“What this would do is expand the Castle Doctrine to outside the home, to a city street, for example, and eliminate the principle of law that we’ve had since English common law: The duty to retreat.â€
As I mentioned in a previous study of English Common Law, the duty to retreat only applied to individuals who had become involved in an affray. Under Common Law, one could use deadly force to stop a felony without having to retreat, so someone trying to rob you, or who had broken into your home by night could be responded to with lethal force without any further qualifications. If Ed Rendell would like to go back to this, I’d have little issue. Many states still use this more traditional standard, such as Virginia.
I had to read the header at the top of the article twice just to make sure I wasn’t imagining things, because it’s that hard to believe the New York Times has written a two page article on the Knife Rights movement without getting completely hysterical. Talks about the success so far in Arizona and New Hampshire of getting knives deregulated and preempted.
If gun control is ridiculous, knife control is ten times so, because most people have more dangerous knives in their kitchen drawer than knives that are typically banned or restricted. Plus, I agree the Second Amendment protects the right to have bladed instruments just as much as it protects the right to have a firearm. It says to keep and bear arms, after all, not keep and bear guns.
At least they would seem to be if you’re the Brady Center. See, the Brady folks have posted their videos of a Very Brady Gala in Los Angeles earlier last month, and it’s quite telling how they think of people who choose to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms:
If you watch it, you’ll notice some choice quotes from TV director, producer, and otherwise vile human being, Steven Levitan. If Levitan even showed up at the station to board the “class” train, it had left long before he got there. First up is Levitan making fun of accidental shootings.
“In my quest for an entertaining speech, no small task given the seriousness of the subject matter, I did a Google search for the following phrase: ‘Man Accidentally Shoots Himself'”
So are people shooting themselves tragedies, or the butt of Brady Center jokes? Make up your mind. I guess they are tragedies when they happen to people who aren’t gun owners, eh? That must be why Levitan, after getting the crowd laughing at various stories of gun owners shooting themselves,
“Sort of funny, but of course not funny at all when these same idiots shoot someone else, except of course, when it was Dick Cheney, that was pretty funny.”
I’m sure the incident with Cheney wasn’t all that funny to Harry Whittington. But hey, Harry had a gun so he got what he deserved right?
“Unlike the gun enthusiasts, who’s simplistic slogans make for great bumper stickers, our arguments are complex.”
Gun control activists are, of course, sophisticated, with complex arguments, Â while we dumb redneck gun owners can’t manage more than a poorly crafted catchword? If there were a hall of fame for people with a smug sense of self-satisfaction, and over inflated estimates of their own intelligence and sophistication, this guy would be Joe DiMaggio.
“”They’ve gotten so stuck on ideology, and so powerful, and lawmakers have become so intimidated, that we’re fast losing the ability to have a sane and rational fact based debate about how to protect the ones we love. So I thank the Brady Center, in standing up for sane gun laws. They’ve made themselves the target of an entire movement, and a target is not something you want to be around those people.”
Because people who’s support and defend the Second Amendment clearly are just itching to shoot people who don’t believe, or don’t want to believe in the right. Levitan might want to reconsider his statement about a rational fact based debate about how to protect the ones we love,” because it’s pretty clear to me which side’s opinions are based on rationality and fact, and it’s not his.
Steven Levitan isn’t just some random Hollywood director and producer that just happen to get put on the speaking list by the Brady Center. He was there to get an award. Maybe the Brady Center couldn’t exercise that much control over the jokes Levitan made on stage, but they sure as heck can control their awards and the material they promote. But what do you expect from an organization that resorts to attacking the defendant in a civil rights case because they failed to make reasonable arguments against it?
If the General Assembly returns next year with a similar proposal to expand the so-called “castle doctrine,” the new governor will be faced with endorsing what Rendell calls a “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality that fails to “protect the sanctity of human life.”
The misguided legislation that Rendell rightly vetoed over the weekend would expand a homeowner’s right from being able to blast away at an intruder to shooting someone if threatened outside a home or vehicle.
Self-defense is one topic where elite opinion is drastically different than what ordinary people think about the subject. That’s one reason this vote was so lopsided. The Inquirer is just going to further distance themselves from their dwindling reader base with positions like this.
