Gun Pr0n

45superman's new toy.

Enough is enough.

[The following was posted by me as a comment at SayUncle in response to another comment. I've seen this same sentiment expressed in comments in various other blogs, and couldn't leave it alone anymore. The shooter shall remain nameless.]

-------

"Well you gotta admit they secured the perimeter at Va.Tech. Not one cops got across it before [nameless one] was finished. That’s a hundred percent effective. And they never lost a victim, they found them all."

Straightarrow: Please read the timeline from the report on Virginia Tech. It's available here. Specifically, look at page 7 of the PDF that link takes you to.

"9:45 a.m. The first police officers arrive at Norris Hall, [...] rush to one entrance, then another, and then a third but find all three chained shut. Attempts to shoot open the locks fail." (emphasis added)

and on page 8:

"9:50 a.m. Using a shotgun, police shoot open the ordinary key lock of a fourth entrance to Norris Hall that goes to a machine shop and that could not be chained. The police hear gunshots as they enter the building. They immediately follow the sounds to the second floor."

The news cameras didn't get there until 10-15 minutes into the incident. That's when all the footage of officers outside was filmed. Yes, they were securing the perimeter... BECAUSE OTHER OFFICERS WERE ALREADY INSIDE!

I don't know if you're familiar with Norris Hall, but 5 minutes is about the right amount of time to run around the building to try the main entrances, and then figure out where else you might be able to get inside. The ground floor windows are not an option. They have metal panes, and the windows themselves are very narrow. I doubt a full grown man in a ballistic vest and a gunbelt could squeeze through easily, if at all, and it would be stupid to try when you don't know if the gunman could come into that room while you're halfway through.

I'm sorry if I come off as ranting here, but I've seen this same sentiment in several blog comments over the last few weeks, and I can't let it go unanswered anymore. It pisses me off, because it ascribes cowardice where none exists, because it's WRONG, because it's based on MSM misinformation, and because the facts can be easily checked by anyone interested.

Road Rage + Concealed Carry Permit = NO Shots Fired!

Story here.

The summary is: Lost college student pulls over to check his map. Guy in a Porsche pulls in behind him, gets out of his car and approaches with a baseball bat, yelling about how slow the student was driving. Student takes his Glock out of the glove compartment, gets out of the car with the pistol visible. Man with bat puts his hands up, gets back in his car and drives away.

The student called law enforcement from his parents' home, no charges filed against him.

A perfect and legitimate defensive use of a firearm.

h/t to Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell.

Jury Nullification

Wandering around the web, I stumbled on this thread on jury nullification at Patterico's Pontifications. The best comment on the subject I found there is this one. In part:

Jury nullification is the reason for juries in the first place. Absent that power, there is no reason whatever to involve nonspecialists in evaluating evidence and applying the law.
[...]
The reason juries exist, and are supposed to be made up of the “peers” — social equals — of the defendant, is that the jury has the power to say, “Yes, this was a violation of the law, but the law is an ass in this case. Turn ‘im loose!”
[...]
A jury that cannot nullify is not a jury. It is a panel of incompetent lawyers. Eliminate that power and you have eliminated the guarantee that the jury system offers the accused.

The important part here is "in this case." Jury nullification in one case does not affect any other case - past, present, or (for the most part) future. It applies only to the specific case the jury is deciding. Unlike a circuit court (or higher) decision, it is not binding on any other case, anywhere - even in the same court the next day. The law remains as it was.

It can also be a great tool if the legislature is not paying attention to the people. If enough prosecutions under a bad law are victims of jury nullification, there's a good chance the prosecutors will stop bringing charges under that particular law, because it looks bad if they lose (and that is where it can affect future cases).

Having said all that, there is another important point that needs to be made. Jury nullification is a tool that should be used both sparingly and carefully. It has been used for good (when juries would refuse to convict conductors on the underground railroad) and evil (when juries would refuse to convict klansmen for murders). It still has that potential today, and likely always will.

Note: I know this was an old thread, but I got inspired, and just couldn't leave the subject alone.

Heller, Round 2!

Really, who didn't see this coming?

In a complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court, Dick Heller and two other plaintiffs allege that the city's new gun regulations still violate rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

h/t to David Codrea at The War on Guns.

Xavier Thoughts: An Encounter At Wal-Mart

This was posted back in March, but I just stumbled on it today.

Xavier Thoughts: An Encounter At Wal-Mart

It's a good example of why situational awareness is so important, and how to handle the aftermath of a defensive gun use when no shots are fired and the bad guys leave.

I've also added Xavier Thoughts to the list on the left, once I realized it wasn't there.

New Blog Added

Check out Cowtown Cop.

Thanks to LawDog.

A Missed Point About Heller

I never got around to posting an analysis of DC v. Heller. There have been so many others on the web who have, and have done a better job than I probably could, that I just didn't do it. (And I succumbed to a bit of Heller "burnout" reading so many of them.) But there's one point I've noticed missing from most of those otherwise excellent blog posts. I've mentioned it in a couple of comments, but haven't really seen it anywhere, so here it is:

Heller will eventually lead to a ruling that a state may prohibit either open carry or concealed carry, but not both.

There are two key passages:

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

and:

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon.

DC v. Heller, 554 U. S. ____ (2008), p. 56-57, (PDF p. 59-60)

Heller dealt only with carrying firearms within one's home. However, by so inextricably joining the 2nd Amendment to the right to self-defense, the Court has left the door wide open to a future ruling that some form of carry (open or concealed) must be allowed outside the home as well. This follows from the simple fact that a person's right to self defense does not end when he leaves his home. There is ample case law supporting an individual's right to self defense, and most of it deals with situations where the individual in question is not at his home or place of business.

From this it is simple. If I have the right to self defense outside my home, and that right is "central to the Second Amendment right," then a law restricting my Second Amendment right only to my home cannot be constitutional. I have that right in any place that I have the right to self defense.

A Good Example of Media Bias

Compare these two stories: here at CNN, and here at ABC. They are both about the same thing, but have key differences in language use that change the whole impression given by the story. The key sentences are at the beginning of each story.

From CNN:

A Texas man who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's home was cleared in the shootings Monday by a grand jury.

From ABC:

A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglarizing his neighbor's home won't be going to trial. A grand jury today failed to indict Joe Horn[.]

It may be my own bias, but CNN appears to be trying to be more neutral, or slightly favoring Mr. Horn. ABC is almost blatant in their opinion that he should have been indicted. But don't take my word for it. I encourage everyone to read both stories and judge for themselves.

A news story should use neutral word choices, and present only the facts (but all of the facts), letting the reader decide. Save the opinions for the editorials.

What was Rule 2 again?

I've never had a high opinion of the French military (something about WWII and a house of cards), but this is utter stupidity.

A quick summary: In what appears to have been a simulation/demonstration of a terrorist situation during "open barracks day," where "a crowd of hundreds of visitors [were] watching parachute commandos simulate an assault to free hostages," a soldier in the crowd, playing the part of a terrorist, opened fire on the crowd. This was part of the simulation, and he was using blanks. He then reloaded and fired again, only this time, his second magazine was loaded with live rounds. At least 17 people were injured, including 5 children. At this point they are claiming this was accidental.

There are several points of stupidity here.

1. I don't know how it works in the military (especially the French military), but if I know I'm going to be firing blanks into a crowd, I'm not going to be using any magazine I haven't loaded myself. I want to visually ensure that every single round that goes in those magazines is really, truly, a blank. Then I'm going to mark those magazines in a very distinct, very obvious, and very noticeable way. Something on the order of day-glow orange tape around the entire body of the magazine.

2. When I reload, I'm going to take a moment to look at that fresh magazine. Is it completely wrapped in that same day-glow orange tape? If not, it doesn't get used. If it is, I'm going to look at the first round, which should be visible at the top of the magazine. I'm going to verify it really is a blank by looking at it.* I'm going to look at it twice. If there is any doubt whatsoever that it really is a blank, the magazine doesn't get used. Period.
*(This is assuming that there is a visible difference for blanks that will work with the weapon in question. I've never actually seen one, but not having some visible indication strikes me as incredibly stupid. More so than this particular situation.)

3. I'm not going to be so stupid as to actually point the muzzle of my weapon at any person. Remember Rule 2??!! (Left side of the page, at the top. Read it again. Refresh it in your memory.) Even blanks can kill, in the right circumstances. Remember Brandon Lee? You usually don't realize the right circumstances exist until it's too late. Do you want to kill that child? No? THEN DON'T POINT YOUR GUN AT HIM!!!!!!

I can understand that in military training firing blanks at another soldier may be an acceptable risk. The risk of death or injury from a blank (or an unnoticed live round) is actually pretty low, and the benefits (i.e. training someone to react correctly when someone else is shooting at them) may be worth the risk. But this should never, ever, happen at a simple demonstration, and especially not by firing blanks at civilians or observers. Primary responsibility lies with the soldier who pulled the trigger, but this was a failure at all levels involved in planning and executing this demonstration.

Fortunately, no one was killed by this idiocy.