What Happens When You Meet Violence Head On!

"I just leaned forward and punched him in the forehead with my gun," she said. The man "screamed like a girl and almost dropped his gun" as he ran away, she added." [link]

I don't know her, but she is a wonderful person, and someone I would love to meet. I can just picture him running away. I bet he either left a wet or smelly trail or a combination!

When Seconds Count

"I may get killed with my own gun, but he's gonna have to beat me to death with it, 'cause it's going to be empty." --Clint Smith

Excellent Gun Rights Examiner column today. Go here to read it yourself.

Simple Truth About Concealed Carry

"More guns in the hands of honest people makes society safer, and makes the career choice of the criminal more dangerous. That is obvious to everyone ...except for certain people who wish to do things to you which you would not allow if you were able to effectively resist. Carrying weapons concealed gives the good guy a tactical advantage over the bad guy. If the bad guys are unsure who may be carrying, they are less likely to act. They can't watch everyone all the time." [link]

Very well stated and simply put. There is more of this excellent article, just follow the link.

More About Democrats and Their Fear of Guns

"ORANGE PARK – Got Guns?

That’s what a Clay County Republican Party flier promoting a "2nd Amendment Day" in April asks all who pick it up.

County GOP Chairman Leslie Dougher says the party is reacting to growing concerns among its members that President Barack Obama may try to limit gun ownership, particularly handguns.

Not everyone thinks the idea of increasing gun ownership is a good idea. Any effort to put more guns on the street is wrong headed, says the head of the Clay County Democratic Party.

"There are too many guns," said Thomas Nazworth, Democratic Party chairman. "You’ve already got every right to defend yourself in your home. What is this going to be the wild, wild west where everybody has got sidearms? That is not answer." [link]

Haven't they tried the "wild west" argument in the past? Didn't really pan out for them though did it, considering there is usually a drop in violent crime in states that pass concealed carry laws. I do agree that is not a good idea to put "more guns on the street", they may get run over, you could mar the finish, scratch the wood, put them in contact with corrosive road flotsam and jetsam, etc...

Also, isn't it funny that a lot of gun owners are labeled as "bitter clingers". Yet Democrats have been "bitterly clinging" to this "wild west" argument for years.

Man Saves Wife From Mugger, Yet Police Discourage Fighting Back

"Going to the aid of his wife as she and an armed man struggled over her purse in the parking lot of the Wal-Mart Supercenter in west Little Rock on Monday night, a 63-year-old dentist pulled out a .357-caliber revolver and opened fire, striking the would-be robber in the buttocks, police said Tuesday."

I am just going to warn you. There are some absolutely ridiculous statements by "authorities" that will follow.

"Little Rock police spokesman Sgt. Cassandra Davis said the department generally discourages people from using force to fend off robbers...Instead, Davis said, she would recommend that people cooperate with the robber and “be a good witness,” paying attention to what the robber looks like, remembering what he says and making note of the weapon he uses and the vehicle he drives." [link]

How about we disregard the fact that the mugger here pulled a gun and was pointing it at the man and his wife. He did what any armed person would do (I use this statement, because I have yet to figure out what a gun-grabber would do. I suppose watch their wife get raped and then let themselves get killed) he used cover and fought back.

Things like this always make me think of a pair of Col. Jeff Cooper's quotes: "Fight back! Whenever you are offered violence, fight back! The aggressor does not fear the law, so he must be taught to fear you. Whatever the risk, and at whatever the cost, fight back!"

And

"We continue to be exasperated by the view, apparently gaining momentum in certain circles, that armed robbery is okay as long as nobody gets hurt! The proper solution to armed robbery is a dead robber, on the scene."

CCW Holder Kill's Armed Robber

"Police said a man wearing a ski mask walked into the store at Biscayne Boulevard and 54th Street and demanded money from a clerk. A customer, who has a concealed weapons permit, pulled a gun, said Officer Jeff Giordano, a Miami police spokesman. The customer and robber exchanged fire. The robber was shot dead at the scene." [link]

I wonder just how many lives this man may have just saved?

Federal Appeals Court Rules: Lawmaker Did Not Understand His Own Law?

