TX: Man outdraws Intruder

Sgt. Brian Miller with Austin police’s Homicide Unit said Castle Doctrine should apply in the killing of 26-year-old Ray Anthony Arredondo. A resident of a North Austin apartment shot and killed Arredondo after he broke into the tenant’s home and threatened him with a gun.
More Here

Dave Workman: Liberal ‘lies’ certainly must cover the Second Amendment debate

Today’s Town Hall online entries include an essay by Kurt Schlicter that posits that liberals lie about everything, and while he points to subjects ranging from global warming to illegal immigration and terrorism, he overlooks one subject completely: Guns and the Second Amendment.

Schlicter could easily have done an entire column on the mountain of canards launched by liberals against the right to keep and bear arms, in Washington State during the Initiative 594 campaign, and across the country during every effort to erode the individual right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, many liberals cling to the myth that the Second Amendment applies only to service in state militias, as if the Supreme Court had not twice in the last decade ruled just the opposite.

By no small coincidence, Schlicter’s column appears the day after Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson warned of possible terrorist attacks at shopping malls, specifically the Mall of America in Minnesota. He advised people to be “particularly vigilant.”
More Here

CA: Homeowner wins Gunfight with Three Invaders

Police say officers were called to a home on Acacia Lane at 12:49 a.m. after hearing reports of a home invasion robbery. According to the victim, three armed men tried to force their way into the home. The victim then fired several shots at the suspects, hitting two of them.
More Here

Five Rounds Standard issue for a U.S. Army Guard?

I was either in, or worked for, the U.S. Army for over 30 years.  During that time I had some experience with what guards were issued for ammunition.   My brother brought my attention to a video done about F-15s in Bitburg, Germany, in 1981, at the height of the cold war, only a few year before NATO won.  It is titled "The Wing".  In the video you can see the Tech Sergeant being issued magazines.  He is issued four magazines, all have rounds in them.  He makes sure his chamber is clear, and inserts one magazine.  In the screen-shot (about 7:26 on the video) you can see the other three magazines in his left hand.  They are clearly 30 round magazines for the M16 or variants.

If they were loaded with 28-29 rounds each, I would be pleasantly surprised.  I was surprised to see that he received four magazines with rounds in them.  It would not make sense to issue him four magazines with five rounds each, when he could be issued one magazine with 20 rounds.

The reason that my curiosity is aroused is that my experience has been far different.  As this was a commercially produced video made in cooperation with the military, the number of magazines may have been exaggerated for dramatic effect, disinformation purposes, or operational security.

My first experience with ammunition issued to guards was in California, six years earlier than the video.  I had been assigned extra duty as a military game warden on the Hunter Liggett Military Reservation.   I was not issued a weapon, but carried my own, an Argentine Ballister Molina .45 that accepted Colt magazines.   It was a decent pistol, and did not have the grip safety of the Colt 1911.  My partner carried a model 19 Smith & Wesson .357.  We both carried them fully loaded with extra ammunition.

We had been briefed about a potential threat.  A tip had been received that elements of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) were considering a raid on an Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) somewhere in California.  We received a report of shots being fired behind the ASP, and took our Jeep to investigate.

We did not find anything.  The way back around the ASP was mountainous and long, so we decided to short cut back toward the headquarters area through the ASP.   The guard stopped us with a hand signal.   We stopped.  He pawed at his shirt pocket.  We moved forward.  He stopped us, and moved back the distance that we had moved forward.  He pawed at his pocket; we moved forward.  Everything was repeated.  Finally, we got out of the Jeep, he made it be known that he needed to see ID.  We tossed it to him.  He wanted to maintain distance.  After verification, he let us pass through the ASP.

I was curious about the pocket pawing, and asked about it.  It turned out that the guards were issued one .45 magazine with five rounds in it, and it was to be kept buttoned in the shirt pocket.  Very Barney Fife.  Everyone that I talked to thought it was a stupid policy.

The next experience was in Panama, at the Rodman ASP, 1985-89.  I do not think the guards there were Marines; they might have been Army, Air Force, or Navy.  For some reason, Air Force comes to mind.  They were allowed one magazine for their M16s.   Trouble with Noriega was heating up prior to the U.S. Invasion (Operation Just Cause), after a drunken Noriega had declared war in a Panamanian Television program.  It was not clear that he intended to declare war; but he clearly said that Panama was in a state of war with the United States.

