2009 – Page 24 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Virginia Homeowner Shoots Fleeing Burglar

UPDATE: Ooops. Wrong Arlington. This is Arlington, WA, not Arlington, VA. My bad. Washington Revised Code self-defense statute justifies homicide here:

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:Â (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; orÂ (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

So it would appear Washington State is pretty similar to Virginia in this respect.

This Arlington man is probably going to trial:

In a police affidavit, Earhart reported that he received an alert on his cell phone Monday that was triggered by his house alarm. He rushed home, saw a man running out and chased him. Earhart told Snohomish County Sheriff’s deputies that his wife’s jewelry was missing and that he had been burglarized before and was frustrated by the crimes.

A few hours later, Earhart again called 911 and told deputies he was looking for the burglar in an area near his home. Neighbors reported hearing shots fired.

On Wednesday, a neighbor called 911 to report finding Rzechula’s body in a nearby creek bed. Rzechula has a criminal history. The jewelry found in his pockets matched what was taken from Earhart’s home.

Earhart has no criminal history. He has a concealed-weapons permit and is a registered gun owner. Records show he was the victim of previous burglaries and thefts.

Virginia, if I recall, is one of the few states that still has self-defense as part of common law rather than as part of statute, meaning it’s an affirmative defense raised in court. Virginia’s court cases show that deadly force may not be used or threatened in defense of property. It may be used, under Virginia law, “to save life or limb, or prevent a great crime, or to accomplish a necessary public duty.”

Hopefully Mr. Earhart has sufficient reason to fear for his life, and has retained a good attorney, but I suspect proving his innocence is going to be very costly for him. It is never a wise idea to employ deadly force in the protection of property. It’s almost guaranteed that you will be forced to explain your actions to a jury, which is a position one never wants to find themselves in.

State Legislator Brief

There is a brief for state legislators too, and the number is actually quite large. If your state legislator is on here, be sure to thank them. If they aren’t, be sure to let them know you wish they had signed on to the brief.

My understanding is the timing on this was tight, but they should hear from people regardless so they know what’s important to us. Just understand there are some good legislators that didn’t get their names on here because of the tight timeline. It doesn’t mean they are turning Gillibrand on us.

Attorneys General Brief

Thirty Eight state Attorneys General have signed on to a brief as well. Pennsylvania is included, so kudos to Tom Corbett for signing on. The states that are missing out on the fun are:

California
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
Vermont

Not bad at all. But I’m disappointed in Oregon, Vermont, Iowa and Delaware. For states that don’t have bad gun laws, they aren’t performing as well as I think we should expect them to.

NRA Announced Bipartisan Congressional Amicus

Very good news for the McDonald case:

An overwhelming, bipartisan majority of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have signed anÂ amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief supporting the NRAâ€™s position that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. TheÂ amicus brief, bearing the signatures ofÂ 251 Members of CongressÂ and 58Â Senators, was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court today in the case ofÂ McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Enough members of the Pennsylvania delegation signed on, including both our Senators, that it’s easier just to list who didn’t sign on. Those are:

Bob Brady (D, PA-01)
Chaka Fattah (D, PA-02)
Kathleen Dahlkemper (D, PA-03)
Joe Sestak (D, PA-07)
Allyson Schwartz (D, PA-13)
Mike Doyle (D, PA-14)

That’s not bad out of 19 districts (well, not counting the recovery.gov districts). Even my Congressman, Patrick Murphy signed on. Maybe he’s reconsidering his position on Second Amendment rights? I hope so.

UPDATE: Anyone else notice the brief was written by Paul Clement? The Paul Clement who was Bush’s solicitor General who argued against us in the Heller case.

.22 Magnum vs. 5.7x28mm

The Firearms Blog says they aren’t really equivalent. Certainly that’s the case with the full-house round only available to the military, but the civilian rounds are considerably neutered. The SS196SR reports a muzzle velocity of 1650fps fired from a Five-Seven. This round is discontinued though, and has been replaced by the SS197SR round, which 1750fps.

Still, the point they aren’t really equivalent is a good one. That’s still 272 ft/lbs as opposed to 139 ft/lbs for the .22 Magnum. But I have seen other 5.7mm loadings that have even lower muzzle velocity than the SS197SR round, but there are also loadings of 5.7mm that are hotter too. In terms of overall capability, I think Steve is correct to point out the 5.7x28mm outperforms the .22 Magnum. It’s only in considerably neutered loadings does the 5.7x28mm come down close to the .22 WMR.

When So-Called Trolls are Useful

I’ve been asked by a reader to boycott a regular commenter, the infamous anti-gun Mikeb302000. Joining something like this isn’t something I’d take lightly. For those of us who remember the infamous Jadegold, he’s certainly not the first trollish anti-gunner we’ve had around these parts. So I am reluctant to join in such a boycott.