Yes, you read the title correct. In the following piece and the article it comes from a federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of a law suit based mainly on the grounds that the intent of the law was not fully understood. Surprisingly one of the plaintiffs that wanted to law upheld was the lawmaker who wrote the law himself!?

"News outlets across the country are reporting that a federal appeals court in Atlanta yesterday upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit that sought to stop the City of Atlanta from arresting people carrying firearms in the unsecured areas of Atlanta’s airport...The basis for the judges’ decision is a determination that the new law was not intended to include airports. Ironically, Georgia General Assembly Representative Tim Bearden (R-68), who wrote the new law, is also the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit to enforce it. It is a rare event for the author of a law to be a party arguing in court over what the law means, and it is extremely rare for the court to conclude that the law meant something completely different from what its writer intended...Rep. Bearden still showed visible signs of frustration with the court’s decision. "We write the laws, not judges,". [link]

Sounds to me like another good case for:

The Problem With Concealed Carry Licenses

"A year after he was denied a license to carry a concealed weapon, Exeter resident Dan Garand is taking his case to the state Supreme Court. His hired gun is attorney Penny Dean, a Second Amendment specialist, NRA-certified shooting instructor, hunting safety instructor and graduate of the "Lethal Force Institute. If you can lawfully own a gun, you should be issued a license to carry," said Dean, who hopes to convince the state's highest court that appeals of gun license denials should be heard in superior courts." [link]

Here is my main beef with CCW, CCL, what have you. Of all the states that allow concealed carry only two are doing it correctly (based on the U.S. Constitution). Those would be Alaska and Vermont. In either state if you may "legally" own a firearm then you may automatically carry concealed, no paperwork, now forms, no fees, etc... In other words no infringement on rights. The rest of the states issue their licenses on a "shall issue" basis. This is the loophole part. There is nothing in there that forces whatever entity issues these licenses to issue anybody one, regardless of reason. I know that here in Kentucky you have to get your county sheriff to sign off on an approval for your license. He/she has the choice to either sign and grant your license or not. If they don't like you, your family, the way you look, etc... any reason whatsoever they don't have to issue your license.

Now don't get me wrong it is good that quite a few states are recognizing the right of law abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves in the best manner available to them. However, they should all look into Vermont/Alaska style concealed carry laws.

More Info on Student Suspended for Having a Valid CCW License

"...university officials maintain that state law also gives the public higher education system the right to ban guns from its campuses, regardless of whether gun owners have a permit. With backing from a guns-rights lobbying organization and Republican state legislators, the student filed an appeal of the university's disciplinary decision, arguing that the permit laws should trump the university's view of the issue." [link]

Just some more information on this story that is out there. Please support Mr. Maxwell. He is a Marine Corps Veteran and is a legally licensed to possess a CCW, which he does. Besides I would like to see how "university officials" claim that a university policy trumps state law? You can find campus contacts at this site.

For the first post on this go here.

College Student Suspended Despite Handgun Permit

"A university student disciplinary panel determined Tuesday that 30-year-old Jeffrey L. Maxwell ...a Marine Corps veteran...won't be allowed to re-enroll until a licensed mental health professional notifies the university that he is not a threat to himself or others, the panel concluded. The student must also write a 10-page paper that addresses the impact the possession of weapons on college campuses has on others as well as the importance of following the law." [link]

Several things come to mind here let me first address the issue of forcing someone to get the approval of a "licensed mental health professional" before they can re-enroll in classes for carrying a handgun. What we now have is an attempt to show that not only firearm ownership, but mere possession of a firearm is a mental health issue. The thought of this scares the hell out of me and goes to show the reason GOA raised such a fit about the "Veteran's Disarmament Act".

If I were Mr. Maxwell, I would write the paper though, and in it I would include the text of the 2nd Amendment, some of the Founding Father's ideas about the freedom and the importance of being armed, incidents of armed citizens saving lives and stopping violent criminals, and the importance in understanding the importance between a law and a campus policy. Then I would tell them in the kindest manner possible to go f**k themselves!

I urge my readers to contact the university on Jeffrey Maxwell's behalf (which I will be doing) immediately.

Tennessee: Memphis News Site Publishes Tennessee Concealed Carry Permit Holder List

Got this info from NRA.org felt it was too important to include a snippet of the story then a remark so here is the piece in its entirety with links included.

