Tarrant County prosecutors dismissed a murder charge against a man arrested in the death of Chin “Jin” Shin, who was fatally shot in Fort Worth in August, and said evidence showed the man was acting in self-defense.
Markynn West, 29, faced a murder charge in the case after being indicted in December. A grand jury declined to indict three other men on murder charges, with two of them now facing less-serious charges, according to Tarrant County court records.
LAKE FOREST PARK — A resident shot and killed an attempted burglar in north King County on Wednesday afternoon.
According to the Lake Forest Park Police Department, officers responded to the Hillside neighborhood in Lake Forest Park at 1:35 p.m. Police said the burglar forced their way into the home before being shot by the sole resident.
The suspect got out of his truck, opened the food truck's front window, and pointed the gun inside. Police said the suspect fired his gun, but it jammed.
"Thank God," Jacqueline Mitchell, a family member, said. "She's a godly woman. That's why the gun jammed because God jammed it because when (suspect) opened that window, he could have shot her, but it jammed."
That's when the woman pulled out her own gun and fired multiple times. Howard's mother is licensed to carry a gun, according to the family.
On March 6, 2023, federal Judge Brian C. Wimes ruled the Missouri Second Amendment Protection Act was unconstitutional, claiming the Act violates the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution, invalidates federal law, and violates the doctrine of "intergovernmental immunity".
On June 12, 2021, Governor Parson signed the Missouri Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA). The act prohibits state and local officers from cooperating with Federal agents to enforce certain federal laws, mostly to do with firearms.
The Federal court system has long held states cannot be compelled to use their resources to enforce federal laws. States are not required to explain why they do not wish to use those resources to enforce federal laws. They have the power to refuse to do so. To hold otherwise is to collapse the power-sharing between states and the federal government into a monolithic entity controlled by the federal government. This doctrine is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
Judge Wimes appears to be nullifying the anti-commandeering doctrine, by claiming Missouri must use state resources to investigate and prosecute federal law. Refusing to do so, Judge Wimes claims, is "obstructing" federal law enforcement, which is somehow a violation of the supremacy clause, and intergovernmental immunity.
From the opinion:
SAPA is an unconstitutional “interposit[ion]” against federal law and is designed to be just that. Id. Section 1.410(5) states the Missouri General Assembly’s declaration that the Supremacy Clause “does not extend to various federal statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, or other actions that collect data or restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, or use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within the borders of Missouri . . . .” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 1.410(5). However, the Missouri General Assembly’s assertion that the Supremacy Clause does not extend to acts of Congress does not make it so. To the contrary, 15 “[t]he law of congress is paramount; it cannot be nullified by direct act of any state, nor the scope and effect of its provisions set at naught indirectly.” Anderson, 135 U.S. at 490.
SAPA does not prevent agents of the federal government from investigating, arresting, prosecuting or convicting residents of Missouri who violate federal law. It prevents agents of the state and local governments from assisting federal agents in doing so. Judge Wimes claims the anti-commandeering doctrine does not apply, by quoting reasons in SAPA for the purpose of the law. But the purpose of state law has not, generally been an issue in anti-commandeering doctrine. The Constitutionality of laws is based on what the law does, not what the law claims the purposes of the law are.
Judge Wimes claims there is a direct conflict between SAPA and the federal firearms laws. From the opinion:
A federal law preempts a state law if the two are in direct conflict. Alliance Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 384 F.3d 547, 551 (8th Cir. 2004). A “direct conflict” occurs “[w]hen compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility or when a state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress . . . .” Id. If “Congress enacts a law that imposes restrictions or confers rights on private actors,” and “a state law confers rights or imposes restrictions that conflict with federal law,” then “the federal law takes precedence and the state law is preempted.” Murphy v. Nat’l Coll. Athletic Ass’n, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1480 (2018).
This correspondent has a difficult time following this argument. Where is the direct conflict? Federal officers are free to enforce federal laws. The state does not have any duty to expend resources to enforce federal laws. The state may not make it illegal for federal officers to operate. The state has no duty to assist them.
Judge Wimes appears to be claiming the supremacy clause of the Constitution and the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity override the doctrine of non-commandeering. Eric Burlison, who helped push through SAPA as a Missouri state senator, tweeted this:
We fully anticipated an Obama appointee to issue a judgement against HB 85 the Second Amendment Preservation Act. I am asking our new Attorney Generalto take this to the Supreme Court! States cannot be forced to be the enforcement of Federal Laws.
