Carrying / Self-Defense – Page 27 – Shall Not Be Questioned

A Bold Prediction

Jacob thinks Obama will sign HR822 out of political expediency. I think it could happen, but if I had to put money on it, I think he’ll veto. He’s not going to betray a large number of urban Democratic legislators in places like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, and his home state of Hawaii. While a signature might help to make NRA’s opposition to Obama seem more ridiculous, who he’s going to put on the Supreme Court is still going to drive opposition.

So I see Obama’s pressures favoring a veto. While it’s true that the anti-gun people can’t do much to him, he’s going to need urban legislators and the machines they have access to get people turned out to the polls for him. I don’t think he’s going to want to risk that those folks are less than enthusiastic about him headed to the election.

A Handy Map

I have to thank Mother Jones for coming up with this handy map for us, even though the intent of the article it is attached is some good old fashioned fear mongering ahead of the vote on HR822. My state not only allows carry in restaurants, you can have a glass or two of wine with dinner without anyone getting bent out of shape. It’s been that way since 1988 too. While you’re likely to lose your license if you get caught carrying drunk as a skunk, or staggering down main street with a pistol in your hand shooting at the street lamps, generally speaking PA law has treated people like responsible adults. I don’t think we have any serious problems with drunk toters above and beyond other states that do restrict carrying in establishments with liquor licenses, or with very strict laws about drinking.

On Scott Brown & National Concealed Carry

On the eve of a House vote on H.R.822, the national concealed carry law, I have a few random thoughts on Scott Brown’s statement against us on the issue. As a former Massachusetts resident, and as someone who supported his run for the State Senate, it’s a bit disappointing, but it’s far more baffling from a political standpoint.

What He Doesn’t Gain
Typically, the easiest way to figure out why a politician does something is to figure out what he will gain. This may mean the support of constituent groups or access to new campaign donors. But, Sen. Brown seems to ignore the fact that Tom Menino isn’t going to run around campaigning for him in 2012. Gun control groups in Massachusetts won’t suddenly endorse him. He won’t gain any votes for his position because anyone who looks to this as a key vote will choose to back a more extreme anti-gun candidate. I doubt he’ll line up any new donors for his single position on the bill if he won’t even earn their votes for it.

In a best case scenario, he saved himself from direct attacks on this issue. However, it won’t stop Democrats for attacking him for his previous pro-gun votes. Taking this very specific gun policy off the table doesn’t take the entire gun issue off the table, and they will hit him for every remotely positive thing he has ever said or done to support the right to bear arms. In fact, Menino has made 2011 the year of attacking Scott Brown over his support of gun owners. Ever since Brown was elected, there have been discussions about the massive warchests Massachusetts Democrats have been building to boot him from office. In other words, appeasing them on this one issue isn’t going to stop his opponents.

The Very Odd Timing
He wrote a letter to Menino nearly two weeks before a House vote. That might make sense if he served in that chamber. He doesn’t. Given that it’s nearly the end of 2011, we don’t even know if H.R.822 will be on the Senate’s radar in coming months or by the election. In other words, he made a public declaration that gains him nothing in an election as campaign season starts to ramp up before it’s even an issue in the chamber where he actually has a voice and vote. What was the purpose in that?

What Gun Owners Should Do
Make it known that he’s needlessly pissed you off if you’re a Massachusetts voter. Remind him that he needs every vote he can get, and he has now put yours at risk. Remind him that Massachusetts has a very big problem with discretionary issue of the license to even own a firearm to law abiding citizens, so the state can’t be trusted not to abuse the rights of gun owners.

What He Loses
Here’s the thing, Massachusetts gun owners are used to having to make a choice between “actively hates my rights” and “sometimes surprises us with a vote in our favor.” But, with this being the only major issue up before the election, he’s running off gun owners who might have been preparing to volunteer for him or start talking to friends and family about they planned to vote for Scott Brown.

Unlike the frustrations we sometimes face in a state where gun owners always feel safe, many folks in Massachusetts are willing to get involved and help out for a political cause. I remember when some guys would take laptops & printers to their club meetings to get everyone to write up a letter & sign it for a political issue before a big vote. The club leaders would then gather the letters & coordinate to get them to the State House. He could have had that system working on his re-election. Now, there will probably be a few who are a little less inclined to do that in 2012.