A Memphis based online news website, CommercialAppeal.com, has posted Tennessee’s right to carry permit holder list online! CommercialAppeal.com apparently feels that the “public’s right to know” outweighs your right to privacy. Their irresponsible decision to publish this list has made it easier for criminals to target law-abiding gun owners.

Shockingly when the list was first published, it even included permit holders home address! However, bowing to criticism, CommercialAppeal.com removed the address but still included a permit holder’s full name, birth date, city, zip code, and the issue and expiration date of their permit.

To view this list, please click here.

Let’s keep the pressure on to have this list removed completely by contacting CommercialAppeal.com IMMEDIATELY, as well as its President and Publisher, Joseph Pepe.

CommercialAppeal.com can be reached at (901) 529-2345 or 1-800-444-6397.

Joseph Pepe, President and Publisher, 901-529-2205

via email by clicking here

Also, contact your State Legislators TODAY and respectfully urge them to support concealed carry permit holder confidentiality legislation. To find contact information for your State Legislators, please click here.

Does Your Preacher Pack a Gun?

"God and guns we might think don’t swing together in church or anywhere else. After all there’s a rule about killing. It turns out that many preachers in one Southern part of the United States love their guns and consider them valuable."[link]
Pretty sure this article was wrote by a gun-rights fence sitter. The really seem to be tore up about which way to lean. This is a good example of why we, pro-gunners, need to continue to put our best foot forward. Remember in order to carry on our pro-rights culture we need to pass it on to others. Invite friends, family, and neighbors to the range with you sometime.

And by the way, I don't think my current preacher packs a gun, but one of my previous preachers sure did.

Great Job South Carolina

"The Brady Campaign has long accused South Carolina of having weak guns laws as well. In the organization's 2008 state scorecards, released this week, South Carolina earned just nine points out of a total of 100."[link]

Excellent job down there South Carolina. 9 out of 100 on the Brady Scale is near perfect. The only fault I have is not allowing reciprocity of other states CCW licenses. Other than that keep up the good work. You still have a little way to go, KY is darn near perfect with a score of 2 out of 100.[Brady Campaign State rankings page, just a heads up in case you don't even want to go there, link] And Deo Vindice my friends!

HURRAY! MONTANA: Striving For True 2nd Amendment Rights

House Bill 228, is an excellent example of state politicians actually helping out the citizens of their state. All states should adopt this type of legislation. A brief snippet of what this bill contains

• Clarifies the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm in plain view and to display the firearm for harmless defensive purposes;
• Allows a person who can lawfully possess a firearm and who doesn’t use it to commit a criminal offense to carry it concealed anywhere in the state without first obtaining governmental permission.

For more information...[link here]

And it just gets better, this just came to my attention House Bill 246

Committee Approves Gun Rights Bill

"A bill that would require Wyoming judges to warn defendants that they would lose their federal gun rights by pleading guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence charges received preliminary approval in the state Senate on Monday."[full article]

This is fine and all, but I am about damn tired of all these "steps" in the right direction.

When are people going to realize how little freedom, we, as individuals, actually have left, and start demanding it back, and then if we don't get it, by God we take it back!

How about a law that requires, no DEMANDS, any and all judges that sit on any bench in the United States of America that they must, under strictest penalty of law fully inform a jury of it's right not only to judge the facts in the case, but the law itself. That they may request a statute of the law to read, and that if they find the law incomprehensible or confusing they may acquit on that grounds alone. Or imagine this, they have the right to even vote with their conscience.

We can go further, how about we start looking at every single law passed since 1912. If the law in any way, shape, form, or fashion, violates any part of the United States Constitution, then anyone who helped to bring this law into being be charged with treason, and brought to trial, and if convicted, face the harshest penalty available for their treasonous actions, which would be death. Yep you heard me since 1912, we even disinter the dead traitors and put their corpse(s) on trial and if convicted we hang the bones from the courthouse steps. It would be a national roundup of traitors to the United States. We could start with all past members of Congress living or dead (I am not a cold hearted bastard, this would give those still serving a chance to change their ways and repeal every single oppressive, freedom violating, Constitutional infringing law they ever passed). Wouldn't this send a message to all future members of Congress.

