Monday, March 31, 2014

PA:Armed Woman Stops Drunk Intruder

He is lucky that he did not end up dead or in the hospital.   

She then called 911 and reported a burglary in progress, police said.

When the man eventually kicked in her front door and entered the home in the 7700 block of Glenville Road, the woman leveled the gun and told the intruder not to come any closer, police said.


 Cory R. Gootee, 19, of Stewartstown, told the officer he had left a neighbor’s house to smoke a cigarette, became disoriented, and believed he had been locked out of the neighbor’s home, police said.

More Here

David Codrea: Citizens can learn and use jury power to thwart unjust prosecutions

David is fighting health problems, and still produced this gem:

Now that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the Reese family will not get a new trial ordered by a District Court over a year ago, it may seem a moot point for the embattled former New Mexico gun dealer family, but reflections from some friends may help other defendants facing unjust prosecutions -- that is, if a critical mass of Americans care to first educate themselves and then apply the courage of their convictions.

Arrested in 2011 for allegedly knowingly selling guns to cartel members while operating a New Mexico gun store, all Reese family members were found not guilty on the most serious charges of conspiracy. Additionally and significantly, money laundering charges against them were dismissed. Husband Rick, wife Terri and son Ryin were convicted on a handful of lesser charges of making false statements on forms, basically under the presumption that they should have known federal agents were lying, and son Remington was cleared of all charges. The new trial was ordered after it was revealed the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense and from jurors that a witness against the family was himself the subject of an FBI investigation, a matter dismissed by the Appeals Court which concluded “There is not a reasonable probability that the trial’s outcome would have been different had the government disclosed the investigation.”

“Another atrocity against the Reese family by the ‘justice’ system; appeals court moved to deny a fair trial by jury,” a longtime activist, colleague and friend (who chooses to remain anonymous for purposes of this column) observed in an email to fellow activists promoting last Thursday’s column bringing that news. “I can’t afford it, but I sent $100 anyway,” he revealed, providing the” Reese Defense Fund, Attention Patricia Arias, First Savings Bank, 520 South Gold, Deming, NM 88030” contribution information.

“Note how the courts turned the state's hurdle of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ -- as was intended to be decided by an informed and empowered jury -- into a rigged hurdle against the defendants to prove that they ‘would've been likely to win’ -- as ‘determined’ allegedly in good faith by one or more ‘justices’ or judges,” my friend observed. “Thus changing the presumption of innocence to more of a presumption of guilt. How do 'justices' know what a jury would've done had it been a fair trial? Some kind of crystal ball?

More Here at Gun Rights Examiner

Have you ever had a Gun or Knife Stolen by the "Authorities"?

Confiscated Guns at Auction

Items confiscated by the TSA

Has an authority figure ever used their power to steal something from you?  I have seen it most commonly with guns and knives, where people often do not know the precise law, and allow the theft as a form of low level extortion.  The trade off is clear: the authority figure ends up with your item, and they do not charge you with a crime.  My first experience with this occurred at about age 14.  I wasn't the victim.   I received some of the spoils, but I was shocked by the blatant injustice of it.

My sister had started teaching at an intern position in Milwaukee.  It was a bad part of town.   She taught grade school to a mostly minority population.  The school policy was no knives, and she confiscated quite a few.  I ended up with a couple, all of which have long ago disappeared.    I asked her how she could justify the theft of this property.   I routinely carried a knife to school, as did every other boy that I knew.    I did not yet understand where dystopian "progressive" policies were leading the country.  As I recall, "policy" was her only answer.

As a firearms instructor, I heard numerous complaints about firearms being confiscated for no legal reason in Southern California.    One student said that his brother, who was with the LAPD, had an amazing collection of guns that people had "just given him".

I nearly lost a nice Swiss Army knife that I routinely took on business trips, when I inadvertently left it in a briefcase on the way to catch a plane out of Denver.  TSA routinely confiscates thousands of knives when it is more trouble and expense for the owner to get out of line and ship them home than it is to give them up.   I had enough time to take the knife and briefcase back to the ticket counter and check it as luggage, an option that may cost you more than the knife is worth today.

My neighbor had a nice pocketknife confiscated as he re-entered the United States from a day trip to Mexico.   It did not matter that it was legal and that he had carried it in with him.  This was before Knife Rights lobbied to have the U.S. law clarified.   At international borders, your rights are severely curtailed. 

I suspect that this low level of tyranny is widespread.   Has it ever happened to you?

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

Corrupt Politicians, Organized Crime, and Citizen Disarmament

Comrades Hand Over Your Weapons

Corrupt politicians are much more of a factor in large urban centers than in rural communities and small towns.    The same applies to organized crime.  it is associated with urban areas.   It is much harder for significant corruption to exist when the amounts are small, the people involved mostly know the politicians personally, and there are no large public works to play favorites with.   A significant exception might be planning and zoning, where local elites have great power, little accountability, and where significant money is at stake.

Corrupt politicians and organized crime figures hate the idea of an armed population.   When you are stealing, cheating, and extorting people on a daily basis, some of them are bound to take exception to it.  Push them far enough, and a few will decide to push back, even at the cost of their own lives.  Do it enough, and it becomes a near certainty.   It is much more difficult for corrupt politicians or organized crime to exist in the midst of an armed citizenry.  From Vanity Fair, the Reluctant Don, Sammy "the bull" Gravano:

  “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”

In Arizona, a corrupt politician was protected by her politician buddies who had the case transferred to a friendly prosecutor, who dismissed it.  This was after two grand juries found reasons to indict.   She was shot in the rear end by a homeless citizen.  He just got out of jail.   She was and is a big proponent of gun control.  She is still in office.  From the

 Did Wilcox the county supervisor deserve to get shot in the ass?


 Among those in the know, Wilcox is noted not for her integrity but her arrogance. South Phoenix is considered by many to be controlled by the Wilcox political machine. Comparisons with old Chicago have been drawn.
Gun control in New York was driven by corrupt politicians desire to protect their criminal gangs.   Big Tim Sullivan, who pushed through the Sullivan law, did not want his gangsters to face armed resistance.

Senator Yee is one of the most strident proponents  of gun control in California.  He was recently indicted for corruption, including the facilitation of illegal  gun trafficking.

Chicago fought for more and more gun control than almost any other part of the nation.  Chicago is known as one of the most corrupt polities in the country.

Nevada is generally gun friendly.   The only county that requires registration of pistols is Clark County, which contains Las Vegas.   The statute was put into effect while Las Vegas had the reputation of a town run by the mob.

