Carrying / Self-Defense – Page 31 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Will This Shut The Gun Control Crowd Up?

Crimes in Virginia bars drops in the wake of liberalizing concealed carry in restaurants, says the Richmond Times-Dispatch. How many times does this have to happen before our opponents concede their ridiculous hysteria over this, and other concealed carry related topics is completely overblown? But they won’t. It would destroy their fragile world view, where law-abiding people with guns is a great danger. No, they will take the single case mentioned here:

One of the few unambiguous cases of a concealed-gun permit holder breaking the law occurred on July 28, 2010 â€” 27 days after the law became active â€” at a deli inÂ York County. In that case, a patron who had been drinking heavily with a gun concealed in his pocket allegedly sexually harassed a femaleÂ waitressÂ and, at one point, placed his hand over his hidden gun soÂ the waitressÂ could see its outline.

After making a commentÂ the waitressÂ construed as a threat, the man left but was stopped a short time later by police. They recovered a .380-caliber pistol from his pants pocket and chargedÂ himÂ with driving under the influence, brandishing a firearm and carrying a concealed weapon.

To which they’ll respond: “See, we told you!”Â They’ve turned into hucksters; people peddling random news stories as proof there’s an aggregate problem, no matter what the actual statistics seem to bear out. The truth is, if the media is covering it, that suggests it’s not a common occurrence to begin with. They will keep up the chicken little routine, and keep being proven wrong again, again, and again. They will keep trying to make those of us who are responsible people responsible for the actions of the irresponsible. This is who they are.

Self-Defense in the UK

Kevin Baker helps clear up a number of misconceptions, and it gets to something I’ve been talking about with Bitter as the riots raged on. Britons do not have access to handguns and semi-automatic firearms, but they do have access, and not terribly difficult access, to shotguns. I would not feel badly armed with a traditional English side-by-side and plenty of buckshot, even in a riot. The problem isn’t that British society has been disarmed by some evil, malevolent force; it chose to disarm itself, and that is the greater problem. You could bring the very same self-defense laws for England and Wales here to the Untied States, and not much would change; juries are still going to acquit people who defend themselves, no matter what the law says.

I’ve been interested to see whether this causes any kind of sea change in British attitudes toward self-defense and weapons generally. I don’t expect the British to ever have the same type of outlook toward this subject as Americans, but a key thing to watch is whether the police are inundated with applications for shotgun certificates and Â firearms certificates. If that’s the case, that will be good evidence that these riots were a wake-up call to the British people, and attitudes may be changing.

Situational Awareness

If you’re going to go to the City of Philadelphia, you have to pay careful attention to your surroundings.

Caught On Tape: Philadelphia Teen Mob Attack: MyFoxPHILLY.com

You would do well to steer clear of groups of young males, even if they look relatively benign on approach. I would no longer worry about seeming racist for crossing the street. That’s the sad reality of the City now. For your own safety, you must assume the group’s intentions are poor, and alter your route. If the group follows you, be prepared to defend yourself quickly and violently.

This is not a dangerous neighborhood. These kinds of attacks are happening all over the city in nice areas, and it’s not going to stop until the city either ruthlessly prosecutes the perpetrators, or someone start shooting these hoodlums in self-defense. I don’t give good odds on the former.

UPDATE: Just realized the Fox video is embeddable.

Useful Legal Trivia for Today’s Time

It’s worth noting, given rioting and flash mobs, that under Pennsylvania law:

(1)Â Â The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent such other person from committing suicide, inflicting serious bodily injury upon himself, committing or consummating the commission of a crime involving or threatening bodily injury, damage to or loss of property or a breach of the peace, except that:

(i)Â Â Any limitations imposed by the other provisions of this chapter on the justifiable use of force in self-protection, for the protection of others, the protection of property, the effectuation of an arrest or the prevention of an escape from custody shall apply notwithstanding the criminality of the conduct against which such force is used.

(ii)Â Â The use of deadly force is not in any event justifiable under this subsection unless:

(A)Â Â the actor believes that there is a substantial risk that the person whom he seeks to prevent from committing a crime will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless the commission or the consummation of the crime is prevented and that the use of such force presents no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; or

(B)Â Â the actor believes that the use of such force is necessary to suppress a riot or mutiny after the rioters or mutineers have been ordered to disperse and warned, in any particular manner that the law may require, that such force will be used if they do not obey.

(2)Â Â The justification afforded by this subsection extends to the use of confinement as preventive force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.

Emphasis is mine. I’ve always taken this section to mean that it’s lawful to use deadly force to disperse rioters, provided the law is followed in this case. I don’t know what “any particular manner the law may require” might mean, and it would not surprise me if no one else knows either. Would this mean putting up a sign in front of your store, during a riot, warning that looters will be shot would suffice as legal warning under this statute? This section is in a part of Pennsylvania law outline the use of force in law enforcement, but this particular section does not limit itself to peace officers.

