Guns – Page 685 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Situation Makes the Case for Castle Doctrine

There’s a lot of lessons to learn in this case here.

IT WAS just after midnight. Brian Westberry and a woman friend sat frozen in his bedroom, hoping the persistent pounding on the front door of his Northeast Philly home would stop. It didn’t.

Westberry, 24, slipped his licensed .38-caliber revolver into his pants pocket and crept downstairs to open the door.

There stood Gregory Cujdik, 32, who demanded to see “Jen,” his girlfriend. Westberry told him “Jen” didn’t want to see him, and repeatedly ordered Cujdik to leave. When Cujdik refused, Westberry threatened to call police.

” ‘Do it. My family are cops,’ ” Cujdik said, according to Westberry.

What Westberry didn’t know at that early-morning hour of Palm Sunday, April 5, was that Cujdik’s father, Louis, is a retired police veteran and that his two brothers, Jeffrey and Richard, are narcotics officers.

Before Westberry could finish dialing 9-1-1 on his cell phone, Cujdik stepped through the doorway and punched him in the throat, Westberry said.

That’s when Westberry pulled out his gun and Cujdik fled, Westberry told the Daily News.

Before we get into the crux of my argument, I think that Westberry made a critical mistake of confronting Cujdik. he would have been wise to just call the police, and let the police deal with him. Even if the police didn’t charge him, they would at least get him away from the house.Â There’s no good reason to create a situation where deadly force might come into play if that situation doesn’t need to be created. If he breaks down the door, that’s another ball game.

But Westberry was brought up on a host of charges, which were, as the Daily News reports, “felony aggravated assault, possession of an instrument of crime, terroristic threats, simple assault and recklessly endangering another person.” Several of these are bogus, but technically, there is a legal argument that could be made that Westberry wasn’t justified in drawing his firearm. In order to defend against drawing a gun on fists, you’re going to have a claim a force disparity. If you’re an 80 year old woman, and the guy attacking you is a 21 year old man, that’s not going to be difficult. It’s much harder when the situation is two healthy young males.

But yet if a person stepped through my door and punched me in the throat, I have to admit if a gun was all I had in reach, I probably would have shot the guy, which would have left prosecutors open to charging me under PA law. In this case, theyÂ ended up doing the right thing and dropping the charges, but I have to wonder how much of that was knowledge they’d not find a jury that would have convicted Westberry. Castle Doctrine would give homeowners more leeway in defending their homes. I think Westberry exercised poor judgement in answering the door, but he was still the victim. He shouldn’t be victimized twice, one by a criminal, and twice by an overzealous legal system.

Fourth Generation Glock

SayUncle has pictures. I guess the fish gills weren’t popular. I liked them.

More on the Georgia Case

Dave Hardy has some more details on the case in Georgia:

Here’s the rub: if the offense of CCW were worded as “it is unlawful to carry a weapon concealed without a permit,” then lack of a permit is part of the offense, and until there is reason to suspect that, there is no probable cause. But if it is worded as “It is unlawful to carry a weapon concealed. Exception for people having permits,” then concealed carrying is the offense, and sufficient suspicion of that justifies an arrest or detention. Having the permit is a defense, and the officer doesn’t have to rule that out, any more than he has to rule out insanity, justification, etc..

Looking at Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act:

(a)Â Offense defined.–

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.

(2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a valid license under this chapter but carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license and has not committed any other criminal violation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.

So we’re actually different from Georgia in that regard, meaning there’d have to be some reasonable suspicion that you had a firearm and did not have a license, according to Dave’s criteria.

Harry Reid’s Opponent Once Had Brady Endorsement

Apparently Tarkanian, who is one of the leading candidates for the GOP nod in Nevada, was once endorsed by the Brady Campaign. He’s denying this of course, and saying that it was part of a dirty campaign tactic meant to discredit him, since “a Brady call in Nevada is not a positive call.”

Sounds like a lame excuse to me, but it’s interesting that Tarkanian views a previous Brady endorsement as an albatross. As I’ve said before, there are plenty of reasons to dislike Harry Reid on other issues, but gun rights is going to be a problem for us if Reid is defeated and replaced by Dick Durbin.

