Mr. Colion Noir has a post up on the thug who was justifiably shot while trying to rob a store and do who knows what to the employees.
You angry, Ms. Relative? I’ll give you angry. Do yourself a favor and when your kin gets out on bail and/or finishes his sentence, keep him locked up in the basement where you can fulfill your own damn responsibility and give him the ‘help’ he needs. Better yet, join him down there in the dungeon and leave anything outside your own domicile to the adults.
I suggest that despicable woman from his family who was interviewed ought go live on a deserted island if she doesn’t like civil society. Coming to the aid of someone in distress is a time honored tradition. To suggest that the guy who fired the shots should have just left the store and let this guy do whatever he wanted to the employees shows what a low-life you are, Ms. Relative. Yes, the guy who shot him absolutely did have the right to shoot him. Not everyone would have had the stones to do that and not hightail it out of there. The thug held a gun to some employees’ heads. That is a credible threat. You initiate that kind of force, then you deserve whatever bad thing happens to you.
Yeah, he needed help, as the arrogant relative said, but unless you take that initiative and isolate him from the rest of society while getting him the help you say he needs, then expect individuals that he poses a threat to to deal with in a way that keeps them alive and healthy. You, as the family have the primary responsibility to get him that help. The public at large deserves to protect themselves and others around them from this thug as they see fit. He’s lucky to be alive and should be grateful to spend some time in the slammer. Message to families with sons like this: you let your son run loose like this when you know he needs help, then this is how he will be dealt with. Individuals will defend themselves and others and/or the State will put him away. Deal.
Had a lively discussion with a friend over last weekend regarding HB822. This is a guy I took shooting for his first time (well, he participated in some reenactments (Revolutionary War or War Between the States, I don’t remember)) several months ago. He is apparently against the bill as he thinks it violates state sovereignty (i.e.: a violation of the 10th Amendment). But he’s from New Jersey, so I can forgive him for not fully grasping what a Constitutional Republic is. After all, being from the Volksrepublik of Massachusetts, it took me a while to really get it. And I’m still learning.
He set up a straw man argument saying that, assuming that a state’s laws are constitutional (a huge and largely incorrect assumption, in this case), then why should states not be able to set up their own rules for carrying a firearm?
My answer to that is that first, any restriction on keeping or bearing arms is unconstitutional, so the argument is moot in this case. However, New Jersey and New York (and really, Maryland, as well, but I don’t hear about them violating FOPA in practice like I do NJ and NY, but they do join NJ and NY in violating my right to bear arms), are also interfering with my right to travel to New Hampshire. His response was “…travel with a weapon.”
Well, I say that even the “weapon” moniker is a distinction without significance. After all, there are a number of things I can use as a weapon. Are you going to allow for states to require that I travel naked, encased in a straight jacket? Heck, even if I acknowledge that the primary purpose of a gun, particularly a handgun, are to repel a threat (i.e.: used as a weapon), is that not the right that the 2nd Amendment acknowledges and guarantees?
So then we went on to discuss the nature of a right. I explained that it is perfectly appropriate for the FedGov to intervene when a state is stomping on individual rights, as it is also appropriate for state or local governments to intervene when the FedGov is harassing the people and eating out their substance. But what it came down to is that we had different opinions on the nature of a human right. He brought up voting rights, but I quickly shot back that that is not a human right, as it is quite irrelevant if there is no government to begin with. The RKBA exists regardless of the existence of any government.
My friend apparently missed the “infringed” part of the 2A. He seemed to believe it was not an infringement for state government to require training or impose other restrictions on a right.
Anyhow, what boggled my mind later, and what I’ll probably ask my friend when I see him next, is this: So you are okay with forcing states to recognize my license to propel a 3000+ lbs. hunk of metal barreling down their highways with up to 15 gallons of liquid explosive? And it kills up to 50% more Americans every year than guns.
All that said, I do agree with the GOA that HB2900 is a much better piece of legislation, partly because it relies on Full Faith and Credit, rather the flawed basis of the Commerce Clause. It also doesn’t leave Vermont in the dust, and if I’m not mistaken, will also allow, for example, MA residents to obtain FL carry permits that allow them to carry in MA.
h/t to Unc for the link to the bamboo weapon article and to Mike for the raw milk article.
I wasn’t sure I wanted to do this. I’ve heard a wide variety of views on how far we should go with respect to civil disobedience regarding conceal-carrying firearms. In my current state of residence, it almost makes no sense to have a conceal carry, given that the penalties for carrying where you are not supposed to are greater than if you have no permit at all and are caught carrying. I’ve been told that it’s only a misdemeanor and if you’ve used it in a self-defense situation, you will likely have any ‘gun charges’ dismissed. No, I am not a lawyer, and haven’t actually asked a lawyer about it, though. So caveat emptor.
But I do visit the VDZ of MA a few times a year. It’s a long drive and I pass through a few other states that are problematic. I can at least transport my equipment through any of them and if any of the JBTs in those states decide to make an example of me, I may be able to slap them down in court with 18 U.S.C 926A.
But due to the draconian, anti-human rights laws in MA, it could involve much more than a short visit to the courthouse should you run afoul of the whims of the faux royalty in that state. So, given my typically three times a year visits up there per year, and the fact that it’s not my state any more, I figured it’s not my battle at the moment. Yes, I know we can all help with battles in other states, but I figure focusing my energies on my current home state and it’s problematic laws as well as laws at the federal level would be the best approach. Don’t want to wind up in a re-education cell in a foreign land. So I’ll obey the statists in MA for now. At least until my few remaining relatives there defect.
I do feel like I’m conceding that MA officials have the authority to allow or deny me the ability to carry my mark. But one relative put it this way:
As for conceding that MA officials “have authority”, I don’t see it that way. I see it as conceding that MA is a communist, totalitarian thug state.
Soothed me at least a little bit.
The brief summary of the process is as follows. Note the first step may change if MA updates its web site. The current phone number for the FRB is (617) 660-4780, but here’s how I got it for posterity:
Click on ‘A-Z Agency List’ under ‘Branches & Departments’
Scroll down and click on ‘Criminal History Systems Board’ (yeah, I know)
Click on ‘Firearms Records Bureau’
Click on ‘Firearms Possession Information’
Click on ‘Non-Residents’
Call number listed on that page to have an application snail-mailed to you.
Get a pair of passport style photos taken. Most Post Offices will do this.
Fill out the application.
Take the fingerprint card and the actual blank license (in triplicate) to your local police department or sheriff’s office. Be sure to call them in advance to see if an appointment is required. Note that one issue I had is that my sheriff’s office no longer had a process for ink fingerprints which is what’s needed for the actual license (just the right index finger). They dug up the old ink fingerprinting equipment just for me, but you may not be as fortuitous.
Draft your reason for ‘all legal purposes.’ I suggest avoiding statements like “It’s my constitutional right!” or “It’s the mark of a free man!”. Either play the game and give a reason that doesn’t rub their immature hoplophobia in their faces, or don’t bother applying. My reason alluded to my elderly mother whom I visit in MA and take on errands and don’t feel I can protected sufficiently due to my own advancing years.
Find an instructor at GOAL and schedule and take your safety course to get your certificate of completion. That’ll likely run you about $100.
Bundle it all up with the $100 fee and send it along.
Note that MA issues Class B licenses that aren’t really LTC licenses, but also issues two types of Class A LTCs, one of which, annoyingly, isn’t really an LTC at all. It’s only an LTC if it says ‘NO RESTRICTIONS’ on it or something else that indicates carrying is okay. Kind of reminds me of an airport I went to recently that has all these signs inside the terminal indicating what you must do to transport firearms on your flight. Yet there’s this huge sign on the road leading to the airport warning drivers that no firearms are allowed on the premises and violators will be prosecuted. Leave it to a bureaucrat. I’d say weirdness like the non-LTC LTC in MA and the conflicting signs at that airport are a good indication that the policy was devised out of pure emotional panic and no rational thought. The cognitive dissonance of the hoplophobes never ceases to amaze.
I have a video collection of presentations that were given as the 2006 (or possibly 2005) Firearms Law and 2nd Amendment Symposium that I grabbed from the NRA ILA web site. In there, Brian Patrick of the University of Toledo makes an allusion to a tidbit of information I hadn’t heard elsewhere (and haven’t heard since). And that is that even before this country reached the sorry state that it is in where so many people get their undies in a bunch at the mere sight of a firearm, that among those that carried guns, concealling a weapon was considered unmanly and it was actually this old gun culture that contributed to legislation prohibiting conceal carry.
Though I haven’t been able to corroborate this claim, I bring that up because I see something coming from the open carry activist as well as something else from the conceal carry activists that both bother me. Not that we can be divided into those neatly segmented groups. Sure, there’s some overlap. But I have heard on more than one occasion, someone from OpenCarry.org make the assertion that “open carry is the right, conceal carry is the privilege”. I would like to know by what authority can someone make the claim that carrying a concealed weapon is not a right. All one has to do is witness this dash cam video of Danladi Moore being harassed by Norfolk Police and listen carefully to what they say to him regarding how harassing they are going to be if even lets the gun get ever-so-slightly covered:
Of course, the officer ignores the fact that Dan has a conceal carry permit. (Though, to be fair, I couldn’t hear if Dan actually informed the officers of that fact.) That, of course, is the point: without the conceal carry permit, he can’t comfortably risk carrying even openly in the face of this abusive, tyrannical police department.
And then there’s the conceal carry crowd. A certain three letter gun rights group frequently sends out surveys to its members asking their views on some gun related issues. One of those questions has got to be one of the most awkward contortions of the English language I’ve seen. It asks if members support “Right to Carry Permits”. Huh? You don’t need a permit to excercise a right. If you are going to advocate for permits, then at least admit that you aren’t acknowledging it as a right. “Conceal Carry Permit” would be more appropriate for what you’re advocating, I believe.
Of all the fighting that this group does for conceal carry, which it is effectively conceding as a privilege, I don’t think I’ve seen any advocating for what OpenCarry.org has been fighting for. Yes, there are only six states that outright prohibit it, but what about fighting for it in those six as well as working to eliminate the ‘anamolous’ states where it’s not prohibited outright, but because of a lack of pre-emption, it’s essentially prohibited. At least OpenCarry.org is honest about their position, erroneous as I believe it is, that they believe open carrying is the right, but concealing is the privilege.
The problem here is that whether you take the OpenCarry.org position or the NRA position, it forces you, if you are honest, to acknowledge that you are conceding that carrying a weapon, concealed or not, is a privilege. The problem lays in the fact that one official’s open carry is another official’s conceal carry. Just look at the despicable position of the current governer of Arizona.
She’s not willing to admit that it is a problem when someone gets arrested for illegally concealing a weapon simply because an officer approaches him from the non-gun side and can’t see the gun on the guy’s other hip. Her response on several occasions has essentially been “get a permit”. In other words in order to excercise the right to carry a firearm openly, which Arizona doesn’t unconstitutionally prohibit (except possibly by prohibiting in certain ‘sensitive’ areas, I don’t know), you need to get a permit to carry concealed or risk an obnoxious LEO hauling you downtown with a pair of nickel braclets.
Arizona is a year round warm climate, but what about seasonal places like the New England states. Ever try carrying openly on the *outside* of a heavy down winter coat? You effectively loose your ability to exercise your right to carry in New Hampshire (i.e.: without a permit) in the winter. Brilliant.
And as far as the NRA’s advocacy for conceal carry, how about at least attempting to push for Vermont style laws (or lack thereof). I haven’t heard a peep from the NRA about possibly pursuing that. Indiana now has lifetime conceal carry permits. Perfect opportunity for the first target area. Note that here I am acknowledging that the grass roots is where it has to start, but it would help to hear something from the leadership of our “leading” gun rights groups.
Let people who feel confident about their holsters, their retention skills, and their tactical awareness carry openly. And for those who would rather not give away an advantage, and can effectively conceal, let them carry concealed. Keep the criminals guessing. So the police are kept guessing, too. Isn’t that already the case? Criminals will conceal and not inform the police that they are concealing. How is forcing someone who has no ill intent to reveal to an officer — under penalty of law — that he is armed going to help him identify those with ill intent and will never reveal to the officer that he is armed (until he engages in his criminal activity and is, hopefully caught, stopped, and, if necessary, put down by either the cop, or an armed citizen)? Same goes for forcing him to get a ‘permit’ to conceal a weapon. The mere presence of a firearm does not put a police officer in danger. If it does, then why does he carry one? The presence of a criminal, on the other hand, who is likely to ignore all laws requiring him to reveal he is criminal (notwithstanding possible 5A infringements), does endanger an officer (not to mention, everyone else).
I’m not naive, by the way, about the current political situation. But remember what people were telling Marion Hammer in Florida when she was lobbying for shall-issue CCW permits in there. They told her it would never happen. And after it passed against all odds, it spread across the country to ~40 states like a brushfire. We’ve got Vermont and Alaska (sort of). Let’s get to work in IN and cause another brushfire.