“Kudos to the Huffington Post for not only covering this issue, but doing so in a balanced way. As I write this the number of self-defense homicides stands at 12, with several other defensive shootings in which the criminal was wounded or not hit. There have been zero cases in which armed citizens were found to have not been justified in shooting, or shot the wrong person. There also have been no cases in which the armed citizen was killed. In the latest incident, two criminals approached a woman getting out of her car and open fire at once, hitting her several times. A CCW permit holder, she pulled her own gun and shot both criminals, forcing them to flee. Her wounds were minor - the criminals wounds were not - they were arrested when they sought treatment. Gun rights advocates are calling this "THE DETROIT REVOLUTION" and are offering high praise to Chief James Craig.”
“Here we are, 6 months after the good Chief's comments. Since January 1st, 10 home invasions have been repulsed by armed Detroit residents, numerous street crimes have been prevented by CCW holders and 7 criminals have been killed in justifiable homicides. Number of armed citizens killed - ZERO. Mistakes made by armed citizens - ZERO. National press coverage has been almost zero. I wonder why.........”
“One thing is clear: This man did not care one bit about public safety. While writing unconstitutional gun control laws (that our governor wisely vetoed for that very reason) he was also making arms deals - because to quote him - "people are going to get what they want (referring to firearms). Was he authoring these laws because he wanted to make more money selling illegal guns?”
Andrew McKenzie on Mar 28, 2014 at 12:42:29
“Honestly, he was authoring these laws because he wanted to get re-elected to office; it's what his constituents like. Re-election is also why he was doing this deal, remember--- campaign money. All that is in the affidavit and mentioned in the article, and it's a pretty cut and dry motivation.”
fjmcm on Mar 27, 2014 at 01:20:42
“Was he authoring these laws because he wanted to make more money selling illegal guns?
“The key to understanding this is that the government has to show a compelling interest in order to regulate a fundamental right such as this. In this case, it is keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. The "actual buyer" question doesn't do this. Background checks do, to some extent.
How far SCOTUS is going to go is unknown - but I am willing to bet that, at the minimum, at least four members of the court (probably more) will rule that, since the government interest is solely to keep prohibited persons from obtaining firearms, the question is unconstitutional - and, furthermore, any transaction conducted through an licensed dealer (with a background check) is a legal transaction for the seller.
If this is the ruling, it could be a ruling that both sides in the gun debate could find value in. On the gun rights side, it could both further clarify the level of protection accorded to the 2nd Amendment right and prevent overzealous prosecutions like this one. (Which is especially unjust given that the DOJ prosecutes less than .4% of prohibited persons who lie on the form - most of whom are felons!) On the gun control side, they could see this ruling as providing a huge incentive for private gun sellers to conduct transfers through dealers - something they really want.”
“From what we can see in the media reports the officer's statements and the witness statement are consistent. One witness warned the kid that he could get shot carrying that fake weapon. He blew him off and a few minutes later he was dead. As for how fast it happened, do you expect the officer to wait until high velocity bullets are headed his way? If this kid had just followed directions and dropped the gun, he would be alive.
FBI involvement is a very good thing, but chances are at the end of it, these officers will be cleared. Why? Because these facts are known at this point:
1) The orange tip had been removed from this airsoft gun
2) The airsoft gun is nearly identical to a real AK47
3) The subject turned towards the officers, pointing the gun at them.
4) Had the been faced with a real AK47 - which is what they thought they were faced with - they were massively out gunned.
5) The age of the subject has no bearing on his ability to kill the officers
There are no winners in this - only losers. It is a huge tragic accident, caused by whoever modified the airsoft gun to make it look real and a kid who thoughtlessly carried it down the street and then likely failed to follow the cops orders to drop it, and instead turn towards them. Everyone involved in this needs our prayers.”
loki3640 on Oct 29, 2013 at 23:27:52
“yup, that's about it! bad choices with deadly results!”
John Gabriszeski on Oct 29, 2013 at 23:27:29
“You were there you have al the facts!!!! Key words MEDIA REPORTS, they give the official version of the Police, the brotherhood of Police cover for their own welcome to the real world!!