At Rodman, the guard's issued magazine and five rounds were to be kept in a magazine pouch.  If a guard did not have all five rounds at the end of his shift, the entire company was turned out to hunt for the missing round.   Guards were confronted by armed poachers several times.   One SOF member (almost certainly a SEAL) was killed by a poacher while training on a night patrol at Ft. Sherman, while I was there, but the policy did not change until the Marines took over security in the face of growing Noriega regime hostility.

There have been other instances in which U.S. military security personnel were not allowed to have loaded weapons, or allowed only limited ammunition in the face of a deadly threat.   The bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon in 1983 was one, others have been mentioned in the news.

I would like to know this: What experience did you have with ammunition issued to U.S. military forces on guard duty; and were you issued more than five rounds of ammunition?

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

NC: Catawba County Sheriff Coy Reid Supports armed Defense of Home

A homeowner shot an intruder in North Carolina on Monday, February 23, 2015.  An accomplice escaped.   The pair broke in through a basement window, then broke down a door to gain access to the house.  The homeowner called 911.  He armed himself with a 12 gauge shotgun.  When the intruders kicked open the basement door and approached him in a hallway, the homeowner shot one once in the chest.  The intruder died at the scene. 

The Sheriff, Coy Reid, had some advice for people who would consider breaking into homes.   From hickoryrecord.com:

“The only thing I could advise these people out here breaking into peoples’ homes,” Reid said, “(is) if they’re doing it for drug habit, they need to break in on a drug dealer.

“It’s a whole lot safer.”

Another statement from Sheriff Reid did not make the print article.   From the video:

"You have a right to defend your property when someone breaks in the home on you.  You do not know if these people are coming in to steal property or are coming in to cause harm to you or your family."

Sheriff Reid also said that when they catch the accomplice, the accomplice will be charged with murder under North Carolina's felony murder rule.  Most states have some variation of this rule.  In essence, it says that if you are knowingly involved in a felony, in which someone dies as a result of the commission of the felony, you can be charged with homicide for that death. From the legal-dictionary:

A Rule of Law that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.

Generally an intent to kill is not necessary for felony-murder. The rule becomes operative when there is a killing during or a death soon after the felony, and there is some causal connection between the felony and the killing.

The felony-murder rule originated in England under the Common Law. Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a Robbery accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Here is North Carolina's felony murder rule, in bold.  From ncfelonymurder.org:

§ 14-17. Murder in the first and second degree defined; punishment.

A murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon shall be deemed to be murder in the first degree, a Class A felony, and any person who commits such murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment in the State's prison for life without parole as the court shall determine pursuant to G.S. 15A-2000, except that any such person who was under 17 years of age at the time of the murder shall be punished with imprisonment in the State's prison for life without parole.

Burglary is one of the offenses mentioned, so the accomplice in this case may face life in prison.    But the phrase "shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration"  leaves significant room for interpretation.  You would have to know North Carolina case law to make a prediction as to whether the rule would apply to this case.

Sheriff Reid joins the growing number of law enforcement officials who support people defending themselves and their homes.   Even big city police chiefs like Detroit's Chief Craig and urban county Sheriff's such as Milwaukee County's Sheriff Clarke are vocally supporting the right of armed self defense.


©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

SC: Woman Shoots, Kills Man found in home

Coroner Gary Watts says Jermaine Johnson, 33, of Columbia, died from several gunshot wounds to the chest.

Based on preliminary information, police say Johnson entered a woman's home and a fight occurred when she arrived home. During the fight, the woman allegedly shot the man.

More Here

AR: 'Controversy' about Constitutional Carry Over

The questions about whether Arkansas is a constitutional carry state are over.  The result was never in any real doubt.  On April 4th, 2013, the Governor of Arkansas signed Act 746.  The law clarified a definition in Arkansas law, that had been abused over the years.  The change likely returned the law to its original meaning.  I wrote about it on 25 April. I wrote:

This change clarifies the meaning of the law to what was likely the original intent; that a person may not carry a weapon with the intent of using it for unlawful purposes. There does not appear to be other Arkansas law that forbids the carrying of weapons (except in certain named locations). Therefore it appears that Arkansas will have Constitutional carry. 