For those of you who have the luxury of living in what we refer to as Free America (aka places like New Jersey), you may not realize that our state governments wants to help us control our intake of alcohol. For that reason, we have beer laws that forbid us from buying more than 2 packs at a time – unless that is, you go to a distributor, in which case you’re buying a case at a time. We are also only allowed to buy beer from bars, restaurants, and distributors. Many bars have a “take out” section where you can grab a six pack to take home with you.
Wegmans, the most fabulous grocery store in the world, realized that with cafes in each of their Pennsylvania locations, they could qualify as a restaurant-type establishment for a license to sell beer. Under the law, the PLCB recognized that they did indeed qualify and granted them licenses to sell beer. For the consumer, it’s still not as easy as picking up a pie at Wegmans. See, the beer can’t be sold with your groceries. You have to buy it in a closed off area of the store at separate registers. The only thing it makes any easier is that I don’t technically have to drive anywhere else. It still requires two trips to/from the car and two different transactions. They also don’t have the world’s best selection, though it is certainly better than most takeouts near us.
The Malt Beverage Distributors Association, which represents 450 beer distributors across the state, had challenged Wegmans’ license on a number of grounds.
The group says letting Wegmans sell beer would allow other supermarkets and big retailers to horn in on the beer-selling trade by establishing their own eating areas and applying for licenses to serve beer and sell six-packs.
That, the association warned, could put beer distributorships – many of them small mom-and-pop operations – out of business.
Robert Hoffman, the attorney for the distributors, said the ruling puts them at a competitive disadvantage because supermarkets can offer “a zillion things to get you in the door.”
Hear that sound, Hoffman? That’s the world’s smallest violin.
How dare we consumers not be forced by the legislature and courts to buy from the companies who pay his salary! How dare competitors be allowed to offer more and different products! Boo freakin’ hoo, Hoffman. As a consumer, I think I’ll swing by Wegmans this weekend and pick up a six pack or two, grab a bite from their cafe, and knock my grocery shopping out for the week. Next week, I will also get in touch with my local lawmakers and ask them to ignore your lobby because as voters, we want more choice. Hell, maybe I’ll ask them to just consider disbanding the entire freakin’ system so we can buy as much or as little beer as we want at any damn store we want.
Marsha McCartney, a Dallas volunteer for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said she doesn’t understand why people would buy silencers in the first place.
“It would only be a concern if they were buying them because they are doing something illegal,” she said.
So does this mean Brady would be OK if we could buy suppressors with just a NICS check? It’s been a while since we’ve seen or heard from our old favorite Brady Board member, but I’m glad she seems interested in this idea. Lets face it, suppression of muzzle report is just basic courtesy. You know how nice it would be when shooting an air gun match if we could politely ask firearms shooters on the next line if they could stick a can on that thing so we didn’t have to wear hearing protection? But you can’t do that now because no one wants to bother with the regulations, so they are generally not common. In most European countries, suppressors are about as regulated as pencils.
UPDATE: Our new favorite Brady Board member seems to agree with our old favorite Brady Board member. I’m not honestly sure what the feds thought they were accomplishing by restricting them. They inherently aren’t all that dangerous, and to my knowledge were never that seriously used by criminals (they make the gun much harder to conceal).
Most of what people know about suppressors come from movies, but the fact is, on most firearms, they are just going to make the report of the gun not quite as loud. Most bullets travel faster than the speed of sound, and so some of the crack you hear from a rifle or handgun is the sound of a small sonic boom as the bullet breaks the sound barrier. Even a suppressed .22 is going to make about as much noise as an air gun. Stupid people who do stupid things with guns are going to do those stupid things with or without a can on it, and criminals have pretty limited use for them anyway.
UPDATE: SayUncle has the answer: “Originally restricted to prevent poachers on federal land during the depression.” Can’t have people feeding themselves illegally, I guess.