He was training a new officer, had to show him how it is done, I had the experience of watching a police shooting close up, a man was treating himself in a trailer next door to a friends house a State Police was outside on the deck the man had a knife at his own throat, the Officer said drop the knife , he did not, instead said stay away from me , the officer fired 6 times, official ruling justifiable killing I disagree! The mans Father called Police because his was threating to Kill himself, he regrets that call to this day!!”
turkeyhunter1960 on Oct 29, 2013 at 23:23:02
2. Sort of. Clear plastic receiver with big orange sticker.
3. The police report says "begin to" not turned. The gun was never even close to pointed at them or the police would have made this crystal clear.
4. The deputies would have been dead before they got out of the car. Why did they approach to within 30' in their car if they really felt there was a threat? This needs to be asked.
Deputies chose to engage the way they did, from behind. They failed to declare themselves police, yell at his back once, shoot him as he "begins" to turn to see who is yelling.
They have a lot to explain.”
marind on Oct 29, 2013 at 23:01:22
“I know very little of the details of this case, but if these are the facts, you speak sense.
But what about the "toy" manufacturer? How in hell is a company allowed to sell something that looks like a real AK-47? From time to time you hear about kids with toy guns being killed by cops because it was hard to tell the real from the toy. Incredibly irresponsible - both the parents that buy them and the companies that make them.”
“The only way anything is going to pass both the Senate and the House is if the NRA signs on to it. The good news for those who want expanded background check is that it is do-able. Gun control advocates need to realize that the days of ever increasing gun control is over. Gun rights groups are too big and powerful and have won too many victories in the courts.
Sen. Joe Manchin's bill could gain NRA support TOMORROW if it contained provisions that would be viewed as a significant win for gun rights. Here are a couple that the NRA would be unable to resist:
1) A federal preemption of all laws regarding the sale, ownership, possession of firearms and the transportation of unloaded firearms. Gun control advocates frequently point out that tighter laws in states like NY are defeated by less restrictive laws in other states. OK, so if we are going to increase background checks, let's make our laws uniform throughout the nation. This would be a huge win for gun rights in many states and a huge win for gun control federally.
2) Nation wide CCW permit reciprocity. This has been at the top of the NRA's list for years. Offering this would be a smart move because the courts are likely to order this within a few years - just ask Illinois.”
firstsocialist on May 7, 2013 at 16:34:03
“Um, I don't remember voting for the NRA for any political office, who the hell says they get a voice in my government. My government is a “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” So take your pathetic little club of sick paranoids and go to some other country, we don't want you here.”
“Readers should know that many clergy are standing up for the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. As an Ordained Minister, I have started "Clergy in Support of the 2nd Amendment".
In short, every American should be afraid when government simply ignores the Bill of Rights. If the 2nd Amendment can be ignored (which is EXACTLY what many states are doing), the so can the 1st Amendment - something we all care about. The only way to exceed what the 2nd Amendment allows (and yes, it does allow for some gun control laws) without undermining the whole Bill of Rights is to repeal or amend it.
“My take on this is that Sarah Palin simply was not an orthodox Republican. Very much anti-corruption, slow to trust big business, too pro-environment and too pro-tea party. The next one to go down will be Herman Cain. His ideas on taxes threaten too many people.”
jennnn10 on Mar 5, 2013 at 23:37:43
“They're both done. No question. They have been since last year.”
“The measure with the best chance to pass, and the measure that has the most potential to accomplish something is universal background checks. The problem he is that the background check system we have is not being enforced. Under the Bush DOJ (2007 stats) a felon or person under a restraining order who attempts to illegally purchase a firearm at a dealer had a 1 in 300 chance of being prosecuted. Reports are this is down 40% under the Obama DOJ. So yes, the person does not get the gun - but the remain free to go out and get one on the back market. In addition, there are huge problems with the database that BOTH SIDES in the gun control debate want to get fixed.