 The Democrat Arkansas Attorney General issued an opinion that muddied the waters.   A good dissection of it is here:

When issuing opinions on gun control laws, AG McDaniel will always react consistently; if the question can be used to smother out gun rights, he will do his best to do so. If McDaniel cannot restrict gun rights with an opinion, he will either refuse to give an answer or will muddy up the opinion so as to leave many more questions unanswered, as he did Monday. For decades, gun owners and law enforcement officers in Arkansas have been very confused as to how to interpret and follow the state’s gun control laws, and Dustin McDaniel uses his anti-self defense tactics to keep citizens confused and to restrict the exercising of their rights

But AG McDaniel's tactic did not work.  Second Amendment activists in Arkansas started openly carrying in public marches, challenging officials to arrest them under the weapons law.  I have watched this issue for nearly two years.  I cannot recall any arrests.  Every prosecutor who said otherwise has backed down.  The open carriers triumphed, even in the face of direct opposition by a city council in Eureka Springs.  Even the Arkansas Law Notes grudgingly admitted that the law meant what it plainly said:

As noted above, John Threet, the Washington County Prosecutor, has directed the Sheriff not to arrest those carrying handguns, even without a permit, unless other circumstances suggest the person intends to use the gun to commit a crime such as robbery. Threet also reports that at the last meeting of prosecutors from all 28 judicial districts in Arkansas, only 2 were instructing police or sheriffs to arrest—though he emphasized this was not a formal vote but merely his sense of the room.

Second amendment supporters continued with their open carry walks, which were effectively educating the public about the law.  Then, AG McDaniels was term limited out.   The Republican candidate, Leslie Rutledge, won the 2014 election, and is now the AG in Arkansas.   A member of Arkansascarry.com,  Paul Calvert, paid for the billboard shown in the above photograph.  KTHV, a Gannet company, took the bait.  They asked the new AG for her opinion.  From thv11.com:

In 2013, former attorney general Dustin McDaniel issued an opinion saying he did not consider Arkansas an open carry state under act 746. We asked new attorney general Leslie Rutledge about her interpretation of the law. "I interpret it to mean an individual may carry so long as he or she does so without the intent to unlawfully employ it against another person," she said. "But anytime law enforcement and citizens disagree on a law we need to ensure there is clarity to protect our citizens."

The debate is over.  There is no longer any doubt that Arkansas is a constitutional carry state, as I wrote back in 2013.  It took a lot of work by a lot of dedicated open carriers to force the media into acknowledging the law.   They did the job, and the rest, as they say, is history.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Gary Mauser: Number of violent crimes involving guns exaggerated by an over-inclusive definition of gun crime

By using an over-inclusive definition, Statistics Canada has exaggerated the number of violent crimes that involve guns. The result is that gun violence appears to be four times more frequent than it really is. In 2013 (the most recent year statistics are available) Statistics Canada reports that there were 5,027 “firearms-related” incidents out of 263,054 violent crimes (i.e., 2% of violent crimes). Clearly, gun violence isn’t prevalent.

But even that small share exaggerates the frequency that a gun was actually used to commit a violent crime. A Special Request I made to Statistics Canada late in 2014 revealed that a gun was actually used in just 1,194 violent crimes in 2013. Gun violence only occurred in one-quarter of “firearms-related” crimes and in just 0.5% of violent crimes.

More Here

FL: Anonymous Internet Source Claims to be Crooked Cop, gives details

An anonymous Internet source posting as "Guest" has started a firestorm on a forum for the Palm Beach County Sheriff Office, titled pbsotalk.com.   The original post, titled "Tricks of the trade - let's exchange!" deals with how to plant evidence to cause problems for someone they arrest who has aroused their ire.  Here is the original post:

I was lucky to get a really good FTO when I started almost 15 years ago. He taught me to always keep learning new skills and techniques. It's not always easy to do being in a zone with the same old people so I decided perhaps I would share and maybe you might also.

I have a method for getting people off the street that should not be there. Mouthy drivers, street lawyers, assholes and just anyone else trying to make my job difficult.

Under my floor mat, I keep a small plastic dime baggie with Cocaine in residue. Since it's just residue, if it is ever found during a search of my car like during an inspection, it's easy enough to explain. It must have stuck to my foot while walking through San Castle. Anyways, no one's going to question an empty baggie. The residue is the key because yo7 can fully charge some asshole with possession of cocaine, heroin, or whatever just with the residue. How to get it done? "I asked Mr. DOE for his identification. And he pulled out his wallet, I observed a small plastic baggie fall out of his pocket..." Tou get the idea. easy, right?