Cleveland is another example of corruption.   The city government fought against reform of Ohio gun restrictions for years.   It finally lost its court cases.

Corruption and citizen disarmament, or to use the current sophistry,  "gun safety" legislation go together like organized crime and extortion.

Niccolo Machiavelli noted the problems with politicians disarming people:
When you disarm [the people] you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred against you. - Niccoló Machiavelli, The Prince. 1537.
"Progressives" use stale and discredited Marxist concepts to describe the motives of the gun culture.   They claim that second amendment supporters are being duped by the NRA to prevent "gun safety" in order to increase the profits of "big business" who are anxious to trade children's blood for a few dollars more.

They ignore what happens to gun manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson or Ruger when they give in to political pressure to side with politicians who want to gut the second amendment.  Smith & Wesson went under new ownership.   Ruger suffered for years until it reversed its policies.   When one actually examines the numbers, the concept becomes ridiculous.   It is those who wish to disarm the public that have driven gun sales through the roof.

The motivations for corrupt politicians and organized crime, often working in concert, are simple and clear.   They do not want to get shot.

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

Wisconsin Carry Promotes Second Amendment Door to Door

In a brilliant bit of second amendment promotion, members of Wisconsin Carry went door to door in a bad part of Milwaukee, offering free training required to obtain the Wisconsin concealed carry license.  The south side of town does not have a good reputation, and it has a high crime rate.   Milwaukee has 10 percent of Wisconsin residents and 60 percent of Wisconsin murders.

Wisconsin Carry has been giving free classes so that people can obtain the Wisconsin permit since 2009.   The Wisconsin shall issue law went into effect in November of 2011.  Wisconsin exceeded 200,000 permit holders in September of 2013.   From
Sonia, a mother of two on Milwaukee's south side, doesn't want guns in her house. 

But with a pair of convicted sex offenders nearby who have just been granted allowance to leave their home unsupervised, Sonia has begun to think about some form of protection, perhaps pepper spray or a Taser. 

When gun rights activists fanned out in her neighborhood Saturday afternoon, handing out fliers promoting free classes for training on carrying firearms, Sonia was one of the first to sign up — since Wisconsin residents need similar training to legally carry a Taser.
Scholar John Lott has found that the demographic group who benefit the most from concealed carry permits are urban minority women. As an instructor, I have found that women are very receptive to self protection when they obtain serious information on the subject, instead of emotional appeals.

It is legal to openly carry in Wisconsin, though that right had to be fought for and defended in court before the Wisconsin legislature corrected police abuses by with a specific declaration that open carry was not "disorderly conduct". Utah recent followed Wisconsin's lead.

While the comments at the jsonline article show numerous anti-second amendment individuals fearful of allowing people to exercise their second amendment rights, Sonia, who does not want a gun in her house, did not have any problem with approaching the pair of open carriers who were handing out fliers:
"Are you from Wisconsin Carry?" Sonia asked, running out of her house on a chilly afternoon. She had heard the group would be in her neighborhood and wanted a copy of the group's flier, which advertises the next free training session for carrying a weapon.

Sonia went back inside her house and immediately registered for the free class, to be held April 19.
Another program designed to address the defensive needs of inner city dwellers, The Armed Citizen Project, is planning to distribute free shotguns and training in nearby Indiana.

The number of women gun owners is growing rapidly. I suspect that as Sonia becomes educated, she will join that cohort.

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

Link to Gun Watch

Sunday, March 30, 2014

CO: Alleged Burglar Charged Homeowner, was Shot

A deadly shooting two weeks ago near Sloan's Lake may have been a case of self-defense, in which the homeowner fatally shot a suspected burglar, according to court documents.


"The caller says a guy came at him and he had to shoot him. ... The caller says he was just getting home and the guy came at him.

Saturday, March 29, 2014

MS: Women, Police, and Firearms Safety

Women are becoming an important part of what is known as American Gun Culture 2.0.   In American Gun Culture 1.0, the gun was primarily the province of men, used for hunting,  home defense, and defense of the community in time of war. 

In American Gun Culture 2.0, women are embracing the empowerment and independence that comes with the gun culture.  Fathers are teaching daughters how to shoot equally with sons.   Many women are finding that the joys of hunting transcend sexual stereotypes.    Target shooting and competition is supplementing and supplanting hunting.   Carrying outside the home is becoming as important as protection inside the home.   The political importance of firearms ownership is recognized and embraced.

Every firearms instructor that I talk to has the same experience  of teaching women to shoot: they do not have the macho baggage of the male ego and guns.   They listen.  They follow instructions.    On average, they make better students and fine shots.   This has been my personal experience as well.

While women are often less combative than men, and show a greater hesitancy in using deadly force, it all changes when you mention children.  A woman may claim that she would never shoot someone.   Ask her if she would shoot someone who threatens the rape and death of her child.   Then she confirms Kipling's poem "The female of the species is more deadly than the male."

As greater numbers of women are becoming gun owners, more police departments are offering training targeting women.  In Mississippi, the Picayune Police Department held its first Firearm Safety Course for women on Monday, 24 March, 2014.  The class was limited to 20 participants.  From the  

Due to the high demand for the class, Capt. Carlisle will be holding five separate classes for 20 people each, in the upcoming weeks, and will be holding another registration upon completion of these classes.
Over a hundred women is a significant number when you consider that Picayune's population is under 11,000.

John Lott says that the people who benefit the most from the spread of concealed carry permits are urban minority women.   While Picayune is not urban, Stephanie Carter notes that in Texas, the fastest growing demographic of concealed handgun permit holders is Black women.

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

RI: Second Amendment Rights Reprieved

The Speaker of the House in Rhode Island, Gordon Fox, resigned from the speakership after his office was raided by the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the IRS.   He was rated a "C" by the NRA.   While second amendment supporters had fought efforts to promote further infringements on their rights to a standstill in the state, several bills are still in the legislative process.   House Bill 7583 would mandate registration and restrict possession of "assault weapons".   HB 7585 would ban magazines of more than ten rounds.   HB 7584 would do both.    An explanation of these bills, which are essentially gun bans, can be found here.

The future of such legislation was in doubt until the election of Nicholas Mattiello as the new speaker of the House yesterday, March 27th.  Speaker of the House Mattiello has an A+ rating from the NRA.  From ABC6:

Mattiello has appointed Representative Cale Keable, a lawyer from Burrillville to chair the House Judiciary Committee and in a bipartisan move he appointed Representative Doreen Costa, a Republican representing Exeter and North Kingstown, to be the vice chair.