Someone like MikeB won’t change his mind about the issue, but an undecided looking up information on a gun policy they hear about in their own state might come across the very posts where he comments. Refusing to discuss the issues makes him seem like the rational one, regardless of how absurd the comment might be. As an activist, it’s that person I want to truly engage, not MikeB. The chocolate/vanilla argument from Thank You for Smoking at the 6:21 mark is a great example:

“I’m not after you, I’m after them.” Perhaps more importantly to reaching the undecideds both online and in real life is that every once in a while, MikeB does raise a fair concern I’ve heard from those who don’t understand firearms and gun control. It’s always useful to keep your mind sharp for these sometimes unexpected arguments, and if I can learn from him while honing my skills to speak to the middle, then I’ve gained far more than he has by spouting off in his corner of the internet. Even if we all realize we won’t convince MikeB, people who are serious about the issue need to keep their debating skills sharp. Hiding our heads in the sand & living only in an echo chamber is what got us to this place initially. In the past, it was hiding out in the gun clubs and just sitting out of the political game. Nowadays, it is all of that, plus creating new echo chambers online.

So when it is trolling?

I’m not going to argue that MikeB isn’t a troll at all. He does seek attention, particularly to his blog. But what upstart blogger doesn’t want attention? I don’t blame those who simply don’t want to promote him, or acknowledge him. I’m not going to suggest MikeB isn’t trying to play certain angles in hope of comments and links, and it’s up to each blogger whether or not to send him any. But for me, I’ll continue to engage him when he raises useful points. As long as he respects my comment policy, and respects other commenters, he’ll be welcome to post here.

I would suggest that folks consider the anti-gunners here as “useful idiots”. Use their arguments to make sure your skills to engage the undecided are still sharp. Â I worry greatly about our community becoming an echo chamber. There was a time in the blogosphere when we condemned such an attitude. We used to pride ourselves on our openness to debate. I will ignore MikeB when I believe he’s making shoddy arguments, but as they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and even MikeB can raise good points that deserve to be addressed from time to time. Anti-gunners aren’t necessarily a waste of time, even if you’ll never convert them. “I’m not after you, I’m after them.”

Jerry Brown Helps Us Out

He’s pissing off a lot of gun control advocates in his state. Rumor is he’s considering running for governor again. I’m not going to go so far as to say he deserves our support yet, but I have to admit, at this point, it would be hard to do worse than California’s had for the better part of two decades. Jerry Brown would appear to at least be willing to acquiesce to you being armed when the suede-denim secret police come for your uncool niece.

WNYC Article on MAIG

This article shows how folks in one Pennsylvania town got their Mayor out of MAIG, and also gives you an idea of the states that are involved in this dance we are beginning with this new gun control group. Gun control groups are even getting rather bold in their pronouncements:

But after the recent elections, it’s gun control advocates who say they came out ahead. One group, Ceasefire Pennsylvania, says all 12 of the candidates it endorsed won re-election, despite opposition from the NRA. By contrast, gun rights groups couldn’t name any members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns in Pennsylvania who lost re-election.

That’s interesting that they claim that, because NRA did not get involved in any of these local Mayoral election in this past cycle. The only action NRA has taken against MAIG so far is mailings to some towns to inform them that their mayor is a member of a gun control group.

But for gun control advocates, the mayors coalition has become a useful, and well-funded ally. Paul Helmke is the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He says mayors deal directly with victims of crime and police departments, so they have not just the bully pulpit, but moral authority as well.

“I really feel it’s been one of the most significant things to help affect the debate on gun violence prevention in a number of years,” Helmke says.

Hey, any group that gets the Paul Helmke endorsement can’t possibly be a gun control group, right? They see the potential. Let’s just hope other gun owners do before this group starts achieving real legislative victories.

UPDATE: Video here.

More Media Coverage of VPC Google Research

So says the Gainesville Sun. Scroll down to “A deadly license” at the bottom.

According to a study by two gun control advocacy groups, the Violence Policy Center and the Freedom States Alliance, 77 people and eight law enforcement officers have been killed nationwide over two and a half years by concealed weapons license holders. In Florida, 14 people, including two police officers, have died at the hands of license holders.

What they don’t bother mentioning is that Florida issues 657,000 concealed carry licenses, and in 2008 only revoked 643 licenses. That’s a revocation rate of 1/10th of one percent. Overwhelmingly, this is a very law abiding subset of the population. But they won’t mention that. No. Doesn’t fit with the narrative.

Expansion of Lead Ammunition Ban Into Arizona

So reports Scientific American:

This year, the CBD filed a lawsuit to institute a similar ban on federal lands around the Grand Canyon in Arizona, where about a third of the world’s wild California condors live. The CBD argues that the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and Fish & Wildlife Service are violating the Endangered Species Act by allowing the use of toxic lead ammunition in the condor’s protected habitat.

Of course, the big, bad, mean NRA is getting in the way, but they are saying NRA’s science isn’t strong enough:

But is the NRA’s science strong enough? “The science is in on lead in wildlife and other carnivores. There’s no debate,” says the CBD’s Miller. “The only debate is over what makes sense from a policy point of view. There are alternative ammunitions, which are becoming more widely available, and their cost is coming down. Switching from lead is no problem.”

Beyond doubt and debate eh?Â This sounds really really familiar. For anyone wanting to see the research done by Dr. Saba, you can find it here.