Best part is, those baggies can be found lots of places so you can always be ready. Don't forget to wipe the baggie on the persons skin after you arrest them because you want their DNA on the bag if they say you planted it or fight it in court.

This is one of my favorite tools. I don't use it often but when I have to do something to remove someone, this is a good way to do it with minimal effort.

The thread goes on for three pages, with various posters claiming to be "real" Palm Beach Sheriff Deputies, threats being made against the original poster, and lots of attempts at rebuttal.

The dcpost.org, an online publication, has posted a story claiming that they have verified that their source is who he says he is.   They paid for the information.  Their original story is here.   There are a lot of verified problems at the Palm Beach Sheriff Office, that are referenced in their story.

I do not know if they are being conned or not.  It is a great story that is going viral.  I predict it will be picked up by the old media eventually.  There are many possibilities.  It could be someone who is getting some "payback" at a department that he sees as corrupt.   It could be someone who believes that they have been treated unjustly, or someone who just believes they can stir up a hornet's nest and never be accountable.  It could even be true.

It is very hard to remain anonymous in today's society.  There are many traces left from Internet posts.  Officers who I talk to say that the practices mentioned are not common to their experiences, that they just are not necessary.  But, people do lots of things that are not necessary. 

I have knowledge of a case involving a close friend where the "baggy with residue" trick was attempted.  No one has gone to jail for it yet, but it caused a lot of problems for someone who has little in the way of resources. 

There is the old saying, "You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."   The process is often severe punishment in itself.

This could be just an Internet commando, but I doubt it.  The person knows a fair amount of procedure and lingo.  They might be a retired officer.  No one really knows at this point, but I doubt that they will be able to remain anonymous forever.   They have just revealed an ugly underside of society that all too many either want to believe is common, or never happens.  It fits right into the narrative that the current administration pushed in Ferguson.

It would be a good way for the administration to gain credit and distract from world affairs.  I could see Eric Holder devoting considerable investigative resources to this case, except that Palm Beach County is a Democrat stronghold where President Obama got 58% of the vote in 2012.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

South Dakota House Passes Constitutional Carry; HB1116

HB1116, has passed the South Dakota House,  44-23.  While that is an enormous majority, it is short, by one vote, of the 2/3 necessary to override a potential veto by Governor Daugaard.

The house has 70 members, 58 of which are Republicans.  In the Senate, there are 27 Republicans and 8 Democrats, a bit tighter ratio.   The Governor, Dennis Daugaard, has been in office since 2011.  

Governor Daugaard vetoed a constitutional carry bill in 2012, citing concerns of law enforcement officials.   From the argusleader.com:

Gov. Dennis Daugaard vetoed a bill Friday that would have allowed any resident 18 and older with a valid state drivers’ license to carry a concealed handgun without having to obtain a permit.

In his veto address of the proposal, Daugaard said the state’s permitting laws are already “fair and reasonable.”

“Each year, locally elected sheriffs deny permits, in most cases because the applicant has a serious criminal history,” Daugaard wrote in his veto message. “Under this bill, those who are prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon would no longer be informed of that fact. Understandably, law enforcement officials from across South Dakota have objected to this bill.”

The bill is a reform bill that does much more than loosen  restrictions on the carry of concealed firearms without a permit.

HB1116 cleans up language in the current statutes, removes references that require guns that are carried without a permit to be unloaded, and makes certain that people from other states, who have concealed carry permits, will be able to carry in South Dakota, if they follow South Dakota law.  From the bill:

Section 8. That § 23-7-7.4 be amended to read as follows:
    23-7-7.4. Any valid permit to carry a concealed pistol, issued to a nonresident of South Dakota, is valid in South Dakota according to the terms of its issuance in the state of its issue, but only to the extent that the terms of issuance comply with any appropriate South Dakota statute or promulgated rule. However, if the holder of such a nonresident permit to carry a concealed pistol becomes, at any time, a legal resident of South Dakota, the provisions of this section no longer apply.

The bill would  also strike the language that would render an out-of-state permit invalid when the holder of the permit became a legal resident of South Dakota.

Here is the record of who voted for and against the bill in the House.