“It looks like the gun control debate will focus on three measures:
1) A new Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)
2) A ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds
3) Universal background checks
The AWB is the least likely to pass and the most likely accomplish absolutely nothing if it does. It is also the most likely of the three to run into constitutional problems. It is highly unlikely that SCOTUS will allow a ban on a firearm used in well under 3% of murders (less than bare hands) when they struck down a ban on handguns - the most commonly used murder weapon. I urge everyone to take a moment and read this post on the AWB, it will help you understand why gun owners are opposed: http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-virtually-all-gun-owners-oppose-ban.html
Next there is the issue of magazine restrictions. This had a much better chance of passing before NY passed a 7 round limit. This has validated the argument that once a limit is passed it will be lowered until it severely impacts the functionality of the firearm. This measure - with a ten round limit would accomplish little to nothing because magazines can be changed out so rapidly. A ten round limit is likely to pass SCOTUS review, but seven is likely an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights.”
“She is 100% right. The stuff the really want to do have zero chance of passing. Think of it this way: The existence of a "shall issue" concealed carry law is a very good indicator of the states attitude towards gun rights. How many states have these laws (or no permit required)? Forty one out of fifty. This means that 82 senators represent those states. The administration may get some of these senators to vote for a draconian gun laws, but most of these people want to be re-elected. Two to six years from now, this battle will be over - but gun owners will remember, and they vote in large numbers. One of the people likely to be defeated if he backs new gun laws is Senator Harry Reid. All that is need to stop a bill in the Senate is 41 votes, only half of the votes from pro-gun rights states.
Then there is the House. Republicans simply cannot afford to loose any more support. What they can allow through the House is limited.
Then there is the matter of the 2nd Amendment and recent rulings. Read them - chances are most of the proposed laws will be struck down the the Supreme Court because they violate the set forth in these rulings.
So, let's see: Voting for these laws is likely to result in House and Senate members loosing elections right about the time the Supreme Court strikes them down. Why would they ever do that?”
1) Repeal the 2nd Amendment - thanks for being honest about the need to do this in order to push more gun laws. I wish you luck, because you will need it. 13 states can stop the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. 41 states have shall issue concealed carry, a good indicator of support for the 2nd Amendment. Many of these states are "blue". If Dems in these states try to repeal the 2nd Amendment, they won't be blue states for long.
2) The countries with the tightest gun control laws (total bans, as you advocate) are totalitarian states, is this your idea of a civilized society? Really? Countries like China nad North Korea? In reality, a strong case can be made that the tighter the gun control laws are in a given country, the more intrusive and totalitarian its' government.
3) Switzerland, when you count "take home" military guns, has guns in more homes than the US does - and many are full auto machine guns. Finland and Sweden also have very high levels of firearms ownership. Are these countries "uncivilized"?
4) "100,000 gun related deaths" - wow, where in the world did you get that figure? It is pure, B.S. According to the FBI, 8775 homicides were committed with firearms in 2010. Only 358 were committed with rifles of any kind, twice as many (745) were killed with "hands, fists, feet". Good luck banning these!”
“They would be mourning a lot more people had not a citizen with a CCW permit ignored the "no guns allowed" sign. He confronted the shooter, but held his fire because there were innocents behind the shooter in the line of fire. This guy did everything right and after encountering armed resistance, from this citizen - the shooter only shot one more person: Himself.
“Guess what? Teacher who have Utah carry permits have been able to carry in class for almost 15 years. Teacher without permits need authorization from the principle of the school. Number of negative incidents involving permitted teachers carry in schools: Zero. Number of mass shootings in Utah schools: Zero.
Personally, I think it is an insult to teachers - whose ranks include vets, reserve and National Guard members, volunteer firefighters, EMTs, Paramedics and even reserve police officers - to argue that they cannot be trained to defend their students. There are many create ways to accomplish this while keeping parental fears to a minimum - including securing the firearms in quick opening bio-metric controlled safes.
The reality is taught in every active shooter class taught to cops: The homicidal individual will continue to kill until they are faced with armed opposition - then they execute their end game plan, which is usually suicide.