In several discussions about SAPA, Second Amendment supporters claim the federal lawsuit is about the Second Amendment. The arguments put forward by the State of Missouri rest on the non-commandeering doctrine, not on the Second Amendment. From the response to the lawsuit:
A. The United States has not suffered an injury in fact.The United States has failed to show that SAPA regulates or interferes with federal agencies enforcing federal law—because it does not. SAPA simply requires Missouri’s law enforcement to, as the complaint agrees is lawful, “lawfully decline to assist with federal enforcement[.]” Doc. 1, at 3 (citing Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997)). The United States’ asserted injuries are based on misconstruing SAPA, speculating on risks that have not manifested, and insisting that SAPA favors other states over the federal government.
The response to the lawsuit shows SAPA is based on the power and sovereignty of states v the federal government:
The federal government misconstrues SAPA’s plain text. SAPA does not invalidate federal law as applied to third parties. The text of the invalidity provision states that certain federal acts “shall be invalid to this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall not be enforced by this state.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 1.430 (emphasis added). Despite the United States’ lengthy briefing, it has cited no contested provision of the National Firearms Act or the Gun Control Act that applies to states.
Opinion:
It is uncertain how a three judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit will treat this case. The theory put forward by Judge Wimes appears novel to this correspondent. There is ample precedent for the non-commandeering doctrine. However the Eighth Circuit rules, it is likely the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. The arguments put forward by Judge Wimes could as easily be applied to marijuana law or immigration law.
©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
HOUSTON -- A military veteran in a wheelchair shot another man during an attempted robbery across the street from METRO headquarters in downtown Houston Monday night, authorities say.
Around 9 p.m., police were dispatched for a shooting in progress in the 1900 block of Main St. When authorities arrived, they found the man in a wheelchair, and a suspect collapsed with multiple gunshot wounds.
LT J.P. Horelica of the Houston Police Department said the man in the wheelchair told them he was waiting for a ride home from METRO when the suspect ran up and tried to take his bag.
Wildlife biologist and bear researcher Allen Schallenberger reported the details of a successful pistol defense with a .22 H & R revolver, by Chuck Jonkel in 1962. As this correspondent conducted an interview with Allen, he revealed that he had acquired a Colt Python .357 magnum revolver with a four-inch barrel for $60.00 used, in 1963 from a person who previously worked for a sheriff’s department. He needed the revolver as he was working alone on bighorn sheep research in the rugged Sun River Canyon in Montana both summer and winter.
Allen used the .357 three times to fire warning shots to scare away grizzly bears
in the years 1976, 1977 and 1978, while doing grizzly bear research. The bears
were all adults, and one male was also present in a 1977 incident but did not
charge workers until 1978.
He worked for the Montana Fish and Game Dept. for ten years 1965-74 as a game management biologist out of Choteau on the very rugged and mostly without roads, Rocky Mountain Front extending from just north of Helena to the Canadian Border. He also worked on the plains east to the Sweet Grass Hills.
Allen Schallenberger, Christmas, 1971.
In 1974 he did big game and range research for the United States Forest Service in the 123,000- acre Badger-Two Medicine wild area of the Lewis and Clark National Forest just south of Glacier National Park. In 1975 he started doing grizzly bear research in that area and later expanded it to most of the Rocky Mountain Front. In 1977 the research was associated with the University of Montana at Missoula until the end of 1979. The final report of 207 pages was completed in spring 1980. Horses and mules and tents were used in the research, and we were generally in the field from mid- April till late November when most of the grizzlies were in their winter dens. In spring we ran 20- mile snare lines to catch grizzly bears and black bears so we could mark them. The grizzlies got radio collars with transmitters so we could track them from the air and ground until they denned. The snare sites were in aspen patches and a V shaped log snare cubby with smelly road killed deer bait was generally set up about a mile or two apart on the line. The 5/16- inch Aldrich snare cable was tightly fastened to a tree to hold the bears which were caught by a front leg just above their foot.
The three separate encounters where the .357 Colt Python was fired in defense against bears happened in 1976, 1977, and 1978. This correspondent interviewed Allen and corresponded with him. Allen checked his field notes and research papers and was able to give these detailed accounts of the three incidents where he fired the .357 Colt Python in defense against bears.