West Mifflin Latest Law Breaking Municipality

West Mifflin has passed a “Lost and Stolen” ordinance, in defiance of state wide preemption. They are the fourteenth municipality to pass such an ordinance. None of these fourteen municipalities have yet to charge anyone under them, despite the fact that some of them have been in place for a year or more.

If “Lost and Stolen” is such an effective crime fighting tool, why aren’t these municipalities, including the City of Philadelphia, effectively using it for the purposes they claim? Could it be because it’s not effective, and they are merely looking for an issue, any issue, on which the gun control movement can make legislative progress, no matter how absurd?

2010 Stat Books for Silhouette

I just got word that the NRA stat book for 2010 are going to be grey for rifle, and pink for pistol. Pink pistol stat books? Is this a new partnership program?

Swiss Keeping Guns at Home

The Swiss government rejected a proposal to remove military weapons from Swiss homes. But here’s a hint of what the gun control crowd has in store for folks:

Launched in February by the centre-left Social Democratic Party and a number of pacifist organisations, the initiative calls for army weapons to remain in barracks and for a national gun register to be created. It also wants to ban private individuals from buying or owning particularly dangerous guns such as automatic weapons and pump-action shotguns.

Emphasis mine, and I don’t think I need any explanation for why I emphasized it.

More MSM Coverage of MAIG Poll

This time from larger papers, like the LA Times and The Baltimore Sun. Both concentrate on the fact that Luntz is a “republican pollster,” not mentioning that he’s been sanctioned by two public polling associations. Â I’m going to posit that “terror gap” and “gun show loophole” are difficult, if not impossible issues to poll accurately on, since there’s no way to assess a person’s knowledge of the subject being discussed.

Georgia Ruling May Shed Light on Hawkins

We’ve had debates in the past on the topic of Commonwealth v. Hawkins, the Pennsylvania case that held an unsubstantiated call to police of “Man with a Gun” did not amount to RAS to do a Terry stop. In Hawkins, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated:

The Commonwealth takes the radical position that police have a duty toÂ stop and frisk when they receive information from any source that a suspect hasÂ a gun. Since it is not illegal to carry a licensed gun in Pennsylvania, it isÂ difficult to see where this shocking idea originates, notwithstanding theÂ Commonwealth’s fanciful and histrionic references to maniacs who may sprayÂ schoolyards with gunfire and assassins of public figures who may otherwise goÂ undetected. Even if the Constitution of Pennsylvania would permit suchÂ invasive police activity as the Commonwealth proposes — which it does not –Â such activity seems more likely to endanger than to protect the public.Â Unnecessary police intervention, by definition, produces the possibility ofÂ conflict where none need exist.

I believe there was some discussion over at PAFOA that Hawkins could be read so far as to suggest that an officer can’t make a stop to ascertain whether someone carrying concealed has a license. I think Hawkins provides a good case to be made, but it’s not an open and shut thing. A new case in Georgia essentially rules on a very similar subject, where a judge ruled:

After seeing Raissi’s firearms license and driver’s license, the officersÂ ran background checks on Raissi and held him, according to Raissi, for half an hour.Â The officersÂ transported Raissi to a locked area out of the public eye before finally releasing him and returning his firearm and other property.

In the ruling today, Judge ThrashÂ held that merely carrying a concealed firearmÂ justifies such detention and disarmament.Â He wrote in his opinion that “possession of a firearms license is an affirmative defense to, not an element of, the crimes of boarding [MARTA] with a concealed weapon and carrying a concealed weapon.”

I’m not saying it would necessarily go this way in Pennsylvania, in regards to Hawkins, but now we have a federal court essentially saying that a police officer spotting a man concealing a firearm is RAS to detain him until they can confirm his legal status. Georgia’s law is similar to Pennsylvania’s in that it is generally unlawful to carry a concealed firearm. You can carry one under exceptions, one of which is having a License to Carry. Hawkins is an interesting ruling, and certainly a useful tool, but I think gun owners in this state shouldn’t believe they can take it to the bank in every situation.

Thousand Yard Guns

Chris Byrne talks about how to get into 1000 yard shooting without spending a fortune. Well, it sounds like you’ll still spend a lot of money, just because it’s not a cheap sport. It’s something I might be interested in if there were more places to shoot that kind of distance. They are scarce, especially on the east coast.