Costa has been a long time supporter of gun owner's rights, hosting Second Amendment rallies at the State House every time she feels that Second Amendment rights are being challenged by legislation.

Keable, who lives in Northern Rhode Island, which is chock full of sportsmen's clubs is also carries an A rank by the NRA. Between Costa, Keable, and Mattiello, it is unlikely that any anti-gun legislation will make it to a full floor vote, let alone pass through the House entirely.
The former Chairman of the Judiciary committee, Edith Ajello was ranked and F- by the NRA.

One has to wonder if the legislature in Rhode Island has been paying attention to what has been happening in nearby Connecticut.  Connecticut is facing massive civil disobedience to its draconian and likely unconstitutional laws gun laws.  One of the proposed Rhode Island laws is very similar to what Connecticut passed.

A list of the Connecticut legislators who voted for the registration and effective ban has been posted on the Internet.     Because of the massive civil disobedience by gun owners, some legislators have been reported as demanding protective details.  Of course, there are not enough police to go around.

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

Arizona Town Auctions Guns

When Arizona passed legislation early last year to stop the irrational destruction of valuable property that had come into the hands of local governments, the state required that firearms turned in to government agencies be sold through normal commercial channels, thus insuring that the guns were taken "off the street".

Some local governments had been involved in what amounted to a modern Deodand ritual, where inanimate objects were "punished" by destruction as a way to sacrifice to the gods of political correctness.    Even in medieval times, most deodand objects were sold, with the money going to the Church or Government.    It was all political theater, and it wasted valuable resources.  But then, modern "progressives" have never worried much about wasting other people's money. 

Most Arizona communities take the easy route and auction off the firearms that police collect to a few local dealers.   The dealers usually get a good deal and make a profit, and the local bureaucracy keeps the work added to its given chores to a minimum.

Jerome, Arizona, however, figured a way to maximize the value from items that end up in police possession. 

They auction them off on the Internet.

To avoid legal hassles that have been created by the infringements of the second amendment known as the Brady act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Town requires that firearms won at auction be transferred to the buyer through a licensed  dealer, just like new firearms.  

Jerome has no auctions active at present, but you can look over the results of the last one at this site

I have found that guns at auctions usually go for more than I want to spend, but I have picked up a few bargains when most did not know about obscure makes and models.   

At this auction, I think the Sport King .22 pistol from High Standard for less than $200 might have been a good deal.  Nothing else caught my eye, but Ruger Blackhawk revolvers in .30 carbine are not easy to come by, and one went for $330.  It probably cost another $25 to have it transferred by a local dealer.

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

Friday, March 28, 2014

The Slave's Friend "Bowie Knife" Pamphlet

About 30 years ago, I come across the article pictured above.   It is the start of an article in The Slave's Friend, a pamphlet published by an Anti-Slavery abolitionist society out of New York City.    The article is informative in a number of ways.

At first glance, the words  "The Slave's Friend" and "Bowie Knife" bring together the idea of an armed slave being able to resist oppression.  That actually was the case in Texas, upheld by the Texas Supreme Court in Cockrum v. State in the antebellum South in 1859.   The case, cited in both the Heller decision and the recent Peruta decision out of the Ninth circuit, showed that being armed was an absolute right under the Texas Constitution of 1845, and that even slaves had the right to bear arms in Texas.   While the court ruled that knives such as Bowie knives were especially dangerous and deadly, it also ruled that legal sanctions could not be imposed on their possession or carry, unless the person possessing them used them for an illegal purpose.

Texas was alone in such protections for slaves in the South, however, and the pamphlet was likely written before 1840, when Texas was still an independent republic.

A closer reading  illustrates that even in the antebellum United States, there existed a small number of people who had moral objections to the possession of weapons.   This objection derives from the "progressive elite" theory of crime.   It is interesting that the organization was centered in New York City.  From my recollection of the full pamphlet, the writer expressed particular umbrage to the words "Death to Abolition" that they proclaimed were on some of the blades for sale in New York City, and which they placed on the depiction of the blade illustrated in their pamphlet.

The pamphleteers were involved in the combat of ideas, not in physical combat, so it seems unlikely that they considered that their activities would one day lead to the greatest amount of bloodshed ever experienced by the United States, the Civil War, or if you prefer, the War Between the States.  I suspect that the pamphleteers would have been horrified if you had suggested to them that this would be the result of their efforts.   Many people hoped that slavery could be ended by non-violent means.   In some countries, such as Brazil, it was.

I only hope that a similar short sightedness is overcome by those who are attempting to inflict a degree of slavery on the entire United States by disarming the citizens.  It appears that the same blinders are covering their ability to look at historical examples.   Weapons owners in the United States believe that they are on the side of right, every bit as much as the abolitionists did in the antebellum United States, but we are not a small minority,  We are well on our way to becoming a majority, and we have the Constitution on our side.

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

TX: "Road Rage" Incident Shooter No Billed

Best not to stop in a "road rage" incident if you can avoid it.   If there has been no contact to that point, there is no need to exchange information.

“The case was presented to this grand jury after an investigation from the Bell County Sheriff’s office as well as the District Attorney’s office, and the evidence was presented and after viewing the evidence presented to them the grand jury...declined to indict and issued a no bill in the case,” First Assistant District Attorney Murf Bledsoe said.

“The case had significant self-defense issues, he said.”

More Here

IN: Governor Pence Signs Gun Law Reform

Indiana Governor Pence signed SEA169 and SEA229 into law yesterday, 26 March, 2014, along with 46 other bills

SEA 169 makes it a felony to knowingly provide a firearm to a felon.

SEA 229 is the culmination of the bills to eliminate the "roaming school zones" the school parking lot felony trap, and to prohibit the use of government money for gun turn in events, also known as "buy backs".   The ability of police agencies to destroy guns that are turned in to them was added at the last minute, the bill makes it easier for them to either sell the guns or convert them to money by selling them for parts and having the receivers destroyed.

 Guns have been banned, with exceptions, from schools since the disastrous gun free school zone act that was reenacted in 1996 after being found unconstitutional in 1995 in the famous Lopez decision.   Federal prosecutions under the act have have been extremely rare.   It has been speculated that federal prosecutors do not want to face judicial scrutiny a second time.   Several states enacted their own "gun free school zone" laws to mirror the federal regulation.  There is at least one effort to challenge these laws in the courts, in Wisconsin.

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

MI: Concealed Handgun Holder Nominated for Citation

America moving back toward its root values, ending the long, illegitimate affair with collectivism.