It used to be in lame duck sessions of any given legislature in this country, that’s when you had to worry about the knives coming out from the anti-gun forces. It was a great time to get a controversial gun control bill through when the consequences has already been decided in the previous election. New Jersey, particularly, is famous for lame duck anti-gun bills. Now it seems that we’re going the opposite direction in Ohio:
One bill, Senate Bill 239, would allow permit holders to carry concealed guns in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. It also would loosen restrictions on how guns must be carried in vehicles. It was opposed by a number of major state law-enforcement associations, but Gov. Ted Strickland said this summer that he would sign it.
The other, Senate Bill 247, would allow people with certain misdemeanor drug convictions to carry guns.
SB 247 is being mischaracterize here, and has more to do with prohibited persons under Ohio law than it does with carry in particular. Currently any drug conviction at all makes you a prohibited person, not just for carry, but for possession as well. This would up the requirement so that the drug conviction would have to be a felony. The bill would still prohibit someone who is an unlawful user or dependent on drugs or alcohol from possessing or carrying a firearm. The bill only gives relief to someone who is denied because they may have had a misdemeanor drug conviction in their past. The bill also changes the application for relief from disability somewhat, presumably to cover someone who may have been adjudicated an addict or drunkard, but who has gotten clean.
But it’s interesting that now we’re running pro-gun stuff in lame duck legislatures rather than the other way around.
I know some people in Madison think the open-carry crowd is a bit off its rocker, but Auric Gold doesn’t seem crazy to me. He’s a nice guy, friendly, smart. And after spending some time with him, I’m convinced he’s a well-trained and responsible gun owner.
[…]
Gold spends what seems, at least to me, an inordinate amount of time preparing to shoot his way out of dangerous situations. Besides going to the range regularly, he practices firing while moving, running and crouched behind barriers. He practices how to react when being assaulted while loved ones are nearby, learning how to push or pull them out of the way while still being able to fire off some shots.
[…]
Perhaps one day, Gold’s training will come in handy, but I doubt it. I’ve traveled the world and walked on streets at night alone in cities around the U.S., Central America and Asia, and never once been accosted. It seems far more likely that both he and I will end up falling victim to a distracted motorist, clogged artery or cancer cells than armed bandits.
I think it’s very difficult for people who are not part of the shooting community to understand carry, but I think the reporter here makes a good faith attempt at trying to. Read the whole thing and decide for yourself. Gold spends a lot of time practicing these scenarios because the guy is an instructor. If you’re an instructor, you have to take it to a much higher level than your average toter if you want to have something you can teach them.
I actually agree with the reporter on the last paragraph. Most of us are in demographics that are highly unlikely to be targets of violent crime. If death were a true fear, I’d be much better off giving up shooting as a hobby, giving up beer and booze, eating better, and spending my weekends hiking through the woods. But the truth is, I think most of us carry because we shoot, and we shoot because it’s fun. Carrying is a consequence of the hobby, rather than the hobby being a consequence of wanting to tote a gun around everywhere. At least I think that’s true for a large majority of toters. No doubt for some, it’s also a political statement.
But what really on an emotional level makes someone say “Well, I know the odds are long that I’m going to need a gun today, but I’ll take one anyway.” I wouldn’t say fear of death, or fear of crime, is the primary motivator. It’s certainly not a paranoid belief that you’ll need the gun. So what is it? I think people who carry have a certain way of looking at themselves and others that is difficult for a person who thinks more collectively to understand.
Gun owners are highly individualistic people, on the whole, and for highly individualistic people, there’s absolutely nothing more unpleasant for them to think about than someone else forcibly taking control of their person, and violating their dignity as an individual. Violating another persons dignity as an individual is the highest crime you can commit to a highly individualistic person. We have difficulty understanding someone who says, and we’ve all heard this, that they’d rather be robbed, raped, etc, than to have to kill another human being, but who will go off on raving diatribes over a criminal like Bernie Madoff. The individualist will see the rapist or mugger as more of a violator than the swindler, because the swindler still had to convince an individual to willingly surrender what was his or hers, whereas the violent criminal subjugates the individual by force, and takes what he wills. Ask yourself what sticks in your craw more, Bernie Madoff or a mugger? I think that’s an interesting exercise in sorting out whether you think like someone who would carry a firearm.