It is likely that the bill will pass the senate.   The big question is whether Governor Daugaard will find another excuse to veto it.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
  

ID:Two Rallies in Support of Constitutional Carry

The above rally in Boise, on Saturday, 21 February, 2015, was attended by over 200 supporters of H0089.  The bill, which would remove a number of current restrictions on the carry of firearms in Idaho law.   The local media is said to have reported that there were "dozens" That is accurate but misleading.  After all, 300 people are also "dozens" of people.  Common usage is that once 200 items are reached, they are called "hundreds", not "dozens".  From ISSA facebook page:

Watched Channel 2 and 7 news tonight. No surprise that coverage was sparse and biased. Good thing we have other media outlets like TVOI to do some great coverage of our events.

Channel 7 said "dozens" gathered. Our estimates were probably around 300. So saying "hundreds" would have been too difficult for them to swallow apparently.

There was a sister rally in Rexburg.   Here is an image of it.




The rally in Rexburg was also in support of HB89, a bill that would complete Idaho's reform to a constitutional carry state.   From localnews8.com:

REXBURG, Idaho - If passed, House Bill 89 would allow people to carry guns without a concealed weapons permit.

Currently under Idaho code, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon without a license.

"We're committed to keep doing this until we see some changes," Dan Roberts said.

Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming have constitutional carry.
"We think it's time for Idaho to get on board," Roberts said.

Unfortunately, the reporter makes a serious error in the second sentence. Idahoans can already carry concealed in 99% of the state without a concealed carry permit. From idaho.gov:

(12) The requirement to secure a license to carry a concealed weapon under this section shall not apply to the following persons: 

(snip)

(d) Any person outside the limits of or confines of any city while engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, trapping or other lawful outdoor activity;

The vast majority of Idaho is outside of cities.  It is one of the most rural states.  What is lawful outdoor activity?  Virtually every activity that takes place outside that is lawful; in other words, every activity outside that is not forbidden by law.

That exception, (d) is clearly over 99% of the State.  So the entire battle is for the remaining small portion of the state that is not already legal to carry without a permit.  The bill even allows those "progressive" strongholds, the Universities, their bans on people concealed carrying on campus without an enhanced permit.

This is the sort of activism that is being used to reform gun laws and restore second amendment rights all over the country.  

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Mariana Islands has Date for Second Amendment Hearing

The Federal court in the Northern Mariana Islands has set a date for the hearing on summary judgment for the lawsuit to uphold the second amendment in the Islands.  From mvariety.com:

THE District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands scheduled a March 12, 2015 hearing on the motion for a summary judgment on the constitutionality the commonwealth Weapons Control Act being challenged by a U.S. Navy Gulf War veteran and his wife.

From radionz.co.nz:

They want to be issued handguns for self-defence, following a home invasion which left Mrs Radich badly beaten.

Our correspondent, Mark Rabago, says the Act is not expected to hold up against the second amendment of the constitution, which guarantees US citizens the right to bear arms.

Perhaps the writer is confusing U.S. jurisdictions with Israel or Switzerland, where guns are commonly issued to citizens by the government.  Crime rates are exceptionally low in both countries.

The correspondent in the Marianas correctly reports that the act is expected to be found unconstitutional.   One of the attempts at defense of existing law is that CNMI customs does not allow importation of handguns.  This is not an insurmountable obstacle, of course, but it would be an interesting situation, if people could legally posses arms, but not import them.  Perhaps a cottage industry manufacturing handguns would spring up.  The defendant in the case claims that the federal court lacks jurisdiction.  It is claim that seems unlikely to hold up in court.  From Marians Variety:

The federal court does not have subject jurisdiction over Count I of the complaint — violation of the right to keep and bear firearms — because handguns cannot be legally imported into the commonwealth, according to Deleon Guerrero.

 
The local elites in the Northern Mariana Islands seem as loath to give up their monopoly of force as Michael Bloomberg.  From the comments on mvariety.com:

We already have the 2nd Amendment in place, only with limitations. If we allow handguns for civilian use, we will surely set a precedent to allow other types of guns. We cannot let this happen. Handguns are nothing compared to high-powered firearms such an AK-47 (7.62 x 39mm NATO round) or an H&K MP5 (9mm) or a splatter-gun such as a 12 gauge shotgun. There will be no one class of persons to have just a handgun. Once we free one type, we free them ALL! NO TO ALLOWING ANY MORE GUNS!