A customer with a handgun stopped a shoplifting suspect from slashing a security officer with a contaminated needle and syringe outside a Home Depot store in Roseville, police said.


Berlin said the good Samaritan, who told police he wished to remain anonymous, will be put in for a citizen’s citation.

More Here

MI: Homeowner Shoots, Kills two Invaders

Detroit may start running out of thugs if this keeps up.

A 51-year-old Detroit man is being questioned regarding a shooting at his home that left two other men dead.


 "Chief (James) Craig said we will support those citizens who are responsible, legal Americans who are in possession of firearms," said Detroit police Sgt. Michael Woody.

More Here

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Eureka Springs Gunfight Showed Marksmanship of Armed Citizens

Spring Street, where the citizens shot up the gang in 1922

Recently, a video of a Eureka Springs, Arkansas City Council meeting showed them to be a little hostile to armed citizens.  It was not always so.   Because of that article, I became aware of one of the great examples of armed citizens stopping a criminal gang in the commission of a bank robbery.

No, I am not talking about the  James-Younger Gang and how they were shot to pieces in Northfield Minnesota in 1876.  One bank clerk was murdered, and one townsman, an immigrant who was believed not to understand shouted warnings, was exposed in the street and killed in the crossfire.   Two outlaws were killed in that robbery attempt, and two others seriously wounded.

I am talking about a famous attempted bank robbery that occurred 46 years later, in 1922, in Eureka Springs itself.  The robbers attempted to rob the First National  Bank at 40 Spring Street.  Here is a contemporary account from the Wichita Eagle that was printed a couple of days after the event:
The Wichita Eagle September 30, 1922
  Five bandits robbed the bank the other day and thought things were going about as usual.  But just as they headed for their car at the curb, in the customary manner, they suddenly realized that they had made a mistake.  They were in Arkansas!  No helpless crowd of hopeless citizens stood agape while the dashing bandits sailed right out of their ken like a meteor on a starry night.  That's not the way they do it in Arkansas.  Two pedestrians on the way to visit a sick friend saw what was going on and stepped inside the hank door in time to open the battle with a few well directed bullets toward the bandit's vital organs.  A lawyer in an office overhead said to his earnest client, "excuse me a moment please," stepped to a front window and put a half dozen bullets where they would do the most good.  A dentist asked his patient to keep open wide please just one moment, and rested his rifle on the window sill long enough to make sure that at least one of the bandits would fail to leave town that day.  A school boy hustling home to lunch whipped out his automatic and joined the attack." 
  Now the merchants began issuing from the lunch counters and their kitchens.  Each individual had his pistol spitting fire and steel as soon as he came within range.  And not an innocent bystander was scratched.  No wild shooting down at Eureka Springs.  Needless to add, not one of the five bandits got away, and all the money, $70,000, was carried back into the bank.
Later accounts differ a little in the details.    A silent alarm was pressed. Alert citizens saw what was happening and disabled the get away car with gunfire.  The town constable, exercising tactics, flanked the robbers and took one out with a head shot.  One citizen grabbed his .38, assumed a supported kneeling position, and took out the robber who was providing covering fire for the retreating outlaws.  Hostages dropped flat in the street as the robbers tried to run to cover.

 It is worth noting, that in this more modern version of the Northfield raid, in spite of dozens of shots being fired by numerous townspeople, not one innocent person was hit.  One hostage suffered some powder burns.  The bank robbers were hit numerous times.  Two of them died in a few minutes, one took four days to expire, with over a dozen bullet wounds.  The remaining two outlaws survived serious wounds and were sentenced to the state penitentiary. 
The shootout in Eureka Springs puts the lie to the idea that armed citizens simply fire wildly in a gunfight.   Dozens of shots were fired.   The only people hit were the outlaws.

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

Looking for Slave's Friend Bowie Knife Pamphlet

A number of years ago I came across a good image of the above Slave's Friend abolitionist pamphlet.   It was published sometime between 1836 and 1860, most likely in the earlier years.    Freeper Ruy Dias de Bivar was kind enough to send me the image above, which is from MAN AT ARMS, published by the NRA, August, 1997, page 12.

I intend to make this pamphlet easily available on the Internets, but I need a better image than the one above.   I know at least one better one exists, because I saw it in a reference book on weapons that I used to own.   My copy and I parted company sometime during the last 30 years.

The writing on the page of the pamphlet that I want, reads as follows:


These horrid weapons are usually called Bowie Knives. They were invented by a man who lived in the state of Louisiana. His name was Buie. It is a French name, and pronounced Boo-e. Afterwards he went to Texas, and was killed in a battle.
People in slave states often carry such knives about them. When they get angry they draw the knife, and sometimes stab one another!

A man who keeps a shop in Broadway, New York city, sells Bowie knives.
 If you have such an image, or have a link to one, please let me know.

 Dean Weingarten

LA:Call 911, Wait two hours; Buy Gun

On March 16, Teri Bice awoke to the sound of someone trying to break down the door of her home in New Orleans.

She did what most Americans would do: dial 911.   One big problem,  There was no answer at the other end.   From
She documented her calls for help: two to 911; two to the NOPD's non-emergency line; and one to NOPD's Second District. The final call was answered and Bice confirms an officer showed up two hours after the attempted home invasion.
The problem appears to be a lack of operators for the 911 system, and too many non-emergency callers using the system.   In this case, Teri believes that the family dog scared off the home invader(s).    Fortunately, Teri's right to defend herself and her family are recognized by both the United States Constitution and a recently ratified amendment to the Louisiana State Constitution.

Teri bought a Taurus .32.    I have not been able to ID the Taurus model pictured with certainty, but I believe it to be a Taurus 731.  I do not find a match on the current Taurus USA website.   I consider it a brilliant bit of active deterrence to show the revolver (clearly loaded) on the news show.  Would you decide to invade this house, now?

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

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Tennessee on the Edge of Repealing Knife Ban

Knives are arms protected by the second amendment.

In  1958 the U.S. government banned the interstate sale of switchblade  knives.   It was a stupid law that accomplished nothing but to inconvenience law abiding people while setting another in a long line of incremental precedents toward unlimited federal power.  In 1958, the federal government still recognized that the commerce clause in the constitution did not grant it unlimited power, so the ban was only on interstate commerce, not on manufacture or possession.  Not surprisingly, its major proponent was a New York representative from New York City.

In recent years, Knife Rights, an organization that labels its work as "the second front in defense of the second amendment", has had considerable success in starting to roll back these silly infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.   They have lobbied for and have passed knife preemption laws in Arizona, Utah, New Hampshire, Georgia, Kansas, Alaska, and Tennessee.

