) status, may legally carry concealed firearms throughout the United States and its territories, including the District of Columbia.    This is an avenue for people to have effective national right to carry. It applies to many places that are prohibited to people with ordinary concealed carry permits, though those exceptions are dwindling.   For example, all states now allow people to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, but some states allow officers, but not permit holders, to carry in bars.  HR 218 status is valid in places that do not have any reciprocity with other states, and in the few federal enclaves where concealed carry permits are not allowed, such as most military bases or the District of Columbia.

A small town in Michigan is being investigated for no apparent reason but that it has a large number of reserve police, about a 100, for a population of 290.  From the detroitnews.com:

Earlier this month, The Detroit News reported the auxiliary officers donate so much money that they cover the $38,000 police budget and some other government expenses.

Their status as reserves allows them to bring their guns into no-weapon zones such as bars and ballparks, according to state law.

Critics accused the officers of trading donations for the looser weapon rules.

Police Chief Rob Reznick, who denied there’s any quid pro quo, said he has nothing to hide. “We welcome the investigation,” he said. “We will cooperate fully.”

It is not clear that the reservists mention are HR 218 qualified. However, they are issued a badge and ID, and a gun, and may have a department willing to back them up. How would any enforcer throughout the nation know that they were not?

Before Wisconsin passed their shall issue law in November of 2011, they had no provision for concealed carry by ordinary citizens. Often overlooked, however, was the ability of sheriffs to appoint deputies, and police chiefs, reservists. Far back in antiquity, I was a police reservist for a time. It was a position that I actively sought for the ability to carry a concealed weapon. A good friend of mine, a woman, obtained her "dollar a year deputy" card by going to the sheriff and telling him that she was going to carry... so give her a card and make her legal. He did just that. Perhaps the most famous fictional character to use this stratagem was Henry Bowman, in the novel, Unintended Consequences.

Over the years, some states have enacted legislation making it more difficult to become a deputy or police reservist.  Some require that the applicant attend a peace officer academy, which can be a large investment in time and money, and may require political appointment in some areas.  Many areas elect constables.   In sparsely populated rural areas this office might be obtained with little effort. 

While it is likely that national reciprocity for carry permits will become law in the near future (several attempts have been made, even during the Obama administration), the potential of becoming a reserve officer or deputy offers an interesting possibility for those who travel extensively and who wish to exercise their right to self defense during those travels.


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

PA Update: Official: Hospital gunman intended to kill others

A crazy man starts killing people in a gun free zone... only a doctor who violated the rules fought back and stopped the killing.   Those who want a disarmed population will say this was not a mass killing because the mass killing was stopped by an armed citizen...



Dr. Lee Silverman emptied his gun's chamber, striking patient Richard Plotts several times, Delaware County District Attorney Jack Whelan said. Plotts by then had shot the caseworker in the face and fired several shots at Silverman, including one that grazed his temple and another that struck his thumb, he said.

(snip)

"If the doctor did not have a firearm, (and) the doctor did not utilize the firearm, he'd be dead today, and I believe that other people in that facility would also be dead," Whelan said.

More Here

FL: Armed Citizen Robbed, Shoots at Suspect

"The victim was getting his scuba air tank filled at a business in the 5000 block of Sandcastle Blvd., when an unknown armed black male, riding a bike, approached the victim," said Terri Barbera, public information officer with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office.

The suspect then robbed him of his wallet and took off on his bike.

The victim had a concealed weapons permit and feeling threatened, fired one shot at the suspect, according to deputies.


more Here

AL: 14-Year-Old Shoots Ayatollah Mohammad

It is early in the investigation, but it appears that the 14-Year-Old was justified.

“They’re very upset,” says Brett King, defense attorney for the alleged shooter. “There was a domestic incident that morning. The deceased was actually escorted off the property and actually taken to Jefferson County. And best we know right now is he actually walked on foot back the seven miles, was back in the house when he was discovered by the mother and the son. And soon there after he was shot.”

More here

PA: Armed Doctor Stops Killing in Gun Free Hospital

A crazy man starts killing people in a gun free zone... only a doctor who violated the rules fought back and stopped the killing.   Those who want a disarmed population will say this was not a mass killing because the mass killing was stopped by an armed citizen...

A troubled patient opened fire on a caseworker and psychiatrist in a small office at a unit of Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital in Delaware County on Thursday afternoon, police said, leading the doctor to draw his own weapon and shoot the assailant.

The confrontation left the caseworker, 53-year-old Theresa Hunt, dead and the 52-year-old psychiatrist, a veteran doctor at the hospital whom sources identified as Lee Silverman, with a graze wound to the head. The patient, Richard Plotts, was in critical condition Thursday night from three gunshot wounds.

More Here

IA:Armed Citizen Holds Five Fugitives for Police

In the video, it is clear that the armed citizen, Scott, who has a CCW, held the fugitives at gun point.   That fact is left off of the transcript.

During the chase, the deputy who was chasing them fell so Tim and Scott got into a truck and continued to chase the men.

The men were eventually caught when the neighbors confronted them and held them there until back up arrived.

The officer who fell did hurt his shoulder during the chase - he was taken to St. Luke’s. The five men in the car are all charged with interference with official acts with injury on a peace officer. The driver is also charged with several traffic offenses.

More Here