In Allen's own words starting in the summer of 1976:
In the summer of 1976, I was working alone on the grizzly bear research and was on a trip in the Scapegoat Wilderness south of the Benchmark Road end on USFS land. I was riding my saddle horse and leading two pack horses with my equipment and camping supplies. I rode into a small grassy opening suitable for horse feed north of Half Moon Peak at about dusk. I unloaded the two pack horses and turned them loose to graze with hobbles and was starting to unsaddle my riding horse. A very heavy, tall, dark colored grizzly bear appeared walking on the nearby USFS trail about 30 yards away. He made no bad threats and kept walking. I had been out about two weeks and my flashlight batteries were dead. Quickly I threw some stove fuel on dry sticks and got a large fire going for light. I put a double halter rope on my horse so he could not break loose from the tree. I set up my small tent and then I stood outside watching my horses and listening to the bear circle the small clearing breaking sticks. The horses with hobbles were not eating and were pivoting sensing the travel of the bear circling around us. After about two hours, I knew I had to do something to scare away the very large and aggressive bear. I fired six fast shots with my Colt Python and reloaded quickly. The bear left and I tied up all the horses, ate some supper and went to bed in the tent. The horses were allowed to graze the next morning before we headed back to our pickup and trailer at Benchmark Road. The bear’s tracks were in the trail dust for several miles. The front paw print was 8 inches wide which indicates a very big grizzly in Montana. That was the last trip I ever made in grizzly research without a 760 Remington pump 30:06 rifle with ghost ring peep sight and 220 grain loads or a short, barreled Remington 12 gauge 870 with sights and a combination of double 00 buck and slugs along with my revolver and hard cast lead bullets.
The incidents In 1977 and 1978 will be covered in a future article.
©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
The Cleveland Division of Police are investigating an incident that
occurred on the 3800 block of West 31st Street last week involving two
15-year-old suspects and a 15-year-old male victim.
According to Cleveland police, both 15-year-olds knocked on the door of the house on the day of the incident. When the victim answered the door, one of the suspects shot him in the abdomen.
The victim returned fire striking one of the suspects in the head. The suspect was pronounced dead at a Cleveland hospital on Saturday, March 25.
The other suspect fled the scene unharmed. He was arrested shortly after leaving the property.
On March 24, 2023, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper vetoed a Pistol Purchase Permit bill which was passed during the Jim Crow era in 1919. At the time, the Ku Klux Klan was rising in power, and was said to have been influential in the election of President (D) Woodrow Wilson, an stringent racist.
Critics of the law have claimed it was used as a means of discrimination to keep black people disarmed.
The bill, SB 41, passed with veto proof majorities in the House and in the Senate.
The Senate has 50 members. 30 of them are Republicans.
In the House, there are 120 members. 71 of them are Republicans.
In North Carolina, 3/5 of each chamber is necessary to override a governor's veto. That is 30 votes in the Senate and 72 votes in the House. Therefore one Democratic vote is needed in the House to override the Governor Roy Cooper's desire to keep the Jim Crow era law in place. Commercial sales of firearms would still be required to be conducted through federally licensed dealers using the FBI National Instant background Check System (NICS).
Passage of the bill would remove the ability of Sheriffs to delay or deny the sale of pistols. It would also remove some restrictions on the carry of concealed handguns in churches and create a "firearms safe storage" educational initiative. Here is an overview of the law from the North Carolina legislature:
OVERVIEW: Senate Bill 41 would:
•Authorize an individual who has a valid concealed handgun permit, or who is exempt from obtaining that permit, to carry a handgun in a place of religious worship that is also educational property if:
o The property is not owned by a local board of education or county commission.
o The property is not a public or private institution of higher education.
o The property is not posted with a notice prohibiting carrying a concealed handgun on the premises.
o The handgun is only possessed and carried on the property outside of school operating hours.
•Authorize concealed carry for certain law enforcement facility employees.
•Repeal the requirement to obtain a pistol purchase permit from the sheriff prior to the purchase or transfer of a pistol.
•Create a statewide firearm safe storage awareness initiative to educate the public about safe firearm storage, to facilitate the distribution of gun locks, and to provide local communities with a toolkit to launch local firearm safe storage initiatives.
At this time, it is not clear when a veto override vote will be taken.
Paul Valone is President of Grass Roots North Carolina.
Paul Valone, is well positioned to count votes of the North Carolina legislature. When this correspondent tallked to him at the Shot Show in Las Vegas, he believed one or more of the Democratic legislators in the House could be convinced to override Governor (D) Roy Cooper's veto.
©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Police did not recommend any charges against the shooter in a fatal incident on National Parks Highway in Carlsbad earlier this month, turning the case over to the Fifth Judicial District Attorney’s Office for further investigation.
Michael Dudley Strickland, 50, of Carlsbad was shot by a family member near his residence following a fight with the shooter who lived with Strickland at the Carlsbad RV Park in the 4300 block of National Parks Highway on the south side of Carlsbad, police said.
In the Fifth Circuit, the entire Court has ruled, en banc, that rights protected by the Second Amendment may not be infringed by mere civil restraining orders. The unconstitutional infringement was placed into law by the infamous Lautenberg amendment in 1996. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been turned upside down and ruined by this infamous and unjust law.