Tennessee is on the verge of repealing the ban on switchblade (automatic) knives, and the possession of knives with blades over four inches in length, with "intent to go armed".   On 24 March, 2014, SB1771 passed the Tennessee General Assembly 75-16.  It has already passed the Senate, and now goes to Governor Bill Haslam for signature.

For those who want to assist in the passage of SB1771, Knife Rights has these suggestions:

Phone the Governor's office at 615-741-2001,

or Email:

Just ask the Governor to sign SB1771.  Short and to the point.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
March 24, 2014: After a lot of work in Nashville by Knife Rights and our friends, SB1771 was passed by an overwhelming majority in the House, 75-16-2. It now moves to the Governor for his consideration. - See more at:

DC Court Holds BATFE may not be "Arbitrary and Capricious" about Gun Mufflers

David Hardy , on his blog Of Arms and the Law, brought to my attention a recent case involving the BATFE and gun mufflers.   David's article is worthwhile, but other parts of the case deserve some comment.   In Innovator Enterprises v. United States, the D.C. district court held that the BATFE may not be "arbitrary and capricious", and holds that in the case in question they are exactly that.

This cuts to the quick of much of the BATFE modus operandi.   Not having clearly written down standards or procedures; arbitrarily changing rules after making a determination, feeling the political winds change direction, and making another decision that negates the first; not placing understandable and clear reasons for their decisions that can be argued, appealed, and overruled.

The point is that the judge held that the BATFE could not simply say, arbitrarily, that the devise in question met the BATFE requirements for a gun muffler.

That may sound completely rational and obvious.   But to those of us who have watched the BATFE machinations over the years, it is an enormous slap down of the way in which the BATFE  does business.

From the decision:
A. The agency failed to "articulate a satisfactory explanation" for its decision.The agency decision in this case is embodied by the Classification Letter, which contains very little reasoning or analysis. The entire substance of the agency's justification for classifying Innovator's Stabilizer Brake as a "firearm silencer" is contained in the following three paragraphs:
 The BATFE's letter follows, which basically says that it looked at the devise, and concluded that it had enough characteristics of a gun muffler for them to say it is one without any physical testing whatsoever.  After the BATFE's letter, this follows from the judge:
This is not a "satisfactory explanation" for the agency decision, because the agency's methodology for deciding whether a particular device is "for diminishing the report of a portable firearm," 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24), is deeply flawed.
The court makes this humorous analogy to the BATFE's letter:
 Hypotheticals further illustrate the weakness of this methodology. A mouse is not an "elephant" solely because it has three characteristics that are common to known elephants: a tail, gray skin, and four legs. A child's bike is not a "motorcycle" solely because it has three characteristics common to known motorcycles: two rubber tires, handlebars, and a leather seat. And a Bud Light is not "Single-Malt Scotch," just because it is frequently served in a glass container, contains alcohol, and is available for purchase at a tavern.
The court reinforces some restraints that it is putting the BATFE under:
 The most curious paragraph in the Classification Letter is as follows, in which the agency candidly admits it could have actually tested Innovator's Stabilizer Brake to determine how it affects the "report" of a gunshot, but did not do so:
Although FTB utilizes state-of-the-art sound metering equipment to demonstrate that various items are capable of reducing the report of a portable firearm, these tests do not affect the classification of any item. Our silencer classifications are based solely upon the physical characteristics of the device under examination.

Classification Letter, AR at 15 (emphasis in original). This passage is an admission by the agency that it is capable of coming to a definitive, scientific determination—using what it describes as "state-of-the-art sound metering equipment"—of whether a device is capable of "diminishing the report" of a firearm. What is missing is a helpful explanation as to why it did not do so.
There is at least some possibility that this court will require the BATFE to follow established law, rather than its regulatory whims.   When a court case directly affects the BATFE, it tends to pay some attention to it.  This case could have indirect implications for the EPArmory 80% receiver case, because the lack of direct, understandable standards is suspected to be an important factor in that case.

To emphasize the importance of legal research into these matters, the court cites  P. Clark, Criminal Use of Firearm Silencers:
 Classifying one particular device as a "firearm silencer" is a relatively unimportant question in the grand scheme of federal firearm regulations. Indeed, it is difficult to determine what exactly Congress was concerned about in deciding to regulate silencers at the federal level.  See, e.g., P. Clark, Criminal  Use of Firearm Silencers, 8 W. CRIM. REVIEW 44, 48 (2007) ("The  1934  congressional debates [over what became the National Firearms Act] provide no explanation about why silencers were licensed."). In other words, the stakes here are low. This weighs against Chevron deference.

It must have been gratifying to see the court state the obvious: "The stakes here are low".   It makes you wonder why there are any "stakes" at all.

If you are going to regulate all gun mufflers, the obvious standard for gun mufflers is to determine if the device actually reduces the report of a gun shot, the reduction is statistically significant from a mathematical test, and that it reduces the sound more than other devices that are not gun mufflers and which are legally acceptable.

If it does not, it is not a "gun muffler".  The judge did not directly say as much, but it is a clear step in that direction.

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

FL: What Exactly Does The 'Warning Shot Bill' Allow?

There is concern that a bill moving through the Florida State Legislature would authorize legally armed residents to fire a warning shot at a perceived attacker, but as the proposed legislation stands now that simply isn't the case.


 "The way the law works right now is, you're better off, if somebody is threatening your life or serious bodily injury, you're better off killing them," Sullivan said. "If you kill them you have Stand Your Ground, if you fire a warning shot, you don't."


 In addition to the Marissa Alexander case, Sullivan identified at least three other cases in which someone was convicted and sentenced to 20 years for firing a shot they said was meant only to scare a potential assailant.

More Here

AZ:Neighbor holds suspected burglar at gunpoint

Perhaps she will give information to police and prosecutors for a plea bargain.  She clearly demonstrated a lack of respect for other peoples rights.

A suspected burglar is in custody after a man saw her removing light fixtures from his next door neighbor's front yard and held her at gunpoint until authorities arrived, Maricopa County sheriff's deputies said.

The home and other residences in the neighborhood have been the target of frequent burglaries and the man recognized the suspect from video of a previous break-in, MCSO said.

More Here

Gun control measures met with defiance from law enforcement officers

The head of a nationwide sheriffs coalition is calling on Vermont's law enforcement officers to defy three controversial gun control measures passed by Burlington voters three weeks ago.