The good news is that because this isn’t an actual vote in the Senate, he still has plenty of opportunities to do the right thing so that he doesn’t lose these valuable supporters. We should try to make sure he sees enough support to come around to the right decision.

While the Gun Control Crowd Has Been in Hysterics …

… over the fact that Wisconsin has just become the 41st state to adopt shall-issue…. gun owners have been busy lobbying the Wisconsin legislature to pass Castle Doctrine.

And They Say We’re Fearful

From Eugene Kane, of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

You can’t be flipping anybody off in the age of concealed carry, that’s for sure.

In regards to pedestrian traffic, I’m going to have to start watching for the hunched-over posture that could signal a concealed gun carrier.

Maybe a telltale bump or protrusion under their clothing. Of course, as it gets colder, that’s going to be a lot more difficult to decipher.

Who knows who’s packing heat under those puffy down jackets in the middle of January?

Thankfully, the “No Weapons Allowed in the Building” sign has been posted at my job, which was a great relief for some of us who write the kind of stories that occasionally get the public agitated.

I hate to tell you Mr. Kane, but someone intent on assaulting you has already been carrying without a permit, and that same kind of person is just going to walk right past that sign your employer posted without giving it a second thought.

I also wonder why Eugene Kane is so fearful of his fellow citizens and co-workers. Do you think as soon as you put a gun in someone’s hands they magically turn into murderers? Are people in Minnesota, which has a lower violent crime rate than Wisconsin, less safe because they have allowed shall-issue carry permits for years? What about Iowa, who’s violent crime rate is roughly the same as Wisconsin and also has shall-issue carry?

No, Eugene Kane would prefer to emulate Illinois, which has a dramatically higher violent crime rate. News flash… the criminals don’t follow the law, and don’t get permits. The only people Wisconsin’s law has been disarming are the law abiding.

Is Wisconsin Still There?

Shall-issue Concealed Carry takes effect today, and by the predictions of our opponents, the storm drains and rivers should be running a dark shade of red, and the corpses should be piling up on the sidewalks. I feel for those of you on the other side of the wire. I know it’s rough, but hang in there. Pretty soon those irresponsible and dangerous gun owners will run out of bullets for their shooting spree.

The Madison paper speaks about a change in lifestyle, but otherwise does a pretty decent job of describing the new process. Bishops in Wisconsin are concerned about people bringing weapons into church, and though they won’t force churches to post, they are asking parishioners not to carry in church. The local NBC News station actually covers the topic very well, I think. They report gun sales are way up in Wisconsin, probably as people buy pistols appropriate for concealed carry.

The Guns Will Come Out, Tomorrow

Concealed carry takes effect in Wisconsin tomorrow. My Google alerts have, since the bill was signed into law, been filled with stories of various local political bodies, and fearful businesses and community groups wringing their hands over what this is going to bring. You’d think, given that this has happened in so many other states with relatively little fanfare, people would be able to take an objective look at things, and conclude that there won’t be colander-faced gangs roaming the highways of the Badger State tomorrow trying to steal your “juice.” But hysterical people are going to be hysterical, no matter what the evidence, and anti-gun folks are some of the more hysterical people I’ve run across in politics.

There’s also at least one other aspect of this that ought not be ignored. From a friend in Wisconsin:

WI will cut its Brady score in half next time they bother to count.

And that, friends, is a good enough reason as any to celebrate this Halloween.

When Ninjas Attack

This is pretty funny, I don’t care who you are. For the uninitiated, it’s a parody of this post and comment thread over at TTAG, which has spawned much discussion both at Uncle’s and Caleb’s.

An Illustrating Difference

Our Favorite Brady Board member continues to be a window into the minds of our opponents, and I continue to be struck by the contrast in the different ways we think, and the different ways we perceive the world. This incident is such an example. On the surface, I agree with Joan’s questioning of whether this incident was the wisest of actions, which I think it wasn’t. You certainly won’t see me chasing down armed robbers. Once the immediate danger has passed, he’s a problem for the police.Â But I’m shocked by this from Joan:

Do you shoot to kill at someone who has just robbed a person and injured them while you were watching? The woman in question did not receive serious injuries.