In the opinion published by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Circuit Judge James C. Ho writes a particularly well argued and presented concurrence. The concurrence is worth reading. It is quoted below, without the footnotes:
James C. Ho, Circuit Judge, concurring:The right to keep and bear arms has long been recognized as a fundamental civil right. See, e.g., Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 (1950) (describing the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments as the “civil-rights Amendments”); Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U.S. 36, 49–50 n.10 (1961). Blackstone saw it as essential to “‘the natural right’”of Englishmen to “‘self-preservation and defence. ”District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 593–94 (2008)(quoting 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England139–40 (1765)).
But the Second Amendment has too often been denigrated as “a second-class right.”McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780 (2010). In response, the Supreme Court has called on judges to be more faithful guardians of the text and original meaning of the Second Amendment. See N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). Our court today dutifully follows the framework recently set forth in N.Y. State Rifle. It recognizes the absence of relevant historical analogues required to support the Government’s position in this case. I am pleased to concur.
I write separately to point out that our Founders firmly believed in the fundamental role of government in protecting citizens against violence,as well as the individual right to keep and bear arms—and that these two principles are not inconsistent but entirely compatible with one another.
Our Founders understood that those who commit or threaten violence against innocent law-abiding citizens may be arrested, convicted, and incarcerated. They knew that arrest and incarceration naturally entails the loss of a wide range of liberties—including the loss of access to arms.
So when the government detains—and thereby disarms—a member of our community, it must do so consistent with the fundamental protections that our Constitution affords to those accused of a crime. For example, the government may detain dangerous criminals, not just after conviction, but also before trial. Pre-trial detention is expressly contemplated by the Excessive Bail Clause and the Speedy Trial Clause. And it no doubt plays a significant role in protecting innocent citizens against violence. See, e.g., United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987) (permitting“the detention prior to trial of arrestees charged with serious felonies who . . . pose a threat to the safety of individuals or to the community”).
Our laws also contemplate the incarceration of those who criminally threaten, but have not (yet) committed, violence. After all, to the victim, such actions are not only life-threatening—they’re life-altering. See, e.g., United States v. Ackell, 907 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2018)(upholding criminal stalking law); United States v. Gonzalez, 905 F.3d 165 (3rd Cir. 2018)(same); United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2014)(same); United States v. Petrovic, 701 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2012)(same); see also People v. Counterman, 497 P.3d 1039 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021) (same), cert. granted, _ U.S. _ (2023).
In sum, our Founders envisioned a nation in which both citizen and sovereign alike play important roles in protecting the innocent against violent criminals. Our decision today is consistent with that vision. I concur.
Judge Ho says what many Constitutionalists have been saying for decades. If a person is too dangerous to have arms, they are too dangerous to be on the streets. At present, the Biden administration has chosen not to appeal this Fifth Circuit decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Opinion:
The decision to not appeal this case to the Supreme Court may be an attempt to delay a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of banning the exercise of rights protected by the Second Amendment with a mere civil restraining order. Many times more people have their rights infringed with a civil restraining order than are ever convicted of domestic violence. People have had their lives destroyed by this evil and unconstitutional law. If you are willing to have your blood pressure raised with pure injustice, read of the case of Tim Emerson, M.D. Emerson was the first federal case since Miller to affirm the Second Amendment as an individual right. However, because of the Lautenberg amendment, Emerson was unjustly convicted, impoverished, jailed, put on a sex offender list, and denied the most basic rights. This was a decade before the Heller decision, when the courts were still dominated by Progressive judges.
©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
HIGHLANDS, Texas (KTRK) -- A 64-year-old retired Baytown police officer confronted a burglary suspect in his neighborhood, leading to a shootout on the side of a busy road in Highlands, according to the Harris County Sheriff's Office.
It all started Tuesday morning when a suspect was caught on surveillance camera barging through the backdoor of a home in the Highland Crossing neighborhood.
On March 15, 2023, House Bill 153 was sent to Democrat Kentucky Governor Beshear for his signature or veto. The Governor may ignore the bill as well. House Bill 153 orders state and Kentucky government employees not to cooperate with federal officers in the enforcement of federal firearms statutes, rules, or regulations passed after January 1, 2021. Such rules are expected to include the new BATFE rules on pistol braces and the new rule on the definition of what is considered a firearm. The bill is only enforceable on Kentucky state employees. It also forbids the expenditure of public funds for the same purposes. From House Bill 153:
A person commits an offense under this section when, while acting in his or her official capacity under color of law, he or she knowingly violates this section. An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor for the first offense and a Class A misdemeanor for each subsequent offense.
