Category: Carrying / Self-Defense

The Tennessean calls it like it is on restaurant carry.

Brillianter looks at the subject.  I’ve generally only carried an extra magazine in Winter, when they can be easily concealed.  I carry a Glock 19, which has 15 rounds, and figure that should be enough to get through most self-defense scenarios.  In summer, when I carry the Kel-Tec much more than the Glock, I do usually carry one extra magazine in the pocket.  Ideally you’d carry all the same equipment as a police officer, but for civilians that’s not usually possible to do, and remain comfortable, and discreet.  Go have a read.  You can’t possibly carrying everything, but I like Brillianter’s strategy of thinking about what expands your options and capability, and to what degree, and using that information to decide what tradeoffs to make.

NUGUN seems to have attracted some commenters through links from CNN and some other major sites.  I’m honestly not all that interested in fleshing out the usual “gun-free zone” or “would carrying at the gym help,” crap we normally do after incidents like this.  Firearms are not going to be effective in all situations, and in this one, I’m not sure how much of a difference it would or wouldn’t have made.  If I joined a gym, it would be for the pool, and I can promise you I’m not packing a pocket pistol in my swim trunks, nor leaving a pistol unattended in a gym locker.

The guy picked a soft target, and his tactic of switching lights off isn’t one we’ve seen before.  Are you going to shoot at muzzle flash?  How can you be sure of what’s behind it, and that the target hasn’t moved?   I don’t know, this seems to me to be more a situation you’d be better off running like hell for the nearest exit.  Exit lights aren’t switchable in public buildings, so they would be visible.  Based on the fact that the shooter hit something, it would indicate that there was probably some ambient light, so maybe light wasn’t as much of a factor.  Who knows.

My philosophy is to carry where you can.  But it’s not always possible to be armed at all times, and in all circumstances.  At a gym is one of those circumstances being armed is a lot more difficult.  I echo NUGUN’s comments on the utility of pocket pistols, but they have their downsides.

North Dakota is issuing a two tiered permitting system, one that requires training and one that does not.  Presumably the license with the training endorsement will win reciprocity agreements with more states, while the endorsement would not be required to carry in North Dakota itself.

Seems like an interesting idea, but I’m not sure whether it’s a good one.  How many potential reciprocal states would want to deal with the two tiered system?  Will enough people opt for the endorsed license to get reciprocity that the non-training license would be subject to elimination?  Pennsylvania has no training requirement, and has still managed to get reciprocity with about 23 states.  But Minnesota is right next door to North Dakota, and only does reciprocity with states that have similar licensing requirements.  I suspect Minnesota reciprocity might be what this is aimed at.

This has been a long running blog conversation, but it’s been a good one.  Brillianter.com follows up with one more post about the importance of pepper spray, and how it fills a role in potential self-defense scenarios.

There isn’t a “non-deadly force niche”, there are several. Pepper spray fills the niche right before we start striking people because if we can solve the problem at that level we will not have any need to escalate further. […]

Keeping in mind that pepper spray is basically a step above strong language, it is not a suitable handgun replacement. Pepper spray fills an entirely different role than firearms do. The perfect role for pepper spray is reinforcing a verbal command. We can pepper spray belligerents for continuing to approach when told to stop, it would be very hard to justify shooting them.

This makes sense to me, because there’s an entire realm of confrontation up until we have to start thinking about deadly force where pepper spray could come in handy.  Think, for instance, about the proverbial asshole who won’t let it go that you took his parking spot.  He may be aggressive, he may be beligerent, he may not leave you alone despite repeated demands that you do not wish to engage in this conversation.  Even if it comes to blows, if you pull out a deadly weapon, and threaten him with it, and God forbid, use it on him, you’re going to find yourself in a police station explaining to them why your use or threat of deadly force was justified, in which case, you better be able to claim a force disparity.

I don’t think Brillianter is claiming you ought to pepper spray someone who is actually presenting a credible threat to life and limb.  Pepper spray isn’t reliable enough for that.  But there’s plenty of room between force and deadly force, that it could come in handy under many situations you might be able to think up.

Looks like more details are emerging in the Schuylkyll River Trail shooting, and the Montgomery County DA is dropping the most serious charges:

As DePaul tried to get onto the bike trail in Conshohocken around 8:30 p.m., two juveniles on bikes reportedly blocked his path, officials said. Though DePaul was able to get around them, both juveniles followed him, according to the district attorney’s office.

After the teens passed the 27-year-old cyclist, the juveniles collided with each other, and as DePaul rode by them, they “exchanged words” with him.

Soon after, the 17-year-old got back on his BMX bike and chased DePaul, police said. After catching up to him, the teen kicked DePaul, causing him to nearly lose control of his bike and hit a fence, police said.