From the article:

Â According to police, a caller to 911 said a woman had just been robbed at gunpoint of her purse and pistol-whipped in the parking lot of the Cub Foods.

Emphasis in both quotes are mine. These two highlighted portions are generally mutually incompatible. I don’t know what Joan thinks a pistol whipping is, but it’s not any different than assaulting someone with a club. That the woman was not seriously injured it just an incredible bit a luck. Pistol whipping someone is quite likely to fracture a jaw, break teeth, and is not unlikely to result in brain trauma or death depending on where the blow occurs.

Now the question is, given that there’s a dead criminal, what is justice? That depends highly on the facts and circumstances. While I don’t think chasing down a criminal to recover property is wise, it’s not illegal. You’re permitted to use force to recover property. In many states, you’re permitted to use force to stop someone who’s committed a felony. If the robber escalated the incident to one of a deadly force encounter, that’s entirely on the fault, both morally and legally, of the robber. If I’m on a jury in this case, and the woman agrees the corpse is the guy that robbed her, I’m going to be very inclined to interpret the facts and circumstances in the citizen’s favor, even if I don’t think what he did was all that prudent.

I think the difference between Joan and I is that I don’t think a man who pistol whips a woman because he wants her purse is worthy to enjoy the same benefits of society as the person outraged enough by the idea to do something about it. Granted, I prefer to see the robber rot in prison after a trial before a fair and impartial jury, but things don’t always work out as cleanly as we would like in life. Unless someone can present some evidence that the citizen chased down the armed robber down and executed him, I’m going to vote to let him walk. The life of an armed robber isn’t worth the risk of sending someone to prison who was trying to do the right thing, and who is otherwise law-abiding.

I have to wonder how much our disagreement is that our opponents believe that all men are equal, whereas the traditional view is that all men are created equal. Actions matter, and when you think it’s OK to beat a woman in the face with a deadly instrument for her purse, pardon me if I decide your actions don’t give your life equal weight to the freedom of someone who is essentially a good, if imprudent person.

On House Clearing

Up-start gun blog “When the Balloon Goes Up” has an interesting example of how caution should be exercised in house clearing. Convention wisdom says this is a job best left to the police. I tend to agree, but I can’t tell you I’ve never been moving around my house with a drawn gun. I think it depends on circumstances. If I know someone is in my home, or there’s pretty strong evidence, I’ll call the police and let them deal with it. But much of the time, the evidence is going to be less than that. I’ll use a few examples from my experiences.

Back when I first put in my lighting system, I had no idea the rings that hold the bulb in untwisted and fell off over time due to expansion and contraction from heating up and cooling. When I hear that sound now, I don’t think anything of it. But let me tell you, the first time you hear a piece of metal fall on a tile floor when you’re upstairs in bed, your first instinct is not that the ring worked its way off your lighting fixture. Gun comes out. I don’t hear any other noises downstairs, so I go to check it out. If I had called the police thinking someone was in my house, I would have been sheepish.

Another situation, I came home to the house door being wide open. I was out with someone else, so my thought was “OK, did we just forget to close the door, or is someone in the house?” I don’t see any evidence of forced entry, but the person I’m with swears they closed the door behind them. Entrance way looks clear, so I go in gun in hand. I hear nothing, so I checked the rooms and closets, not hearing any sounds of someone moving. “OK,” I think, “she probably just forgot the close the door behind her, or didn’t pull it hard enough for the latch to catch, and the wind got it.” Again, another scenario where I didn’t have enough evidence that there was someone in the house to warrant calling the cops.

So I think house clearing is probably something gun owners should think about, because there’s plenty of situations that rank below calling the cops. Absolutely, if you come home, the door is wide open, and the window pane is broken, call the cops and let them do the clearing. But I think everyone has been in situations where something is amiss, but you’re not sure enough to waste public resources, and look like an ass to boot.