6) A person who knowingly commits an offense under this section shall be subject to from employment to the extent allowable under state law.
(a) Law enforcement activity related to a federal ban on firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories; or
(b)The investigation of a violation of a federal ban on firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories.
7) Nothing in this section may be interpreted to prohibit or otherwise limit a law enforcement agency, law enforcement officer, employee of a law enforcement agency, public agency, public official, employee of a public agency, or employee of a local government from cooperating, communicating, or collaborating with a federal agency if the primary purpose is not:
(a) Law enforcement activity related to a federal ban on firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories; or
(b) The investigation of a violation of a federal ban on firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories.
(8 )This section shall be retroactive to January 1, 2021.
House Bill 153 was very popular in the House, passing 78 to 19 on February 22. In the Senate, it passed 27 to 9 on March 15, 2023, then was enrolled by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate and sent to Governor Beshear on the same day. Three Republicans joined six Democrats to vote against the bill in the Senate. The bill depends on the long-standing anti-commandeering doctrine of the United States Supreme Court. The federal government may not command states to perform tasks the federal government wants them to do, such as enforcing federal laws.
The Supreme Court ruled, to allow the federal government to do so would violate principle of federalism, where both the federal government and the state governments have sovreignity in their respective areas. The Supremacy clause of the Constitution does not override this dual sovereignity. If it did, the federal system would collapse into a system where the states had no effective power separate from the federal government.
No determination of constitutionality is necessary to invoke the states' power under the anti-comandeering doctrine. The state has the power, under the Constitution, to use its resources as it sees fit.
The Kentucky law is similar to the Missouri Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA) but differs in important details. The Missouri act was recently struck down by federal district court judge Brian Wimes. The decision is being appealed.
Democrat Governor Beshear has 10 days, excluding Sundays, to act on a bill once it is received. If the governor vetos the bill, the legislature may override the veto with a majority vote in both houses. Governor Beshear won the governorship by a razor thin margin of 4,700 votes in 2019. Many believe the votes for Liberterian candidate, John Hicks, 28,433, made the difference which elected Beshear.
The legislative session may not extend beyond March 30 in 2023. Legiscan reports the bill was delivered to Governor Beshear on March 15. It appears action must be taken by the governor or the bill will become law without his signature on March 28, giving the legislature a short opportunity to override a veto, if the bill was vetoed on March 27, 2023.
An election for governor in Kentucky will be held on November 7, 2023, with primaries held on May 16, 2023.
.©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
In a release, Wayne County Sheriff Tim Catron said the shooting happened at a home off of Highway 3284 just before midnight on Saturday.
Police believe the man was attempting to forcibly enter the home when the homeowner shot him.
As the research into how effective pistols are when used as a defense against bears has progressed, a startling progression has been observed.
The recorded use of pistols in defense against bears has grown by two orders of magnitude in recent decades.
As pistols came into common use, they were almost certainly used in defense against animal attacks. Portable, reasonably reliable pistols which could be used as a defensive weapon against an unexpected attack, were not available until about 1534, when wheellock pistols became available. They were relatively expensive. Arms of the period were commonly privately owned. It is very likely some were used in defense against animals. Europe, at the time, had much wild land. Bears, except for those in captivity, had been eliminated from England. Wild bears still existed on the mainland of Europe. While the use of wheelock pistols against bears probably happened, this correspondent has not seen any records to document it.
The development of the flintlock, then the percussion pistol and revolver made the use of a pistol in defense against a bear much more likely. Pistols became less expensive and more common. Bears were becoming uncommon in much of Europe by 1820. The author recalls an account or two where flintlock or percussion pistols were used as secondary weapons on bear hunts in North America. Starting in 1836 (effectively the 1840's) revolvers added the potential of more firepower. Records are sparse and difficult to document from the era.
The database is limited to handguns which use self contained cartridges.
Link to previous article listing where pistols were fired in defense against bears.
As a defense against bears, handguns came into their own with the development of the self contained cartridge. The .44 Russian (1870), .45 Colt (1872), 10.55x25 Reich Revolver (1879), and .455 Webley (1880) cartridges are all sufficiently powerful to be used in defense against men and bears. All were developed as state of the art military black powder cartridges of their day. All of them were traditionally fired in revolvers with six round cylinders.
The earliest documented case in our database of pistol defenses against bears occurred near the California/Oregon border in the 1890's. The caliber was .44, in a Colt revolver. It was almost certainly a .44-40, introduced in 1873 as the .44 Winchester Center Fire. It was first chambered in the Colt Single Action revolver about 1878. It became immensely popular, as it could be shot in both the revolver and a companion Winchester rifle. There were a few other .44 caliber cartridges chambered in Colt revolvers, such as the .44 American and .44 Russian, so we cannot be absolutely certain it was a .44-40. The .44-40 was the second most popular cartridge for the Colt. The others are rarely encountered.
