They say Gunwalker is “an operation that dismantled a major arms trafficking ring that has been called Fast and Furious.” Read the whole sad thing. Their damage control is pathetic. From what we’ve seen so far, there was enough evidence to bust those rounded up and indicted for quite some time now. Why did it take this long to make an actual bust?
Month: March 2011
Special Treatment from Teacher
In what is perhaps, a third grade moment for the Brady folks:
Mr. Skinner’s statement indicates that CDC is placing the NRA in a preferred position by giving it advance notice of firearm-related studies CDC has finances, before those studies are published or otherwise available to the general public. Needless to say, CDC has given the Brady center no such “courtesy” notification of studies before they are published, nor are we aware of any other gun violence prevention organization receiving such notice.
Waaah! We can’t have teacher giving special treatment now, can we? Cry me a river. Their side has enjoyed the upper hand for the better part of two decades. Now they whine that the tables are turned. Get used to it.
More on Bean Bags
Looks like the Department of Homeland Security is responding that border officers also have plenty of lethal firepower available to them:
“When the suspected aliens did not drop their weapons, two Border Patrol Agents deployed ‘less than lethal’ bean bags at the suspected aliens,” Hunter wrote. “At this time, at least one of the suspected aliens fired at the Border Patrol Agents,” striking Terry, Hunter wrote.
The question would be what are the protocols? To me, once the officers noticed that the suspects were carrying rifles, bean bags should have been off the table. No one carries a rifle unless they are anticipating trouble. At that point, they should have been ready to return rifle fire as soon as they announced police presence to the suspects. That they were not is either a problem with training or protocol. Simply saying they had lethal options available to them tells us nothing of what they were trained to do in this situation. That’s the question that needs to be answered.
Gun Show Non-Loophole
I was concerned when I saw the headline here, but it was a legal sale through an FFL. If this says anything about what our gun policy should be, I don’t know what that is. I would expect our opponents to try to exploit this, because he could have purchased this in a private sale, after all.
Don’t Take Beanbags to a Gunfight
Freebie Friday – Leather Goods
It’s not really free, but I got a shareable coupon code from J.W. Hulme today for anyone who might be able to put it to good use. Use the purchase code luck1876 to get $50 off any purchase of $250+.
A few years ago, I bought Sebastian a shell pouch for use when he was shooting trap. It’s beautiful leather, and when I noticed a minor error, the customer service was amazing. They have gun cases, shell bags, and dog collars for all of your sporting needs. They also have luggage (including a carry-on I would love), handbags, and gift items. In the event you’ve been looking for some higher-end quality gifts, I figured I’d give a chance for people to save some money.
ATF Has Some Competition
Gun Owners Stereotypes
Pay Toilets on Airlines
From my FlightAware newsletter, comes this amusing story. This took some planning, and a huge pair of brass balls. You can imagine the types of people who fly with millions of dollars in cash in their luggage. This guy is probably very lucky the police caught him first.
New Language
I can indeed find some new language in this year’s castle doctrine, as opposed to last year, but so far I don’t see anything that should give us cause to withdraw support for the bill or seriously worry ourselves:
(2.3)  An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, WHO IS NOT IN ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii), has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:
The section in all caps is new. For most of us who are carrying firearms legally, this isn’t an issue.
(2.4) Â THE EXCEPTION TO THE DUTY TO RETREAT SET FORTH UNDER PARAGRAPH (2.3) DOES NOT APPLY IF THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE FORCE IS USED IS A PEACE OFFICER ACTING IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AND THE ACTOR USING FORCE KNEW OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE PERSON WAS A PEACE OFFICER.
This is new in this section. Without context it’s hard to explain, but I will try. In last year’s bill, you could not use the presumption set fourth that deadly force is justified against someone unlawfully and forcefully entering your home if that person was a peace officer performing his official duties. In a way it’s kind of redundant, because presumably a peace officer is lawfully entering a home, and if a peace officer were unlawfully entering a home, then that wouldn’t be part of his official duties, would it? This years bill adds that same provision to anywhere you have a legal right to be. My opinion is this is a feel good provision. Obviously a peace officer who’s in the process of, say, unlawfully raping a woman, isn’t “acting in the performance of his official duties.”
(d) Â Definition.–As used in this section, the term “criminal activity” means conduct which is a misdemeanor or felony, is not justifiable under this chapter and is
the proximate cause ofRELATED TO the confrontation between an actor and the person against whom force is used.
You can see where last year’s language was struck and replaced with the language in caps. This is probably the language being talked about by the DA’s association. My guess is they were concerned about the burden of proving proximate cause, rather than just having to prove a relationship between the crime and the need to use deadly force, which is a clearer standard. I don’t seriously object to this change.
The rest of the bill is identical to last years, including the civil immunity provisions. My feeling is the changes promoted by the DA’s association are relatively minor and are a reasonable concession if in return they drop their opposition to the bill. The DA’s association no doubt came to the table because they realized something was likely going to pass this session, and decided it was better to get some minor concessions than continuing to tilt at windmills.
That has probably been why this bill has moved so quickly and been voted on so overwhelmingly. Without the DA association’s objections to ride on, opponents of Castle Doctrine don’t have much political cover for their opposition, so they caved. I think the changes outlined were small concessions to make in order to get this bill to move quickly and get cleanly through the legislature.