Feb 8, 2012
Posted by Sebastian in Carrying / Self-Defense | 1 comment
Miguel caught a bit where CSGV, and their foaming at the mouth supporters, lambasted what looks to be a case of legitimate self-defense by a Florida CWL holder. I have to agree with Uncle that they are not grounded in reality as most people understand it. I do have to admit, it’s kind of fun watching the anti-gun groups get farther and farther out there. We’ll have to see whether the Brady Center comes back to some modicum of reality under their new leadership. Still, the guy who’s next move I worry about is Bloomberg. He has the money, he’s a sharp strategist, and has been full of surprises.
Join the Conversation (1 comment)
Feb 6, 2012
Posted by Sebastian in Carrying / Self-Defense | 14 comments
Lyle notes a problem with OC, namely that the gun can get rusty exposed to the elements. The first gun I ever carried was a Bersa Thunder .380. I carried it for about six months before getting a Glock 19. During those six months the slide started to rust. I have to give Glock credit with their materials and finish; I’ve never found a spec of rust on my Glock 19. I bought a Kel-Tec P-3AT a while back, for moments when Glock carry was just too impractical. That held up well to pocket carry, but once the surface bluing started wearing off, rust rust rust, and it didn’t take that long. With firearms other than the Glock, it’s a constant battle on the carry pieces. I also, for a while, carried a Makarov, and that also experienced rust after a month or so.
Inside pockets and inside waistbands are hot, moist areas. If they weren’t, you wouldn’t have to wash down there regularly, and there wouldn’t be much of a market for Lotramin.
Join the Conversation (14 comments)
Jan 31, 2012
Posted by Sebastian in Carrying / Self-Defense | 19 comments
UPDATE: It looks like all parties, including Piazza, have come to an agreement on this issue.
Just as a follow-up on my linking yesterday to Kevin’s review of Front Sight, a reader from the CalGuns Forum pointed me to this, which shows Piazza, Front Sight’s owner, is throwing his weight behind a highly flawed ballot initiative in California to get concealed carry.
I’ve taken a look at the ballot measure, and it is indeed bad:
(a) The applicant has no history of medically diagnosed mental illness requiring medication or admission into a mental institution.
So depression that an anti-depressant is prescribed for will disqualify you? Years ago they used to institutionalize homosexuals. Is that still disqualifying if you’re a gay old codger and want a permit?
(e) The applicant is not under investigation or indictment for any criminal activities.
Under what circumstances is an investigation disqualifying? If your spouse dies suddenly, the police may investigate you, to determine whether or not there’s foul play involved. They might know foul play isn’t likely, but it’s their job to be sure. Is this a disqualifying investigation?
(c) The applicant has no history of substance abuse.
So a recovering alcoholic on the wagon for years can’t get a license?
(d) The applicant has no history of domestic violence.
What kind of history? What if they were the victim? This whole initiative reeks of someone who doesn’t know how to carefully draft legislation. Plus, I don’t know how ballot measures work in California, but here voters typically only see a summary. In that case, why not be careful and make a good shall-issue bill? It looks to me like this was put together by rank amatures.
I’d note that it also requires training for every renwal, of up to eight hours. I’ll give you one guess why Piazza, who’s training facility is located just a few hours drive from Southern California, is getting behind this. My problem with Front Sight has never been that it’s bad training, my problem is with its proprieter, who’s always, in my opinion, come off as a shameless self-promoter. That’s certainly a crowded field in this issue, but Someone at CalGuns has another theory on why he’s backing this.
The big problem with this initiative, is that we’re screwed whether it passes or fails. If it passes, it will likely moot all the carry cases moving forward in the 9th circuit. We’d then be stuck on arguing the specifics of the measure, rather than California’s restrictive discretionary regime. That’s not a good place to be in. Courts are reluctant to twart legislators, let alone the will of the people, on an issue they are hostile toward to begin with. Ballot measures are also not fixable by the legislature; it takes another ballot measure to adjust language.
If this measure loses, the anti-gun crowd will point to it and say “See, the people have rejected even this modest bill. That proves that they reject the radical NRA agenda.” I should note that if I had to put money on it, I’d put money on it losing. I’d not take a bet, or would bet in favor of a ballot measure on this issue in many parts of the country, but not California. This is doomed, and it’s only going to hurt the movement.
UPDATE: It looks like all parties, including Piazza, have come to an agreement on this issue.