From the 1890s to 1960 the recorded events of pistol defenses against bears are flat. The average is one per decade.
Seven decades, seven recorded defense events. None were recorded and found during the decade from 1910 to 1919. Two were recorded and found from 1930 to 1939. The other five decades had one each.
Many important advances occurred during those seven decades in both firearm and information technology. Handguns became relatively cheaper, more powerful, and ammunition became cheaper, cleaner and more powerful. The 9x19 (9mm Luger) was developed in 1900, the .45 ACP in 1909, the .357 magnum in 1935, the .44 magnum in 1956. The availability of print media exploded. Radio networks, then television became common. Populations of both people and bears expanded.
From 1960 to 1969 there were six defensive uses of pistols against bears recorded, only one less than the total during the previous 70 years.
From 1970 to 1979, there were eight. From 1980 to 1989, there were eight. From 1990 to 1999, there were a dozen recorded. During the 1990's the information age dawned. The invention of the World Wide Web in 1989, and the release to the public, of the first web browser in 1991, combined with the rapidly expanding Internet, made access to enormous quantities of information by most people easy, cheap, and fast.
From 2000 to 2009, there were 40 cases recorded where pistols were used in defense against bears. From 2010 to 2019, there were 67 cases.
Almost certainly, from 1870 to 1960, there were many cases where handguns were used effectively against bears, which were not recorded and published, or if published, have not been found. If they were recorded in a trapper's diary, they were not published. If they were published in an obscure local paper, they are not available on the Internet. A man, using a .22 rimfire, a .38 special, a .45 ACP or a .455 to defend against a bear in 1930, while trapping in Alaska or Canada, might not talk to more than a few people for months. If they were not injured, they probably would not consider the incident extraordinary or newsworthy. If they were in the Soviet Union, access to a pistol meant they were probably a member of the Communist Party, and bear attack information would be a state secret, as was information on wolf attacks.
This correspondent believes there are many defensive uses of pistols against bears which are not recorded or reported. If a resident of remote Alaska pops an aggressive black bear, there is little incentive to fill out a Defense of Life and Property form. Even if they do, it would not be considered newsworthy, and would be unlikely to be published. The Defense of Life and Property forms are protected by privacy concerns. Grizzly bears are another matter. Because of severe penalties for killing grizzly bears, people are more careful when they are shot. Many are categorized as licensed hunting kills. This correspondent believes there are many defensive uses of pistols against bears which are not recorded or reported. If a resident of remote Alaska pops an aggressive black bear, there is little incentive to fill out a Defense of Life and Property form. Even if they do, it would not be considered newsworthy, and would be unlikely to be published. The Defense of Life and Property forms are protected by privacy concerns. Grizzly bears are another matter. Because of severe penalties for killing grizzly bears, people are more careful when they are shot. Many are categorized as licensed hunting kills. Such kills seldom make the news. Two such incidents have come to the attention of this correspondent. One made news. The other did not, and came to light only because the person involved had to shoot another grizzly in self defense.
Pistols have become far less expensive, in more powerful calibers. Less expensive ammunition has made effective practice more affordable. Bear populations and human populations have grown. All these things contribute to more incidents where pistols are fired in defense against bears.
The most important thing is the extraordinary speed of information flow today compared to 150 years ago. This correspondent believes the speed of information is the most significant component, as more and more of existing bear defensive uses are recorded and published.
If readers know of an incident where a pistol was fired in defense against a bear, please contact AmmoLand so the incident may be considered as an addition to the database.
©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
A Bulloch County man who was shot during a domestic incident faces arrest after he is released from medical care.
According to a release from Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Bill Black, deputies, investigators and K-9 units from the Sheriff’s Office were called to the residence at 23257 Highway 80 West about 4:45 p.m. Tuesday for a reported domestic dispute involving several subjects. The home is located between Hopulikit and Portal.
After arriving at the scene, Black said it was determined that the primary aggressor, Michael William Sutton, had sustained a gunshot wound and fled the area.
SMYRNA, Ga. — A woman shot and killed a man in self-defense at her Smyrna apartment on Thursday night after he shattered her window and forced her way inside, according to investigators.
Police said no charges will be filed and that it appears the two did not know each other.
Salmon on My Mind, by Francis E. Caldwell, 197 p. Lighthouse Press, 2004
Salmon on My Mind is the last book written by Francis E. Caldwell, known to most as Frank. The book is an autobiographical account of the adventures and life journey of Frank, from the time he is returning to the United States after a tour in the Navy during World War II, to his acquisition of a dedicated salmon troller in 1959, trailing off with explanations of what happened in later years, up until 2003.