"Sheriffs have a constitutional duty to refuse to comply with such ordinances," said Richard Mack, president of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. "We're seeing sheriffs in New York oppose the Safe Act and Gov. Cuomo. If we have sheriffs in New York doing this, how much more should we have sheriffs doing it in Vermont?"

More Here at Fox News

The Armed Lutheran: Gun Control and Appeasement

A well done essay, worth reading.

Gun-control advocates are the modern equivalent of former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. They put their faith in, and trust their security to, pieces of paper: treaties, laws, and signs. And like Chamberlain and those who sought peace through appeasement in the run-up to World War II, they ignore the basic truths of human nature. Man is inherently wicked, and aggression is not stopped by words.


In September of 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain proudly stepped off an airplane to greet a crowd of reporters and excited citizens, raising a copy of newly signed Munich Agreement, a treaty which allowed Nazi Germany to annex the ethnic German regions of Czechoslovakia. Germany’s reason for the annexation and occupation was, they claimed, to protect ethnic Germans. The British hoped that by giving in to Hitler’s demands, another European war could be avoided. The King and members of the Conservative party and the British media of the day hailed it as “Peace in our Time.” We all know what happened next.

Fast forward seventy-six years. Russia invades Ukraine’s Crimea region, supposedly to protect ethnic Russians from some unspecified threat after riots in the Ukrainian capital ousted the pro-Russian government. The Crimean legislature voted to rejoin Russia and Crimea has been accepted with open arms back into the Russian Federation. History repeats itself.

 Ukraine was convinced in 1994 to give up it’s nuclear arsenal and in 2009 to gut it’s conventional military in exchange for promises that it’s national sovereignty would be protected. These treaties were signed to ensure the “safety of the Ukrainian people.” Gun control, gun buybacks, on a global scale. And what safety did it earn Ukraine? Russia, a party to those treaties, has now violated the hell out of them.

More Here

Sean D. Serrentino: Guns are for suicide, and other anti-gun lies

Sean D. Serrentino  does some good work on suicide numbers here.  I would add a couple of other thoughts.   First, there are several studies that show that restricting guns does not reduce suicides.  It just shifts them to other means.   Second, as suicides, especially with a gun, tend to be planned without other people around, you would have to make major, draconian changes to the gun control laws to have a measurable effect on suicides.  Third is that leftists seem to be fine with suicides, as long as they are state approved.  Last, the number of justifiable homicides are from the FBI, which is a notoriously low number, for several reasons.  The actual number is likely about five times higher.  Here is Sean's article:

Let’s take another way for people to use statistics to lie to you.
Murthy has already said that he plans to use his office to work on obesity, not guns. But looking at the instances in which firearm use ends in death, it becomes clear that there’s a health case to be made for gun control, too.
Guns are far more likely to be used in suicides than in killing assailants:
Then he shows you a graph that looks very much like this one I cobbled together in Excel
and goes on to say
According to the CDC, 19,392 people committed suicide with a gun in 2010, the latest year for which data are available. That same year, meanwhile, the FBI recorded only 230 justifiable homicides (the legal term) in which a private citizen used a firearm to kill a felon during the commission of a felony.
OMG! I have a gun, so I’m at risk for suicide?!?!?!?
Oh, wait. I missed something. What did she say again?
But looking at the instances in which firearm use ends in death
Umm, why limit it just to “instances in which firearms use ends in death?” If I have to use a gun against another human, I am legally required to use it only when I reasonably fear death, serious bodily injury, or sexual assault. If I haul out the old XD and point it at someone, I am worried, with good cause, that I’m about to die. That means that if I don’t die, I win. In fact, any result other than the good guys ending up dead is considered a win. Why does Olga demand I kill my assailant? Is she not pleased if the assailant runs away, leaving both of us scared but unharmed? What kind of bloodthirsty ghoul is Olga, anyway?
With that in mind I did some poking about and looked up the various estimates of defensive gun uses (DGUs) and I added them to Olga’s little graph.
Even the lowest number of estimated DGUs is more that five times higher that the number of suicides using a firearm.

More Here

IL:State Supreme Court strikes down eavesdropping law

 An unconstitutional law never was constitutional to start with.  This woman should get a six figure payout from the judge who put her in jail and the arresting officers.  Not likely in corrupt Chicago.

Hours after the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the state’s eavesdropping statute on Thursday, Annabel Melongo reflected on the 20 months she spent locked up in the Cook County Jail under the now-unconstitutional law.

Melongo said she had been ordered held on a six-figure bond typically given repeat or violent offenders for recording three telephone conversations she had with a court reporter supervisor at the Leighton Criminal Court Building about the policy for correcting a hearing transcript.

“It’s not easy,” Melongo, 41, a Cameroon native who came to the U.S. after studying in Germany, said of her time in jail. “I went through all the emotional states you can imagine. Sometimes I was crying, sometimes I could not sleep.”

“And I don’t even...” she said, breaking off before describing being accosted by another inmate. “They say what doesn’t kill you makes you strong and believe me, when I got out of jail, there’s nothing in the world that can actually kill me now.”

More Here

Mike Stollenwerk: Judicial tide turns in favor of gun rights

In 2008 gun rights supporters cheered when the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller issued a clear ruling holding that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

Based upon this holding, the Court struck down the federal District of Columbia statute which generally barred the possession of firearms in the District unless a person held a firearms license, a document not issued by the District for many years. The Heller Court also struck down the District’s “prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”

And in 2010 gun rights supporters were buoyed again when the Supreme Court declared in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the Second Amendment was a “fundamental right.” Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito invoked the magic words from a case known as Palko v. Connecticut to “incorporate” the Second Amendment through the “due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to limit the powers of the sovereign 50 states in the same way that the Second Amendment limits federal power:
“In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty," wrote Justice Alito.
The Chicago gun ban was struck down, and precedent was presumably set to take down other state and local restrictions on the right to keep and carry weapons in case of confrontation. And moreover, as a “fundamental” right, courts are supposed to tip the scales in favor of the right – to give “strict scrutiny” to governmental regulations limiting the right to keep and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

In other words, going forward after McDonald, the government was supposed to usually lose, and the people were supposed to usually win, Second Amendment cases.

But then things got weird.

 More Here

Sen. Moran urges federal ban on gun owner data collection

The ban should include sending gun owner data to other countries as well.

U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), along with U.S. Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), U.S. Senator Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and 10 of their Senate colleagues, introduced the Gun-Owner Registration Information Protect (GRIP) Act. The legislation would prohibit federal funding from being used to support a gun registry maintained by any other organization, including state and local governments.