Generally speaking, I wouldn’t suggest treating any mob or riot situation like a free fire zone; escape is the best strategy if possible. But if not, this statute may provide you with more legal protection in the event you have to shoot your way out of a violent mob, and the government decides they don’t like you trying to survive without their good help. It’s good, at least, to know it’s there.

What’s Selling in the UK

Kevin has a rundown. Personally, if all I have available to face down an angry mob is a bludgeon, I’m going to be awfully interested in plan B.

Castle Doctrine Explained

State Rep. Tim Mahoney explains castle doctrine in PA, which goes into effect August 27th. I’m glad he’s doing this, if only because of the amount of hysteria and misinformation surrounding this subject. Now that it’s a done deal, I would hope the media takes some measures to explain the law to people. It’s important that people understand the justifiable use of deadly force, and what the law actually means, without all the hysteria.

Holding off Flash Mobs

Miguel has a video of a guy who held off a flash mob with a World War II era Mosin-Nagant rifle. The news briefly shows a picture of the guy’s house, which pretty clearly advertises that this is the kind of guy who is going to shoot you if you mess with him. I guess flash mobs aren’t all that collectively smart. Personally, if I was going to hold off a violent mob with a Mosin-Nagant rifle, I’d at least fix bayonets. Close combat is never desirable, but the bayonet is long enough on that rifle I’m not sure it’d be all that close. I’m not sure you’d even need to leave your porch to clear the lawn.

UPDATE: Just noticed he seems to be wearing what looks like a welding apron, while wearing some sort of kilt. I would definitely not have messed with this guy.

Today’s Dilbert

I thought today’s Dilbert cartoon was pretty funny, and on topic for this blog:

Dilbert 7/31/2011

Shelley on Concealing

Shelley at Gun Nuts says:

A lot of people are quick to observe how a gun would not work for concealed carry but seem hesitant to think about how it could. Â With the right holster and the right outfit it is much easier than most people expect to conceal carry full size firearms, much less a compact or smaller.

I’ve carried a Glock 19 pretty much since I’ve been carrying. It’s concealable in Winter, easily. Summer concealment is doable too, but does pretty much rule out the khakis and polo common in offices during summer months. I’ve been able to conceal it with an untucked t-shirt by moving to the 2:00 position (not practical if you’re going to spend any time sitting). I’ve also found looking down, you’re in a much better position to see printing than someone looking at your head on. Always ask someone else if you print. You might think you are when you really aren’t.

Why Notification Laws are Nonsense

I can’t think of a better example, coming out of Ohio, as to why we need to get notification laws repealed,Â than this:

All I have to say is I’m glad they are sticking cameras in patrol cars these days, so the people can see what their employees are doing. I don’t think what we’re witnessing is professional behavior, and that’s being charitable. Given multiple threats of violence, and threats of retaliation, this officer needs to lose his badge. He does not deserve the trust the public has placed in him, and every day he continues to patrol the streets is an outrage.

That said, I do wonder this guy was doing in a seedy section of town with an apparent prostitute, and what would appear to be her pimp, in the back seat. But either way, that’s not really my concern, and it’s likely not illegal to do so.

I ran into a duty to inform law in Texas, when I was stopped, under questionably legal circumstances… apparently for parking suspiciously in a small town. The officer approached, and began to ask a series of questions, which I answered, and before I could get out that I had a gun on me, he asked if I had any weapons, and then I truthfully answered. We went through all the motions, and everything checked out. He only warned me that I was supposed to inform, and was otherwise pleasant and professional. But the fact is, I didn’t really have a chance to inform, at least without going against instinct in that kind of confrontation. I can completely understand why someone would believe following instructions answering questions is the more prudent path. Ohio desperately needs to change its law, and if not to eliminate duty to inform entirely, at least make it only a ticketable offense.

Final lesson in all of this is that when a cop puts you into a situation where it’s becoming apparent there’s suspicion of a crime, exercise your fifth amendment rights. You are under no obligation to talk to the police, and don’t really do yourself any favors by doing so. Let them arrest you, call your attorney, and speak to the police under the advice of counsel. If the police beat or threaten you for not cooperating, fine. You now have the basis for a civil rights lawsuit, and whatever they got out of you is inadmissible. Once it’s apparent you’re not in a typical traffic stop, that’s when you’re in lawyer country. It sucks, but remember that we have a legal system, not a justice system.

UPDATE: Canton police chief has apparently relieved the officer in question pending an investigation. They deserve credit for acting on this.