 Those who want people disarmed, are, as usual screaming that there will be "blood in the streets".  It simply has not happened, and it will not happen in this case.  The people who go to the trouble of legally owning guns are simply not the problem.   If a society has respect for the law, the presence of weapons will have little effect.   If there is no respect for the law, the presence of handguns only levels the playing field a bit so that large, strong, men do not dominate everyone else quite as easily.

The biggest question is: Is there respect for the rule of law.  One of the clearest indicators of this is the willingness of a society to follow the restrictions placed on it by its written legal documents.   In the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, that includes the Constitution of the United States.

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

David Codrea: ‘Gun death’ at hands of police demonstrates public’s need for relevant data

A woman has been shot dead by police in Gastonia, N.C. Betty Sexton had called 911 to have unwelcome guests removed from her home, and was in the process of obeying orders to put down an old musket she was protecting herself with when Officer LaDoniqua Neely shot her in the chest, WCCB Charlotte reported Tuesday, quoting the dead woman’s sister.

Per Steve Watson of Infowars, “Gastonia Police have already shot and killed three people so far this year.” In that report, he links to another in which Gastonia Police killed a sick veteran.

In the Sexton case, the State Bureau of Investigations has taken over. Additionally, and this is important, a neighbor warns against drawing “conclusions based off one-sided information. That’s reckless.”

That’s a valid point. As we would expect a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, so too are law enforcement professionals entitled to the same rights. As has been pointed out in my explanation for the “Only Ones” meme established on The War on Guns blog, a main purpose of that feature is to ensure police are not exempted from standards of conduct “ordinary citizens” would be punished for. The flip side to that is, it would be grossly unfair to penalize a cop for shooting in a situation where gun rights advocates would support a non-LEO’s self-defense claim.

More Here

AZ: Man Forces way into Apartment; is shot

Police say the man was in a domestic dispute with a woman that lives near 16th and Oak streets in Phoenix.

The shooting victim forced his way in to the apartment and was shot by someone inside.

More Here

AL: Elderly Man brings gun to door, is shot by police

The victim's son called police to ask for a welfare check on his father, who lived in the East Lake House in the 7900 block of First Avenue South, Birmingham police spokesman Lt. Sean Edwards said. When the officer and firefighters got to the door on the fourth floor, the man opened the door with a gun pointed at the officer.

The officer fired a couple of shots and hit the man, Edwards said.

More Here

OH: Warning Shot Stops Robbery

Manager Kevin Karcho then pulled out a firearm and shot as the suspect stood in the doorway, according to police.

In an interview, Mr. Karcho said the robber believed he was reaching for cash. He said he was not frightened and did not intend to strike the man.

More Here

AL: Woman Shoots Man with Knife

According to information authorities have been able to gather, Martin said he believes an incident erupted between a boyfriend and girlfriend at the house at the time. One man allegedly pulled a knife and cut another other man, which prompted a woman at the residence to retrieve a gun and shoot the man brandishing the knife. The man who was cut has since been treated and released, while the man who was shot is reportedly in stable condition at UAB Hospital in Birmingham.

More Here

TX: Resident Shoots at Intruder; Man Found Dead

Investigators said it appeared a vehicle at the home was broken into as well. After searching for several hours, the body of a white man was located in a field near the residence. Sheriff Johnny Burks said his name was withheld, pending notification of relatives.

More Here

Early Concealed Carry Before Permits (photo)

 

Many have speculated on the reason for the hand inside the coat pose of officers during Civil War photographs.   Perhaps it was to render access to a concealed weapon.  These, after all, were military officers.

Is that the bulge of a Smith & Wesson #1 under his left arm?  It is about the right size.   The number one was one of the first easily concealable cartridge pistols.  It was first produced in 1857 and was in great demand by officers in the Civil War.

As a .22 short, we might not think of it as having much stopping power.  But considering the extreme reliability and convenience of the cartridge compared to the percussion arms of the era, seven quick shots would have been very attractive. 

Many speculations have been made about the classic hand in the jacket pose.  Some speculate that it was meant to mimic Napoleon.  Others proclaim that it kept the hand still, or that the man was keeping his hand on his wallet.   Those seem unlikely, given that the pose has been said to be popular with Romans and their tunics.   Considering what happened to Ceasar, a Roman tunic would be a handy place to hide a dagger.