DePaul admitted that he drew his Keltec .380-caliber handgun and fired six shots in the direction of the teen who had kicked him. One bullet struck and flattened the rear tire of the fleeing bicycle.

The juvenile was about 200 to 250 feet away at the time, authorities said. At the time of the incident, DePaul had a legal permit to carry the weapon.

So, the facts would appear to be that the kids were in the process of trying to rob DePaul of his bicycle, he attempted to flee, and they continued chase, then assaulted him.  He drew a pistol, and they fled.  Still not a clean shoot, but considerably more justifiable than the previous narrative.  In essence, given multiple attackers, he was justified up until the point he fired.  Had they not fled, I would argue the jury should walk him if the DA were bold enough to press charges.

I think this incident has cemented for me the utility of pepper spray, as this incident would be a really good example of a situation that it was useful.  Had he sprayed them instead of fired, he would have been home that night drinking a beer on his patio, thinking about how good it felt to send the punks home crying to mommy, rather than trying to explain to police and DA why the shooting was justified.

MikeB, our token gun control blogger who doesn’t seem to be a paid shill, talks about a challenge to the Senate to take down the metal detectors.  Personally, I would have no problem if with the Senate allowing firearms, but can they constitutionally prohibit them?  He asks:

What’s your opinion? Would you feel unsafe in a highly secure building which disallows weapons? Do you think the same folks who favor guns in national parks and on college campuses would agree to allow concealed carry in the Capitol Building?

Generally speaking, in situations where security is done properly, I don’t feel unsafe having to leave my pistol at the door, though it annoys me when I’m forced to leave it at home or in the car.  Last April, at the Second Amendment Rally in Harrisburg, there were a few guys who lamented being disarmed in the Capitol building.  I generally don’t worry too much about my security in a place crawling with Capitol Police officers, who have a lot more tools at their disposal to deal with situations than I carry anyway.

The constitutional standard for “government buildings,” where the government may prohibit carrying of firearms should be based on the “sensitive” language in Heller, combined with being able to create a reasonably secure facility. For instance, the government may prohibit arms in a court house, because government has a legitimate security concern, and the security afforded at such facilities is a reasonable substitute for personally provided security.

That’s considerably less true if you’re dealing with a washroom at a campground at a National Park, or a remote ranger facility in a National Forest.  It’s also less true at a post office, or some other non-secured government facility like your local Social Security office.  Would the Senate qualify as such a “sensitive” place?  I could see the argument.  It’s been attacked by kooks before.  Does it have controlled entrances with metal detectors?  Check.  Heavily police or security presence?  Check, the Capitol has its own police force.  So yeah, I think the government can constitutionally prohibit people from carrying in the U.S. Capitol building.  The real question is should they have to provide checking facilities?  They do at the Pennsylvania Capitol, as is required by law.  I think there’s a good case to make that they need to, if they are going to restrict the building.

But I don’t think it’s serious to suggest that the Senate banning firearms within the Capitol building is equivalent to the entire state of New Jersey declaring me entirely unworthy of exercising my right to personal defense by carrying the arms of my choice, or New York deciding that I can’t even bring a pistol with me to protect myself at my vacation home in the Adirondacks (if I had one).  The challenge might be smart political rhetoric, but there’s a much better case to be made for restricting arms carried in the U.S. Capitol than, say, the entire state of California.

Self-defense is one of those areas there’s often a fairly significant gap between elite opinion and popular opinion.  That’s no better illustrated than in the comments at the story I linked to previously here.  In fact, I’d be willing to bet the people there being hardest on DePaul are other people who have LTCs who don’t appreciate DePaul’s reckless behavior making the whole community look bad.

But it shows what happens when the authorities don’t take maintaining the peace seriously.  Anyone who frequents the Schuylkill River Trail knows that youths are a common problem.  Most of these problems don’t rise to the level of deadly force, but with cases like this, if the authorities do nothing, that’s often just a matter of time.  Additionally, if problems like this fester, it reduces popular respect for the law, and before too long, juries are going to start letting guys like DePaul walk.

I heard a local attorney tell a story of a guy in my county, who back during the crime wave in the 1980s, popped a guy from his house, who had broken into his shed.  By the Pennsylvania Consolidates Statutes, that’s pretty unambiguously murder, but during the 80s the Bucks County DA declined to bring charges, probably knowing that there wasn’t a jury to be found in the county that would have been in the mood to convict under those circumstances.  Once you can’t find a jury to convict someone for a specific crime, for all intents and purposes the act becomes legal.  If the government fails to maintain public order, populist opinion will typically yeild to the people doing it, often not in pretty ways.  While I am a strong advocate for self-defense, I don’t advocate vigalantism, but that often ends up happening when the state cannot perform its basic functions adequately.