Shall Not Be Questioned – Page 627 – The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …

You would do well to steer clear of groups of young males, even if they look relatively benign on approach. I would no longer worry about seeming racist for crossing the street. That’s the sad reality of the City now. For your own safety, you must assume the group’s intentions are poor, and alter your route. If the group follows you, be prepared to defend yourself quickly and violently.

This is not a dangerous neighborhood. These kinds of attacks are happening all over the city in nice areas, and it’s not going to stop until the city either ruthlessly prosecutes the perpetrators, or someone start shooting these hoodlums in self-defense. I don’t give good odds on the former.

UPDATE: Just realized the Fox video is embeddable.

Does Gun Control Save Lives in Riots?

The Boston Globe’s Ben Jacobs ponders:

Compared to similar outbreaks of unrest in the United States, like the 1992 riots in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict, there has been relatively little loss of life. In LA, 53 people died; in the UK, four were dead as of Wednesday afternoon. This likely can be attributed to one major difference between the US and the UK, which is the low level of gun ownership in Britain (35 of the LA victims were killed by gunshot wounds).

How many of those 35 people killed by gunshot wounds in the LA riots deserved it? One of the biggest philosophical differences between us, and people who are repulsed by firearms, is that we accept that some people’s criminal behavior makes it completely justifiable to shoot them. As long as the people killed in a riot were killed because they were flouting law and order, I have no problem with it. Saving lives should not be the measure the civility of dealing with a riot; how quickly law and order is restored and maintained is the measure of civility.

ANJRPC Hires Executive Director

There’s been a lot of buzz around gun circles about the decision of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistols Clubs to hire Scott Bach as a full time Executive Director. Bitter and I know Scott pretty well, and he’s been ANJRPC’s full time executive director for a number of years without being paid anything. At some point, even if you plan well, you need to make a living, and for Scott that would have meant going back to spend more time on his law practice.

New Jersey is not going to make any significant gains legislatively for the foreseeable future. The State Assembly and Senate are too hostile to gun rights, and Chris Christie definitely doesn’t want to take a position on the issue by having to sign or veto legislation. New Jersey’s biggest potential gain is through the Courts, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. It is very important for ANJRPC to keep a competent attorney at their helm, and their Board’s decision to hire Scott is a recognition of that fact. While the pay Scott is receiving is less than he would make practicing law, as far as I’m concerned, any amount is well worth it for a gun rights group involved in Second Amendment lawsuits to not become leaderless, and lose a strong legal mind at this critical time.

Hiding Research on Lead Ammunition

Apparently taxpayers in California paid for a bunch of studies on lead ammunition in California, but the state is refusing to release those studies to the public. What are they afraid of? If the studies support the case for banning lead ammunition, it should be pretty conclusive. Right? Right!?!?

PSH in California

Reason Magazine looks at the debate about Open Carry in California:

The best part of the interview is State Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, who’s sponsoring the bill to ban open carry. “You don’t need a license to carry an unloaded handgun in public, and that’s a loophole!” To him freedom = Â loophole. You can also tell that his main objection to guns is completely aesthetic, given his characterization of carry is taking California back to the past, and not wanting guns in “Main Street California”

Hat Tip to Instapundit

More Interviews

Today is a busy week for interviews as well. Yesterday was phone interview number two for an outfit in New York. It was a monstrously difficult technical interview. We’ll see how I did, but I feel like I got way too tripped up and twisted around. I was too nervous, which makes me fall apart at detailed thinking by rote knowledge. Today is another in-person with a new outfit I was considering consulting work for a few weeks ago. Their problem was easily diagnosed over the phone, but I guess they liked what they heard and decided to bring me in for an interview. This job would be a massive pay cut, given what they told me their budget was. It’s five minutes from home, and would be a cake job. But I’m not all that interested in cake jobs, and while I’m willing to accept a cut in pay, going back to what I made in my mid 20s is not my idea of career development.

One thing that’s frustrating me with all the hope and change is how slow companies move along the interview continuum. Back in the day you could submit your resume Monday, have a phone interview by Wednesday, an in-person by Friday, and except an offer the following week. Companies had to act quickly with tech people because if they didn’t, some other company might snatch them up.

Useful Legal Trivia for Today’s Time

It’s worth noting, given rioting and flash mobs, that under Pennsylvania law:

(1)Â Â The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent such other person from committing suicide, inflicting serious bodily injury upon himself, committing or consummating the commission of a crime involving or threatening bodily injury, damage to or loss of property or a breach of the peace, except that:

(i)Â Â Any limitations imposed by the other provisions of this chapter on the justifiable use of force in self-protection, for the protection of others, the protection of property, the effectuation of an arrest or the prevention of an escape from custody shall apply notwithstanding the criminality of the conduct against which such force is used.

(ii)Â Â The use of deadly force is not in any event justifiable under this subsection unless:

(A)Â Â the actor believes that there is a substantial risk that the person whom he seeks to prevent from committing a crime will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless the commission or the consummation of the crime is prevented and that the use of such force presents no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; or

(B)Â Â the actor believes that the use of such force is necessary to suppress a riot or mutiny after the rioters or mutineers have been ordered to disperse and warned, in any particular manner that the law may require, that such force will be used if they do not obey.

(2)Â Â The justification afforded by this subsection extends to the use of confinement as preventive force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.

Emphasis is mine. I’ve always taken this section to mean that it’s lawful to use deadly force to disperse rioters, provided the law is followed in this case. I don’t know what “any particular manner the law may require” might mean, and it would not surprise me if no one else knows either. Would this mean putting up a sign in front of your store, during a riot, warning that looters will be shot would suffice as legal warning under this statute? This section is in a part of Pennsylvania law outline the use of force in law enforcement, but this particular section does not limit itself to peace officers.

Generally speaking, I wouldn’t suggest treating any mob or riot situation like a free fire zone; escape is the best strategy if possible. But if not, this statute may provide you with more legal protection in the event you have to shoot your way out of a violent mob, and the government decides they don’t like you trying to survive without their good help. It’s good, at least, to know it’s there.

What Works

Of all the times that we’ve talked to politicians, the stories we’ve heard most often about why they end up voting in our favor almost always revolve around a constituent who came up to them in person and made it clear that they vote based on a candidate’s Second Amendment record. It’s simple and shockingly effective for such an easy conversation.

So it comes as no surprise that NRA is now encouraging Iowa voters to get out to the Ames straw poll and ask the candidates about their views on the Second Amendment. The effort includes a radio spot and print ad, so hopefully more than a few voters will follow their advice. Trust me, it works.

What’s Selling in the UK

Kevin has a rundown. Personally, if all I have available to face down an angry mob is a bludgeon, I’m going to be awfully interested in plan B.

The Brady Online Grassroots

I’m so confused by the new strategy of the Brady Campaign when it comes to promoting any grassroots support they can find online. They periodically retweet people who talk about hating gun violence. I get that retweets don’t always equal an endorsement of everything that person has ever tweeted, but I also don’t think it’s a bad idea for an organization to go and look at the last page or two of tweets from anyone they are about to promote on their own channel.

In the post-Peter Hamm era, Brady has been retweeting some interesting folks. They like retweeting folks who use the N word. One of the first people I ever saw them retweet was a blogger who had never before talked about guns or violence issues. Her entire blog was about Jesus and how much she loved Victoria’s Secret panties.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with Jesus or Victoria’s pretty underthings. VS makes some damn fine bras if you ask me. But making that a focus of a blog doesn’t exactly make you a great grassroots outreach target on public policy – unless we’re maybe talking TSA policies that discriminate against women who wear underwires.

Another early retweet came from a woman whose previous musings included her proclamation for enjoying…umm…shall we call it sexual activity of the back door variety? It just seems odd to me that the people they want to promote mix messages of gun control. But that’s not such a weird combination of messages when you consider one of the men they retweeted expressed his disapproval for gun violence in one tweet, yet bragged about how much of a thug he and his buddies were just a few tweets prior. Is Brady embracing the thug lifestyle? It seems of all the odd folks to push on Twitter, that is one with a combination of messages that directly undermines their agenda.

Today’s retweets include a young mother who, just 20 hours prior to their retweet was concerned about her toddler son and how he might be ill. As evidenced by the message Brady shared, she’s concerned about gun violence as well. However, she’s apparently not concerned enough about her own choices since she tweeted just two hours after her son was sick that she was smoking weed. Umm… But that’s okay, the other person they retweeted also talked about using drugs just an hour or so before Brady promoted them. Oh, and she declared that “asian women are fucking evil.”

Again, I realize that retweets of one message don’t mean that you endorse everything the person has ever said. I get that it’s a challenge to find a balance to these issues in a day where no topic is off limits in social media. But you would think that the Brady Campaign would at least filter out anyone who has said anything racist or advocating the use of illegal substances in the last 24 hours or most recent page of tweets. It’s called common sense. And considering they call for common sense in gun control, you’d think they’d demonstrate a little bit of it when developing their media strategy.