More Here

Robbers Killed by an Armed Citizen, Now The Families Want To Sue

Sad but true, this is the way it works in the United States. Two men entered a convenience store, pointed their guns at the clerk, and robbed the store. As they exited the store, an armed citizen confronted them. The robbers pointed their guns at the honest citizen and he shot and killed both of them.

Now the family of one of the dead robbers wants “justice.” They want to sue the honest citizen. And leave it to the media to give the families of armed robbers a forum.

In what has become a clich√©, the mother of an armed robber takes to the airwaves to say, “He was a good boy.” This family then has the nerve to say the robbers didn’t deserve to be shot; that an honest citizen had no right to fire at two “boys” who pointed their guns at him. The family then goes on to say that while their boy was a known drug user, he likely only robbed the store so he could get money to pay his child support. It is a seven-minute video, but it should make your blood boil:

 More Here

LA: Wounded Intruder Calls 911

An intruder called 911 after he was shot during a break in attempt, in Iberia Parish.

Iberia Parish Sheriff Louis Ackal said Charles Prince attempted to break into a balcony bedroom at a home in the 5500 block of East Admiral Doyle Drive, on March 23.

Prince woke the victim, who grabbed a hand gun and fired 2 shots at Prince, hitting him once in the arm.

More Here

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Dave Workman: Background check battle heats; Connecticut shows future desires of anti-gunners

Washington’s “universal background check” battle has warmed up with the usual rhetoric, and an arrest last night in Wednesday’s fatal White Center shooting shows what is wrong with the push for such checks, while a look at what’s happening in Connecticut shows where gun prohibitionists want to take the Evergreen State.

The King County Sheriff’s office reported that major crimes detectives arrested an 18-year-old Seatac man in connection with the deadly shooting that killed a 17-year-old sitting in a car. A press release from the agency said no other suspects are being sought.

Under Washington State law, an 18-year-old would not be able to legally carry a concealed handgun. He certainly would not be able to purchase one legally, and it’s a safe bet that if the fellow currently in custody is responsible, he did not go through a background check and never would.

Ditto the kid who is now charged in last month’s slaying in the Greenwood district of North Seattle.

But backers of Initiative 594 seem reluctant or unable to discuss this little problem with their proposed law. Instead, the Rev. Sandy Brown from Seattle’s First United Methodist Church declared that they want to change the state’s gun laws. Many in the firearms community are convinced that if I-594 — the 18-page gun control measure touted as a “universal background check” proposal — passes, it will open the door to the kind of law now causing trouble in Connecticut. That kind of law, gun owners believe, is really what the well-financed anti-gunners want for Washington.

The NBC affiliate in Hartford reported yesterday that, “Starting April 1, gun buyers will be required to apply for a certificate from the state before purchasing any long gun from either a licensed or private seller. State Police warn it could add weeks if not months to what was a two week process.”
A spokesman for the Connecticut State Police told the news agency that people with handgun permits are essentially grandfathered in, but now the law extends to the “private purchase or transfer” of a shotgun or rifle. And for that, gun buyers will need to get the police certificate, which — one might argue — is just one or two steps beyond what would be required under a so-called “universal background check.”

More Here at Seattle Gun Rights Examiner

AR:Eureka Springs City Council (almost) Conspires against Open Carry March Scheduled, 29 March, 2014

The Eureka Springs, Arkansas city council had a special meeting on how to deal with a planned open carry/celebrate Act 746 walk in the city.  Some of the discussion is disturbing, as a council member openly seems to suggest ways in which to conspire to chill the exercise of the second amendment.  The video is 42:40 long on YouTube.   The most chilling comments are these, beginning about 22:30:
"What I think I have, I think I have heard you say, that, our only recourse of action is then, is what you are going to do with the signs, which I commend you, our only recourse of action that we can do is shut the town to them.  and make it unavailable to them.  so that when they get here they cannot eat, they cannot get a cup of coffee, they cannot shop they can't ride the trolley, they cannot take a taxi, about all they can do is walk up and down the street."

 "Ok, so what we really need to do then is to have a PR campaign to get all of the  business owners on our side on this and to make it clear to them what our plan is, if we decide to do this, and then get the word out, because I think if we can do this and do it effectively, and quite frankly as a PR opportunity here, is a marketers dream, but I am not going to get into that unless you ask me, but we we can then, we are taking point here, then  show other communities what they can do to counter act this because we are doing this first."

She appears to be suggesting that the city council use the police to push business leaders to conspire to deny the open carriers use of their facilities.  For private individuals to do this is one thing.   For the City Council and the Police to do this is using the force of government.

Fortunately, calmer heads prevail, at least on camera.   The police chief is to be commended for his fair reading of the law.     The Police Chief notes that numerous visitors have already been open carrying in town and that most people never noticed, and nothing happened.

The woman council member on the right side, halfway down, has some real wisdom to put on the table:
"We welcome everyone."  "Treat them like anyone else."  "They have the right to prove their right."
But the council member on the near left, in the baseball cap, has some of the last words:
We don't want this particular group of gun owners who are trying to rub our noses in it.
He says he will put a sign on his business.  For one day.

Perhaps others can identify the various speakers.

The celebrate Act 746 walk is going forward and will take place on 29 March, 2014.

The Patriots of Act 746 plans to have a constitutional carry/celebrate act 746 walk on March 29th, and to eat lunch in Eureka springs.   From
 The group, Northwest 746, plans to meet near Basin Park and walk around the city, but they will not enter any building or place that prohibits carrying firearms, such as government buildings or private businesses with warning signs, Suchsland said.
It appears that Arkansascarry also intends to be in Eureka Springs on the 29th of March.  It is likely that a significant number will show up to celebrate their second amendment rights.

The city of Eureka Springs  has a population of 2,073.  This negative response from a small, rural, Arkansas town that caters to tourists is unusual.  Perhaps local second amendment supporters did not know that this was being discussed.  There were only 3 days notice from the Monday meeting when this was brought up as new business to the special meeting on Thursday.   Only three members of the public spoke, and they were all against open carry, and unsurprisingly, misinformed.

The next City Council meeting will be at 6 p.m. on 9 April:

Regular Council meetings are held at 6 p.m. on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each month in the City Council Chambers at 44 S. Main and are broadcasted live on Cable Channel 21. Check below for the next meeting.

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

ID:Governor Otter Signs Federal Firearms Nullification Act

The bill, S1332, was passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate, and was signed by Idaho Governor Otter on 21 March, 2014.   While not directly nullifying Federal law, it has much the same effect by forbidding State officers from enforcing certain Federal laws.