Join the Conversation (19 comments)
Jan 26, 2012
Posted by Sebastian in Carrying / Self-Defense | 17 comments
In this one in Reading, PA, the victim was a 65-year old man. But it didn’t end like the one in Philadelphia:
The man was riding his bicycle about 11 a.m. on the Thun Trail near the Bertolet Fishing Dock in West Reading when the boys knocked him off his bicycle, police said.
Two of the boys were assaulting the man when he pulled a handgun and shot them, police said.
The police arrest everyone, but released the 65-year old victim, and sent the uninjured kid to juvie. I’m going to guess the Berks County District Attorney is going to decline charges in this case, except for the juveniles. This isn’t Philly.
Join the Conversation (17 comments)
Jan 23, 2012
Posted by Sebastian in Carrying / Self-Defense, Philadelphia | 6 comments
Thirdpower has a picture of the Vietnam Veteran who was beat within an inch of his life in Philly (Warning, the picture is graphic). The question for those in the City is whether you want to end up like this, or end up flushing your life savings down the toilet fighting the attempted murder charge that’s sure to come from City prosecutors if you use deadly force on a gang of feral teenagers. I should also note some recent news that Gerald Ung is now facing a civil suit from his attacker. Castle Doctrine should prevent this, but since this attack happened before that law went into effect, I’m not sure that can be grounds for dismissing the suit. Ung’s attacker is also suing some of the bars that served them alcohol, including Eulogy Belgian Tavern, one of my favorite haunts in the City.
The real solution is to avoid Philadelphia. You get your life ruined either way; the only question is whether or not you want to walk away with all your brain cells intact, and without the need to seek major surgery. Unfortunately, we live in a society where no one is responsible for their own actions anymore, and we can hardly tolerate consequences for thuggish behavior if it involves good people defending themselves.
UPDATE: From the article at “Above the Law”:
Good luck getting punitive damages — or any damages at all, for that matter — out of Gerald Ung. As noted above by one of our sources, Ung is presumably judgment proof. His criminal defense lawyer at trial, renowned defense attorney Jack McMahon, won a nice acquittal for him — but it probably cost Ung a pretty penny. As we wrote at the time of the acquittal, “the services of Jack McMahon don’t come cheap. The Ungs easily owe McMahon six figures.”
Ung’s prize for his successful self-defense will be debt up to his eyeballs to Jack McMahon for, quite likely, the rest of his life. I do hope Ung is good at law and becomes a successful attorney. He may have a chance at paying off his debt quickly. For some poor Joe Sixpack who drives a truck for a living, what do you think his options are?
Join the Conversation (6 comments)
Jan 4, 2012
Posted by Bitter in Carrying / Self-Defense | 18 comments
I suspect this Drudge headline is supposed to be controversial: “REPORT: 911 operator tells woman it’s OK to shoot intruder…”
Then, you click on the story. Perhaps it’s because I’m from Oklahoma, but I don’t see anything remotely controversial about the actual report.
McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby’s mouth and called 911.
“I’ve got two guns in my hand — is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?” the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. “I’m here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?”
The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.
“I can’t tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby,” the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.
When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.
In other words, the 911 dispatcher didn’t tell her to kill the intruder, the dispatcher ran through things that could delay the intruders until police arrive, and just told the mom that she could do what she needed to do to protect her baby. And this is worthy of a headline why?
Join the Conversation (18 comments)
Dec 28, 2011
Posted by Sebastian in Carrying / Self-Defense, Pennsylvania | 8 comments
Ironically, it didn’t involve a gun. Instead it involved in someone shooting an arrow at an attacker wielding a club from his porch. To the best of my knowledge, no Cherokee were harmed in this first test of the law.
Join the Conversation (8 comments)
Dec 28, 2011
Posted by Sebastian in Carrying / Self-Defense | 1 comment
When I saw the original New York Times article blasting conceaed carry as a dangerous idea, I kind of dismissed it, because commenting on an anti-gun article from the New York Times is kind of like commenting on a cloudy day in Seattle. But apparently this one was pretty awful. Both Professor Reynolds, who has a roundup of blog reactions, and Professor Kopel, who notes what the Times didn’t tell readers, do a pretty good job of refuting the Times’ shoddy reporting.
I have little doubt the Times is doing this at the behest of King Bloomberg of New York, to create some ammunitino against HR822, which will will open the Big Apple to carry by permits from other states. Every once in a while I think something is “dog bites man”, but it turns out to be a big story. This is one of those occasions.
Join the Conversation (1 comment)