The book offers rare insight into life in Alaska from 1950 to 1960, which is the major portion of the book. The hardships and difficulties encountered in work and daily life are fascinating and instructive. They seem remote from the current reality of cell phones with GPS and our Internet based society of crowded cities and enormous state and federal welfare/safety nets. They seem as remote as late 1800's ranch life. Biographical works by ordinary people give current readers needed perspective on our past.
Of particular interest to this correspondent is Frank's deadly encounter with a grizzly bear while duck hunting in Alaska, in 1952. It adds to the growing number of cases where a bird hunter used bird shot against an attacking bear with deadly effect. Frank and a friend, Paul White, were hunting at the head of Boca de Quadra, a bit south of Ketchican. They spotted a flock of goldeneye ducks, and made a plan to get within range of the birds. The plan involved rounding a long spit of land in their skiff, then crossing the spit to come up on the ducks. Paul was running the outboard motor. As the skiff grounded on the beach, Frank jumped out to tie up the boat to an alder at the edge of the brush.
From page 124 of Salmon on My Mind:
I carried a Remington pump shotgun. Paul had a rusty, beat-up 30-40 Craig. He was running the motor. As the skiff's bow ground on the beach, I jumped out, the painter in one hand, shotgun in the other. The tide was out and it was 50 feet to the nearest alder that I could that I could tie the bow line to.
As I walked up the beach, a bear tore out of the brush and came charging down the beach straight at me. Gravel sprayed from the bear's feet. I'd never shot a bear before in my life, but I had been a hunter since age six, and I had always been handy with a gun. Without even thinking, or knowing what I was doing, I dropped the painter, flung up the gun, held back the trigger and worked the slide action until the firing pin went click, click, click.
The bear went down in a heap, its front legs spread-eagled. I reloaded, but the bear never moved. Paul was still in the skiff, his mouth hanging open. "I'll be damned. I'll be damned," Paul repeated over and over.
Paul paced off the distances. The bear had emerged sixteen paces from Frank. The dead bear was only six paces. Frank shot the bear with three charges o number 6 shot duck loads, which would ordinarily be 1 1/4 ounce loads, at the time. The account shows how deadly bird shot can be. Frank was shooting at the head, which absorbed most of the shot charges. With hundreds of pellets impacting the mouth, nose, and eyes of a charging bear, it is not hard so see that some of them reached the brain. Closely packed pellets often follow existing wound tracks from a leading pellet, and extend it.
Paul said he never knew what was happening until he heard Frank shoot. He looked up and the bear was going down.
Frank says the pump shotgun was a Remington. This correspondent wonders if it was a Remington model 31, known for its extremely smooth action. The Remington 870 had just come out in 1950. It has a disconnector. Either shotgun is capable of extremely rapid fire.
The detailed accounts of Frank's everyday adventures in the panhandle of Alaska from 1950 to 1960 are inspiring and entertaining.
©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
DEKALB COUNTY, Ga. — A man is dead after police say he tried breaking into a DeKalb County home early Thursday morning.
Investigators interviewed the homeowner, who they say shot and killed the intruder.
One neighbor told Channel 2′s Steve Gehlbach that she heard two loud blasts and detectives said the homeowner used a shotgun.
Shadowgram of bullet traveling at supersonic speed by Settles1
At what velocity does a .22 bullet traveling through the air start producing a miniature sonic boom?
In a recent discussion online, people who have studied the effect noted aircraft start to encounter related turbulence effects long before they reach the speed of sound. In addition, the speed of sound in air varies with the temperature of the air. Thirdly, any lot of ammunition produces a range of velocities. It is exceptional ammunition in which the range from the average to the maximum is less than 25 feet per second (fps). It is not uncommon for .22 LR ammunition to have a maximum velocity of 50 fps above the average for 50 shots.
Part of the theory of a transonic zone is that the production of a super sonic shock wave is not an instantaneous event as a projectile breaks the speed of sound. Turbulence starts producing supersonic effects before a projectile exceeds the speed of sound. Turbulence creates a distribution of waves, some of which are supersonic shock waves, even though the projectile is traveling below the speed of sound.
It was suggested, to avoid the distinctive noise of a "sonic crack" while shooting a .22 fitted with a suppressor, the average speed of .22 ammunition should be less than 1,000 fps.