If we are going to look at gun laws - fine, but NONE of the proposed changes would have saved ANY lives in ANY of the recent high profile shootings. We need to look very hard at mental health issues, because there is at least potential that one or more of these massacres could have been prevented.
In contrast, the law of the second gun (as it is frequently called) has been proven over and over - by both police and legally armed citizens. Whatever else we do, let's train and equip willing school personnel to stop”
Jun 3, 2012 at 19:38:29
“The vast majority of crime guns recovered in Mexico DO NOT COME FROM THE US RETAIL MARKET!
1) "Seized AND submitted" - notice that both of these conditions must be met for the firearm to be counted. Mexico only submits about 1/3 of the guns they recover to the US for tracing. Why? Because most of the guns either came from outside the US or were taken from the Mexican government. It is VERY EASY to determine this. So, we are now down to about 33%.
2) '"U.S. sourced" -- manufactured in, or imported into, the U.S., where they were then purchased' - included in this figure is any firearm sold to foreign governments (including Mexico). Many of these guns come from the international black market - of which Central America is a hot spot. In a National Geographic documentary, when asked for proof that guns from US gun shops are flooding his country a Mexican soldier held up a fully automatic m16 complete with a 40mm grenade launcher! Such weapons have been illegal in the US civilian market for many decades - however he pointed to the "Made in USA" markings as proof that American gun shops are the problem.
Why does the ATF - which knows how many guns went to foreign governments - refuse to tell us how many of thee "US guns" came from retail gun shops?”
“Doctor, may I inquire as to what training and expertise you have in the field of gun safety? Gun control groups have nothing to do with "gun safety" - on the other hand the NRA has been teaching gun safety for over 150 years and is the final authority on the subject. It's where police and fish and game agencies get their standards. My concern is simple: What are you going to say when you are sued for the advice you give?
Let's say you convince a single mom who has a gun to protect herself against a stalker that she should get rid of the gun because she's "better off without one". Two weeks later her stalker kills her and her child. Do I have to finish the story?
Lest you think that this is theoretical, one of my kid's doctors thought nothing of berating me for having guns in the house. Her training in gun safety - zero. My training - much more than that. If you want to promote gun safety - great! Hand out literature from the NRA or the state fish and game department. Don't ask about guns - give it out to everyone. It won't hurt the non-gun owners a bit.
As an old paramedic, let me give all doctors some good advice: Unless you have REAL TRAINING in gun safety, it is outside your scope of practice.”
“The questions they refused to hear are somewhat minor, and best left until larger questions have been answered. The huge question the right to carry. At this point, there is a split between appeals courts on this issue and word is that the court is waiting for a "clean" case in which the right to carry by law abiding a law abiding person who applied for a permit and was turned down is uncomplicated. It is significant that after loosing in the 7th Circuit, that state of Illinois chose not to appeal. Now the 9th Circuit has ruled the same way - that there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm for self defense. The state may choose to prohibit concealed carry or open carry and may require permits - but they may not require a "good reason" for the permit beyond simple self defense. This will likely be appealed to the entire 9th Circuit - but if gun rights advocates win that one, it is quite possible that the case will not be appealed to the entire court in order to avoid a ruling that would apply to the whole nation, including the New England states. Next year could see the 9th Circuit case heard by SCOTUS - and a ruling that would extend "shall issue" concealed carry extended to the 7 states where it currently does not exist.”
Penny File on Feb 25, 2014 at 17:37:20
“Too late, NY's "may issue" is on the docket again. Now that there is dissension with other states rulings regardless on how they rule makes it eligible to be heard by SCOTUS.”
ilovemyrights on Feb 25, 2014 at 09:49:38
“If it goes to the 9th en banc, it will be appealed regardless of the verdict and dollars to doughnuts, the Supreme Court will grant certiorari. In any event either Drake or Peruta is going. Either that or the states simply surrender and start issuing as the law intends.”
As for a "meaningful conversation" - the only way that you are going to convince people on my side that you are not out to continually expand gun restrictions until they are all banned is to give us something we really want in exchange for something you really want. The history of gun control laws has been ever increasing restrictions - with compromise meaning that we get to keep some rights - for now. Frankly, since Heller, you have been loosing things to trade with. Do you want universal background checks? Listen to our concerns about enforcement and listen to what we want. Then pick something and offer to support it, if the gun rights groups support you on background checks. Mandatory CCW reciprocity or federal gun law preemption would be great. Preemption would be hard for gun rights groups to pass up because they have many members in states with oppressive gun laws. If criminals can get guns from states with weaker laws, what difference does it make?”
2alago on Dec 26, 2013 at 12:48:59
“Vince, you ALMOST have it...criminals can get guns no matter what the laws are. The states with "weaker" laws argument is gun control 101. California has "strong" laws and Vermont has "weak" laws and yet per-capital violent crime stats tell the real story. Vermont lowest in the Nation, California among the highest. Logical conclusion: Gun Laws have no effect of crime. Emotional conclusion: Criminals are buying their guns in Vermont and bringing them to California therefore we need to fix the "weak laws" in Vermont to make California safer.”
“I read your blog post and agree with you totally with one exception. I am a liberal and a Christian. I see no conflict in being both, I think Christ was, judging by today's standards, very liberal.
I think Phil Robertson was set up by a reporter who wanted to magnify his readership. If Phil had not been asked about these things I doubt we would have heard anything from him. I just can't figure out why people want to force other people to believe as they do or banish them from the public view.”
1) The NRA actually won big this year when Jerry Brown vetoed ALL the top tier gun bills because they violated the 2nd Amendment. Just read the veto messages.
2) The lead ammo ban does not "basically outlaws the use of lead ammunition throughout the Golden State." - it only affects HUNTING lead ammo remains legal for all other purposes. We can continue to use lead ammo for target shooting and defense - and this is the bulk of ammo use.
3) California has a firearm preemption law. This law was recently affirmed by Gov. Brown when he vetoed an exemption for Oakland. The ammo portions of this law may stand, but the firearms storage portions are invalidated by preemption.
4) The primary focus of the NRA was not Sunnyvale - we had much bigger fish to fry in Sacramento.
5) The storage requirement may very well violate the Heller decision - which is why the NRA is bringing suit in Federal court, when they could easily win on preemption. The NRA thinks this is a good case to clarify storage laws in light of Heller.
I hope Sunnyvale is able to pay a huge judgement, along with huge attorney's fees, because they may very well end up paying big time.”
“You are opening yourself to huge liability by giving advice you are not qualified to give - unless, like me, you have actual credentials in firearms safety.
Let me explain just how risky giving this kind of advice to people can be. One of your patients is a young mother who ex is a violent felon. Because he is a very real threat, she obtains a gun and learns how to properly use it. When not on her person, she keeps it in an electronic safe - loaded and ready. She comes in for one of the kids physicals and you tell her that just having a gun in the house puts her kids at risk and that she should get rid of it. She decides that you know best and gets rid of her gun - and tells her family that you are the reason why. Three months later, her ex-husband breaks into the house - and although she called 911, by the time they get there she and her kids are dead.
The family bring suit against you, arguing that you were unqualified to give advice regarding firearms safety. How do you plan to defend yourself - when you likely cannot even name the four basic rules of firearms safety? The answer is simple: YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE.
If doctors are really concerned about firearms safety, get some materials from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the NRA or your local Fish and Game Department. Hand these out.”
“As well as what they consider "locked". Does the actual firearm have to have a lock applied, or is placing it in a locked safe counted as "locked"? Also, defensive firearms are of little use if they are not loaded. Personally. all my guns are secured, but they are not all empty......”
Penny File on Nov 15, 2013 at 19:19:16
“Responsibly secured works for me. Note, no source has been provided. Chalk this up to another junk science, agenda based blog.”
“Excuse me, the number of incidents "caused by guns" is zero. I know you are making a pro-gun rights argument (thank you!), but guns are inanimate objects - these incidents are caused by humans not taking the proper precautions.”