The law makes it illegal for state and local officers to order confiscations of firearms required by future federal law.

 The law would effect a future federal ban on the possession of standard capacity magazines, for example.   State officials would be prohibited from ordering confiscation of such magazines.

The Tenth Amendment Center applauds the new law, noting that it rests on the long established anti-commandeering doctrine which holds that the Federal government cannot force the states to enforce federal laws.  This doctrine has been upheld and enhanced by Supreme court decisions in 1997 and 2012.  From the 2012 decision in Independent Business v. Sebelius, and the Tenth Amendment Center, Justice Robert Kennedy argues:
The legitimacy of Congress’s exercise of the spending power “thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract.’ ” Pennhurst, supra, at 17. Respecting this limitation is critical to ensuring that Spending Clause legislation does not undermine the status of the States as independent sovereigns in our federal system. That system “rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that ‘freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.’ ” Bond, 564 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8) (quoting Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999) ). For this reason, “the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.” New York, supra, at 162. Otherwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.

While the law is limited to future federal actions, and has some serious exceptions, such as drug and gang enforcement activities, and court orders, it is a step away from the concentration of power in Federal hands that has been ongoing for the last hundred years.   Here are the exceptions in the law:
The Legislature does not intend to affect an Idaho law enforcement officer who assists federal agents on drug or gang enforcement activities.
Other than compliance with an order of the court,
 The law went into effect immediately upon Governor Otter's signature.

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

Bill Would Require Due Process for Veterans to lose Second Amendment Rights

Second Amendment rights of law-abiding military veterans continue to be stripped away without due process.

A 1998 agreement between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the FBI was one of the first jabs at veterans’ Second Amendment rights.  The agreement was made to send the names of veterans into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, triggering a virtual lifetime ban from owning firearms of those who are labeled as “mentally incompetent,” meaning they need or desire the assistance of a fiduciary to help them manage, often complicated, financial affairs.


 Since the 1998 agreement around 116,000 veterans were impacted through 2007.  The most recent reports now list that number around 175,000.

More Here at Human Events

Monday, March 24, 2014

Common Links

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

Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens

European Murder Rates Compared to the United States

Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation

Some Points on California's Ban on Traditional Ammunition

What Mass Killers Want - And How to Stop Them  from the WSJ

Average Mass Shooting Stopped by Police vs. Mass Shooting Stopped by Civilians

How the FBI Uniform Crime Report defines Jusifiable Homicides

Disastrous Gun Law Sparked School Shootings

Lautenberg Case to go to Supreme Court

Maneater of the BWCA

Armed Citizens and the Modern Frontier

Two Models of Modern Murder

Universal Background Checks is Code for Universal Registration

Come and Take It



By John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)

Posted by Dean Weingarten at 11/09/2013 03:27:00 AM

Rise of the Anti-Media

TX:Victim Attempts Disarm, is Shot in Foot

While it appears that victims are generally better at disarming criminals, than criminals are at disarming victims, it is a very dangerous business that should not be attempted lightly.  From Henderson Co.,
Henderson Police say the suspect tried to rob the victim at gunpoint, but the victim fought back and tried to get the gun.

Police say the gun went off during the struggle and the victim was shot in the foot.
It is possible that being shot in the foot was an acceptable trade-off.  There is not enough in the story to determine if that were so, and it is a subjective judgment.

The general advise is, if you are within five  feet, and believe that you are going to be shot in any case, look for your chance to do a disarm.  Practice is advised.  If you think that all that is wanted is money, most would judge that a disarm technique is not worth the risk.

From personal experience, practicing disarming techniques has a fair amount of risk involved.  One friend suffered a nasty cut (not knife related), an old girlfriend ended up with a strained, but not broken, finger.    Use mock guns for these techniques, and  gloves.    It is harder to do a successful disarm  on a small gun than it is a large gun.   There is simply more leverage to use on a larger gun.  If you must do it, act fast and ruthlessly.  Concentrate on the weapon, and realize that you may take some punishment in the process.

Another old adage: rush a gun, run from a knife.

If you are on the other side of the equation, do not let your adversary get too close, and do not hold the gun out there where they can grab it easily.  If you have a pistol, hold it close to the body and use your off hand to prevent a disarm attempt.

Nearly everyone understands that someone attempting to take your firearm presents a deadly threat.   Shooting the person attempting to  disarm you is probably justified.

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

AZ: Update on Apache Junction Shooting

The intruders were said to have been high on methampheamines for several days.

The 59-year-old homeowner told authorities he heard something at his backdoor at about 8:20 p.m. and looked at footage from his security camera to see three figures wearing hoods and holding guns.

After hearing the men kicking at the backdoor, the homeowner fired one round through the door with his shotgun. Another person inside the home fired one shot through the door with a pistol after he saw a laser sight pointed at his head, according to a Sheriff's Office statement.

More Here

Jamaica: Man Accused of Robbery Shot in Front of Mother

Jamaica has some of the most draconian gun controls in the world.  Tourists have been jailed for having one round of .22 rimfire stuck in the lining of their suitcases.   It also has one of the highest homicide rates in the world.

They said Kwesi Ryan died in his mother’s arms after he was shot several times by a masked assailant early Monday.

His mother, Brenda Ryan was not injured after the gunman entered her yard firing several shots at the victim.


 Kwesi had been charged with another man for allegedly robbing the insurance worker of a bag, containing cash and cheques as well as a 9mm pistol and four rounds of ammunition.

More Here

FL:Reform of Stand Your Ground Law Passes House

HB 89, a reform of the "Stand Your Ground" law, passed the Florida House on 20 March with a vote of 93-24.  The law extends the same immunity given to people who actually shoot someone in self defense to those who only threaten force or fire warning shots in self defense.

The bill was given impetus by the Marissa Alexander case where the defendant claimed to have fired a warning shot, but was sentenced to 20 years in prison under Florida's mandatory sentencing laws.

The bill has brought together a coalition of diverse supporters, including the  Florida Public Defender Association and the NRA.
 “We see, routinely, clients that we believe shouldn’t be prosecuted because they did act in lawful self-defense,” said Stacy Scott, the Gainesville-based public defender for the 8th Judicial Circuit. “We’re fighting those cases in court every day.”
The reform bill also provides for the expungement of records in self defense cases.  From, Representative Matt Gaetz:
“The point is to make sure that someone who appropriately uses the ‘stand your ground’ defense doesn’t have their life ruined by the use of that defense,” Gaetz said.
This site shows the recorded vote of 93 to 24.  The bill passed with strong bipartisan support.

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

Read more here: