Tag: open carry

If there isn’t a West Hollywood Militia, there should be.

In the wake of the Islamofacist terror attack in Orlando, pro-gun artwork has been showing up around West Hollywood.

2016_06_15_shootback_285

Those murdered in Orlando were denied the ability to #ShootBack by the gun grabbers. FL law prohibits firearms in any establishment that serves alcohol; even if one has a concealed carry permit and isn’t drinking. The odds are that someone in that club that night had a CCW, but left their gun in the car. How many lives could have been saved by one person shooting back?

The LGBT community, like other minority groups before it, may finally be waking up to the fact that the police cannot be everywhere at all times. If minority groups, particularly ones who have been the subject of pogroms in the past, are to be protected from violence, they will have to be the ones seeing to their own protection. Anti-gun extremists like Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris are doing all they can to put these groups in danger.

News Self-defense

On January 1st of this year, open carry became legal in Texas for those who have a concealed handgun license. The usual suspects made the usual predictions of blood running in the streets. What resulted was a big ol’, Texas-sized yawn.

So now, what continues to mystify me is how anyone anywhere would consider these anti-gun airheads to be experts about anything, let alone firearms. Their ignorance is simply astounding, whether they’re talking about “gun free” zonesconcealed carry, or “assault weapons“. They couldn’t be more consistently wrong if they were trying.

News Self-defense

News Self-defense

thwart

THwôrt
verb
  1. prevent (someone) from accomplishing something

The Los Angeles Times must have a different dictionary. Their story, Man praised as hero for thwarting UC Merced stabbing rampage, details the selfless actions of contractor Byron Price during Faisal Mohammed’s rampage at UC Merced. This is another of those “You keep using that word…” situations.

When Price opened the classroom door, his father said, a professor yelled “No!” and a man rushed toward him with a large hunting knife.

Price told his father he kicked to open the door wider. As the assailant lunged toward him, Price dropped to the ground and lay on his back, shielding his chest and face as he fought with his legs, his father said.

Price was stabbed in the side during the attack. Mohammed went on to severely injure two more people outside the classroom. In total, four were injured. Mohammed would be shot later by responding police officers.

I don’t want you to think that I’m minimizing Price’s bravery. Most people run away from the sounds of danger; he ran toward it. But because of California’s insane laws, neither he nor anyone else who was actually there at the time was able to use a weapon to stop the attack. Like Victoria Soto at Sandy Hook Elementary, the only tool Price had available to protect others was his own flesh. In truth, he wasn’t able, or allowed, to thwart anything.

In this case, the “gun free zone” didn’t cost innocent lives. It did, however, once again cause trauma that will last a lifetime for the victims. Once again, the only one present with a weapon was the killer.

Laws that forbid an effective response to a murderer are simply immoral.

News Self-defense

There are some news stories that are next to impossible to pick apart. What do you write about when a story that appears, at first, to be about poor gun safety is about someone who took proper precautions to prevent an accident?

On December 30, 29-year old Veronica Rutledge was accidentally shot and killed by her 2-year old son while shopping. Initial reports made sound as if she tossed a loaded gun into a shopping bag and headed off to Wal-Mart. That wasn’t the case. Rutledge, a chemical engineer at the Idaho National Laboratory, had her firearm in a purse designed for concealed carry. She was a CWL holder and an experienced shooter. It sounds like she did everything right.

So what went wrong?

Her father-in-law is quoted as saying that “She generally carried on her person”, which I presume to mean that she usually carried “on-body” as opposed to in her purse. He also implied that this was uncomfortable for her, hence the purse.

This brings us to a dilemma that concealed carry permit holders face: How important is comfort? On body carry offers us better accessibility to a weapon as well as better control; it’s “right there” and you know when someone or something is touching it. It’s also uncomfortable having a chunk of metal jabbing you in the side all day long. It’s also human nature to not want to do something that’s uncomfortable. This is one of the things that makes off-body carry attractive. If carrying a firearm is more comfortable, we’re more likely to do it on a daily basis.

Why is this important? Because only carrying sometimes is the same as being unarmed sometimes. (Or, as we Californians who aren’t Hollywood A-listers like to say, “Welcome to my world.”) When things go wrong, a gun and a carry permit aren’t of much use if they’re sitting at home. If off-body carry makes taking your gun with you a daily exercise, then that’s the option you should explore.

There’s also the issue of “printing”. This is where the outline of a concealed firearm is visible through one’s clothing or the gun or holster protrudes from under your clothes. Depending on where you live, this may be illegal. Off-body carry reduces this problem.

On the other hand, off-body carry can leave the weapon outside of your control. If the gun is in your purse, backpack, or briefcase, then the only way to ensure that you always have control over it would be to never let go of that item. Unless you’re like my great grandmother, who maintained a death-grip on her purse, that’s probably not practical.

So now let’s look at the what ifs. What if Mrs. Rutledge only carried on-body? What is that made her carry infrequently? What if she needed the gun one day? What if it was a day when she left it at home? Now let’s back up. What if she always kept the purse on her shoulder? What if lugging the purse and pistol around became the cause of discomfort? What if that caused her to carry infrequently? Now we’re back to “What if she needed the gun one day? What if it was a day when she left it at home?”.

The terrible truth is that we could consume megabytes on other what ifs and never reach a satisfactory conclusion. Sometimes there is no right answer. Kobayashi Maru. Unfortunately, this won’t stop some people from demanding new laws to prevent something that can’t be prevented.

News Safety Self-defense

If only this were a joke…

So take a guess and tell me who said the following. Was it Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin?

“You can get a lot more done with politeness and a weapon than with politeness alone.”

If you guessed that it was the American, you’d be wrong.  Another question: Did Putin or Obama decide that his anti-gun policies need adjustment and that the law-abiding ought to be able to carry concealed firearms? Again, if you guessed the American, you’d be wrong.

Russia has amended its gun laws to make it easier for citizens to carry guns, either concealed or openly. With a homicide rate roughly 4 times that of the US, Putin’s government decided that their people would be better served by allowing them the opportunity to defend themselves against violent crime.

lawinrussia.ru_1 320px-Barack_Obama_shooting

News Self-defense

Legal News Self-defense

Contact Governor Brown TODAY urging him to VETO all anti-gun/anti-hunting bills!

Several, anti-gun/anti-hunting bills are still pending action by Governor Jerry Brown.  Call AND e-mail Governor Brown TODAY urging him to VETO SB 1221, SB 1366, AB 1527, AB 2460 and AB 2333.   Let him know that these bills will only hurt law-abiding gun owners, because they are the only ones who respect and obey the law. These bills will do nothing to reduce California’s crime rate.

Governor Jerry Brown can be reached at 916-445-2841 and by e-mail here. 

Urge Governor Brown to VETO the following bills:

Senate Bill 1221 – Hunting Ban

SB 1221, introduced by state Senator Ted Lieu (D-28), would ban hunting bears and bobcats with dogs.  Hunting with dogs is a tradition that continues across the country.  Many dog breeds with select characteristics for hunting can be traced back for thousands of years.  Seventeen states allow bear hunting with dogs.  The use of hounds for hunting has never been shown to have an adverse impact on wildlife numbers.  Biologists and other wildlife experts determine regulations and bag limits, just as they do with other hunting seasons.

Senate Bill 1366 – Lost and Stolen Reporting of Firearms

SB 1366, introduced by state Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-7), would require every person to report the theft or loss of a firearm he or she owns or possesses to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the theft or loss occurred within 48 hours of the time he or she knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost.  Law-abiding gun owners should not be made a victim twice and punished for theft of their firearm(s).

Assembly Bill 1527 – Open Carry Ban (of unloaded long guns)

AB 1527, introduced by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-44), would expand on last year’s ban on open carrying of an unloaded handgun to also include unloaded rifles and shotguns.

Assembly Bill 2460 – Ban of Law Enforcement Transfer of Firearms

AB 2460, introduced by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-9), would ban law enforcement officers from transferring handguns that are not on California’s approved “roster” to anyone but law enforcement officers.  Currently, California law allows for the transfer of firearms that are not on the approved “roster” to be transferred to law-abiding civilians.  These transfers must go through a licensed firearms dealer and are only transferred when the new civilian owner has passed a criminal background check.

Assembly Bill 2333 – Liability for Negligent Storage of BB Devices

AB 2333, introduced by Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-69), as amended, would expand California’s negligent storage law to any person who knowingly or reasonably should have known that a minor is likely to gain access to a BB device without the permission of the minor’s parents or legal guardian and the minor carries the BB device in a public place.  The definition of “public place” includes a “front yard, driveway, doorway or entrance to a building or dwelling.”  If a minor possesses a “BB device” that is visible from your own private property you and your child would be in violation.  Violators would be subject to a civil penalty and/or community service.

Anti-gun Hunting Legislation Self-defense Shooting sports State

I recall hearing, more than once, that only trained professionals can safely handle firearms. I recall from the same sources, that having armed civilians about during a public shooting, instead of the police only, would lead to innocent bystanders getting shot. I do not specifically recall NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly being one of those sources; though, I think that he would agree with their sentiments. And now we read that Commissioner Kelly has said that NYPD gunfire in the Empire State Building shooting wounded all nine bystanders. Or put another way, nine innocent bystanders got shot by trained professionals.

Now don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that the two officers involved didn’t act in a completely appropriate, professional, and competent manner. They were suddenly thrust into a very dangerous situation with only two options: engage the suspect, despite the crowds of people around them and the risk of injuries in the crowd, or do nothing, and risk having the suspect begin deliberately shooting into the crowd. Shooting with crowds of people around, obviously, risks hitting bystanders either with rounds that miss and strike the victim, rounds that miss, strike something else, and then wound the victim with fragments, or with rounds or fragments that pass through the intended target. Doing nothing, on the other hand, could lead to the officers getting shot thus leaving the perpetrator in command of the scene. They chose the less awful course of action and stopped the suspect.

Now how does this relate to armed civilians in a similar situation? The argument that only trained professionals can safely handle firearms stems from the belief that only trained professionals can safely fire into a crowd and hit the perpetrator and only the perpetrator. When you see that argument in print, it looks patently ridiculous, doesn’t it? It’s an absurd point of view. Those who hold it hope desperately that you won’t look too closely at it because what follows is an equally silly belief; that you are safer waiting for the police to arrive than if someone around you opened fire on the suspect. The equivalent argument would be that the officers at the Empire State Building should have waited for a SWAT team to arrive. But as we’ve seen in places like Norway, Wisconsin,  or Aurora, leaving an armed suspect in control of a scene, even for a few minutes, only leads to more dead and injured innocents. An armed response, any armed response, is better than no response at all.

This isn’t mere speculation from some gun nut. Economists John Lott and William Landes studied the effect of concealed weapons laws on multiple victim shootings. Their study concluded that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons decreases the number and severity of these attacks. But, you might argue, wouldn’t stricter gun laws make the US a more peaceful place like Europe? In fact, John Lott found that Europe experiences more and worse attacks of this sort.

Concealed carry has a dual effect in mass public shootings. One is obvious: The bad guy gets shot. The other is more subtle: disappointment. The shooter usually wishes to go out in a blaze of glory. He intends to revenge himself upon a world that has wronged him. But the last thing he wants is to see his opus interrupted by some yutz with a gun. That would be the world’s final insult to the shooter. This deters the shooter in the first place. Thus having armed citizens about, not just easily identifiable “trained professionals”, makes the public square a safer place.

News Politics Self-defense

Contact Members of the state Assembly Committee on Public Safety!

Firearm season has started in the California Assembly.  Around the same time every year, the California Legislature starts assigning firearm bills to committee.  This year is no different.  The state Assembly Committee on Public Safety is expected to hear two anti-gun bills this Tuesday, March 27 at the State Capitol in room 126 at 9:00 a.m.

Assembly Bill 1527, introduced by anti-gun state Assembly Member Anthony Portantino (D-44), would expand on last year’s ban on open carrying of an unloaded handgun to also include unloaded rifles and shotguns.

Assembly Bill 2182, introduced by state Assembly Member Norma Torres (D-31), would require that a person be arrested if they inadvertently attempt to bring a firearm through an airport TSA checkpoint and ban that person from entering that airport in the future.

Please call AND e-mail members of the state Assembly Committee on Public Safety TODAY and urge them to OPPOSE AB 1527 and AB 2182.  These bills do nothing to prevent crime and are only trying to stop law-abiding gun owners from exercising their Second Amendment rights in California.

Members of the state Assembly Committee on Public Safety:

Tom Ammiano (D-13) – Chairman
To send an e-mail, click here.
(916) 319-2013

Steve Knight (R-36) – Vice Chairman
To send an e-mail, click here.
(916) 319-2036

Gilbert Cedillo (D-45)
To send an e-mail, click here.
(916) 319-2045

Curt Hagman (R-60)
To send an e-mail, click here.
(916) 319-2060

Holly J. Mitchell (D-47)
To send an e-mail, click here.
(916) 319-2047

Nancy Skinner (D-14)
To send an e-mail, click here.
(916) 319-2014

Uncategorized