So here is another speculation as to why Civil War soldiers are often seen with their hand in their jacket.   They were keeping it close to a concealed weapon.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.Link to Gun Watch

OK: Constitutional Amendment Could Strengthen State Protection to Keep and Bear Arms

Representative Dan Fisher  has started the process to strengthen Oklahoma's state Constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms in 2015.  State constitutions may not offer absolute protections, but they can be very effective.  A Vermont Supreme Court found their protection so persuasive, that the state has always had constitutional carry.  It was never legislated out of existence as it was in nearly all the other states.   In the opposite direction, six states do not have a state constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.  They are: California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York.  Four of those, California, Maryland, New Jersey and New York easily fall into the 10 most restrictive states in the Union.

The current Oklahoma protection is rather weak:

Oklahoma:  The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.  Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1907).

Allowing the legislature the power to regulate the carrying of arms guts one of the main purpose of the constitution: to provide limits on state power.  There is a clear example just south of Oklahoma, in Texas.  There, after the radical republicans were driven from office at the end of reconstruction, one of the tasks of the new state constitutional convention was to restore the right to bear arms.

The Texas right to bear arms was one of the strongest in the nation before the War Between the States or the Civil War, if you prefer.  Even slaves had the right to bear arms, according to the Texas Supreme Court.   When the Democrats rewrote the Constitution in 1876, they left in a clause allowing the legislature to regulate the "wearing of arms", and the legislature simply banned them in most cases.  Historically governments take all the power that they are allowed, and work hard to get even more.

Representative Dan Fisher of Oklahoma hopes to strengthen the state Constitutional protection.  Here is the resolution that he has introduced into the House:

AS INTRODUCED

<StartFT>A Joint Resolution directing the Secretary of State to refer to the people for their approval or rejection a proposed amendment to Section 26 of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma; clarifying manner in which citizens may keep and bear arms; stating legislative authority; prohibiting certain laws; providing ballot title; and directing filing.<EndFT>

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 55TH OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

SECTION 1. The Secretary of State shall refer to the people for their approval or rejection, as and in the manner provided by law, the following proposed amendment to Section 26 of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma to read as follows:

Section 26. A. The fundamental right of a each individual citizen to keep and to bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, nonlethal defensive weapons and other arms in common use, as well as ammunition and the components of arms and ammunition, for security, self-defense, lawful hunting and recreation, in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally lawfully summoned, or for any other legitimate purpose shall never not be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons infringed. Any regulation of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the State of Oklahoma shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall, under no circumstances, decline to protect against their infringement.

B. This section shall not prevent the Legislature from prohibiting the possession of arms by convicted felons, those adjudicated as mentally incompetent or those who have been involuntarily committed in any mental institution.

C. No law shall impose registration or special taxation upon the keeping of arms, including the acquisition, ownership, possession or the transfer of arms, ammunition or the components of arms or ammunition.

SECTION 2. The Ballot Title for the proposed Constitutional amendment as set forth in SECTION 1 of this resolution shall be in the following form:

BALLOT TITLE

Legislative Referendum No. ____ State Question No. ____

THE GIST OF THE PROPOSITION IS AS FOLLOWS:

This measure amends the State Constitution. This measure addresses the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms. The changes to this section will make clear what types of weapons and for what purpose the weapons may be kept. It would state that regulations by the state on the right to keep and bear arms would be subject to strict scrutiny. The changes would also allow the state to prohibit certain persons from possessing arms. It would not allow the passage of laws that would require the registration of arms or special taxation of arms.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?

FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES _____________

AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO _____________

SECTION 3. The Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives, immediately after the passage of this act, shall prepare and file one copy thereof, including the Ballot Title set forth in SECTION 2 hereof, with the Secretary of State and one copy with the Attorney General.

Last year, the amendment was scuttled at the last minute, in conference committee between the House and the Senate. It had passed both with large majorities. It is widely believed that the amendment would easily pass a vote of the electorate. Voters have passed similar constitutional amendments in other states with wide margins. Alabama passed a similar amendment in 2014 with 72% of the vote; Missouri had strengthened its Constitution just months before with 61%; Louisiana in 2012 with 74% of the vote; and  Kansas in 2010 with 88%. Wisconsin voters protected their rights with a strong amendment in 1998 with 74% of the vote.   

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