The experience of this correspondent has been: when a suppressor is being used, the noise of a sonic crack is easily discerned from subsonic muzzle blast. This correspondent has available: a reasonably good chronograph, .22 ammunition which has demonstrated velocity distributions on both sides of the speed of sound; and suppressors. A simple experimental procedure was developed. Shoot 25 rounds of the ammunition through a rifle with a good suppressor.
Record the velocity and subjective properties of the sound associated with each shot, for later analysis.
To make the sonic crack more detectable, the experiment was conducted on a calm day. Large flat surfaces were only a few yards away, to facilitate reflection of sound and to magnify small sonic booms in the ears of the shooter. The temperature was 72 degrees Fahrenheit.
While an instrument was used to measure the velocity, the human ear was used to characterize the sound of the shot. The use of a suppressor is critical. Suppressors significantly diffuse and reduce the muzzle blast. Most of the noise produced by a shot is either from the muzzle blast or from the sonic crack produced by the bullet. Without a suppressor, gases produced by a shot may leave the muzzle at supersonic velocities. With a suppressor, the two sounds are fairly distinctive. The muzzle blast is more spread out and diffuse; the sonic crack is a sharper, distinct sound. This makes detection of the sonic crack easier, as it becomes the major component of the noise of the shot.
25 shots were fired, the velocity of each shot measured, and notes taken on the character of the noise of the shot. Here are the results. There were three clear groupings. Velocities were measured in feet per second:
Group 1, no detectable sonic crack. Velocities of individual shots:
1031, 1036, 1047, 1053, 1058, 1058, 1065, 1071, 1085, 1085, 1092
Group 2, some increase in sound, where a sonic crack was thought to be detected. The effects were much less than the diffuse muzzle blast. Velocities of individual shots:
1095 - hint of increase, 1099 - slight increase, 1101 - hint of snap, 1102 - hint of increase, 1109 - slightly louder, 1109 slightly louder, 1109 - hint of increase.
Group 3, sonic crack clearly detected. Velocities of individual shots:
1114 - yes, 1117 - yes, 1123 - yes, 1126 - yes, 1151 - yes.
The transonic zone effect for .22 LR is real and detectable. One obvious finding was the effect becomes more significant the closer to the speed of sound the projectile is traveling. From 35 fps below the speed of sound to 21 fps below the speed of sound, the sonic crack was detectable, but the magnitude was much less than the sound of the already low muzzle blast. From 16 fps below the speed of sound on up, the sonic crack became the dominant sound of the shot from a suppressed .22 rifle. The sound level increased as the speed of sound was approached. The shot at 1151 fps was noticeably louder than the shot at 1126 fps.
At 72 degrees the speed of sound is within 1-3 fps of 1130 fps. Inside the atmosphere, where humans are comfortable without oxygen gear, pressure has no serious effect on the speed of sound. Humidity has a small effect, accounting for the 1-3 fps variation at sea level and room temperature. Above 20,000 feet, the effect of humidity can double to as much as 7 - 8 fps. Temperature causes much larger variations. The higher the temperature, the greater the speed of sound. At 100 degrees F, the speed of sound is 1158 fps. At 70 degrees it is 1128 fps. At freezing (32 F) it is 1087 fps. At 40 degrees below zero, (both Fahrenheit and Celcius) it is 1004 fps.
The measurements of this quick experiment indicate, for .22 ammunition, if the velocity is kept more than 35 fps below the speed of sound, transonic effects will be difficult to detect. Up to 21 fps below the speed of sound, the effects will be small.
To avoid noise created by transonic effects:
If the temperature is above freezing, the velocity of .22 LR bullets should be kept 21 fps below the speed of sound, or 1087 - 21 = 1066 fps.
If the ammunition demonstrates a max velocity of 50 fps above the average, the average velocity need to be 50 fps less, or 1016. If the maximum for the ammunition lot is only 30 fps above the average, then the average could be 1036.
The obvious solution, as suggested in the online discussion, when sound effects are critical: Keep the average velocity below 1000 fps, and use ammunition which is consistent.
For most shooters, an occasional low level sonic crack will not produce significant effects.
This experiment is simple and easy to do. If the shooter has access to an indoor range, speed of sound effects should be even easier to detect.
In the spirit of scientific inquiry, this correspondent welcomes all efforts to duplicate these results. A chronograph, a .22 with a suppressor, and a quiet place to conduct the experiment are needed. An obvious improvement would be to use someone with excellent hearing to determine sound variations. Please contact AmmoLand with your results. Good record keeping is essential in a scientific endeavor.
©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Baltimore Police detectives have determined a February 7 shooting was justified in an attempted robbery.
According to police, 42-year-old Joseph Garrison attempted to rob a 24-year-old male who used a licensed handgun to shoot and kill Garrison in self-defense.
Posts
All Comments