What? some of you say. This is ridiculous! You are a raving lunatic! Am I? lets look for a minute at, 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256, more commonly known as Unconstitutional Official Acts. It very simply states in layman's terms that, "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail...Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..."

Also let's not forget the fact that every member of Congress takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Any action taken contrary to what the Constitution allows is a breach of this oath, and treason against the United States.

I tell you what, before we jump into any hasty actions let's just send a copy of 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256, to each and every one of our state and federal representative with a note that says they have 2 months to act and repeal every law, rule, regulation, etc... that violates the Constitution. If not, "We the People" will start taking action!

Oh Boy, Here We Go!

President Barack Obama's new administration ordered all federal agencies and departments on Tuesday to stop any pending regulations...[full article]

Actually doesn't sound too bad until you consider...

"...rules by the outgoing Bush administration include allowing the carrying of concealed weapons in some national parks..."

Guess it won't be long now...

The Weapons Ban Has Worked Well All These Years

"Did going unarmed “work well” for unarmed hikers Mary Cooper, 56, and her daughter, Susanna Stodden, 27, whose bodies were found, shot in the head, alongside the Pinnacle Lake Trail in the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest, east of Everett, Wash., by a hiker on July 11, 2006?"[read full article]

I know, I am a week late on this. But I am still quicker than the government is on understanding and following it's limits as defined in the United States Constitution.

Concealed weapons could prevent the next Mumbai

"All mass shootings in the U.S. have been by disturbed, possibly delusional
people, with little or no firearm training..."[full article]

Well now, you have to be kidding me? I thought they were all socially well adapted, law abiding, peace loving citizens. Who wanted nothing more than the collective good of all of society.

"Repeated experience has shown that the only effective defense against an armed
incursion is intervention by people on site carrying concealed weapons. The
police cannot get there in time to intervene, and the open carry of weapons
marks the guardian as the terrorist’s first target. "

This makes perfect, logical, sense to me. Are there only a limited number of us that have the mental power to see this for ourselves.

A Means of Fighting Back

Anytime you see these...

Hang one of these...

A Few Thoughts on Handguns

Handguns are a topic of much debate these days. Today I will not discuss the political aspect, but one of the many practical aspect of handguns.

If you are going to carry a handgun for personal protection (and I don't know why anyone wouldn't), there are a few things to keep in mind. Firstly, carry a gun you are comfortable with and know how to use. This might seem self evident at first, but you would be surprised by how many people carry based on what a friend has, what the guy behind the counter told them to get, brand loyalty, etc... Buy a gun that fits your hand, is comfortable, and is easy for you to manipulate the controls.

Next, buy enough gun! This part will need some explaining. I see no need to carry a little bitty .22 no matter how small and easy to conceal it is, or a .25 for that matter, neither are enough gun. At the least go for a .32. Now here is where it starts to get really tricky. Get a gun that you will carry with you everywhere. I understand that that caliber and knockdown power are a must in a pistol, but don't buy something that you cannot, or will not have with you at all times. It is impractical and impossible to carry and conceal a Smith & Wesson .500 Mag. Although it will definitely pack enough punch. Here is where even the lowly .32 trumps the big dogs, at least you will have it with you when you need it.

There are plenty of knowledgeable shooters out there that say don't carry any handgun that the first number is not at least a "4". Most of the time I agree with this, but if you are of small frame, elderly, bothered by recoil, etc... this just won't work for you. You will have to go with the .32, the .380 auto, 9mm, .38Special, etc... Nothing at all wrong with that, if that is all you can manage. Anymore there are advances in ammo nearly everyday and with the right defensive load and practice nearly all will work as intended.

I am sure some of you are wondering by now what I carry? Well that depends and I will explain. I have two different carry pistols one a bit larger than the other. Which one I carry depends upon what type of clothing I will be wearing. The handgun that is always with me is a Kel-Tec .380 in a Nemesis pocket holster. It will fit in a jacket pocket, a pants pocket, pretty much anywhere I want it to go. When clothing permits, it is also my backup handgun and I conceal it somewhere on my weak side. It is very small and concealable. However it does take a bit of extra practice because of its small size. The other handgun I carry regularly is a Glock 27 in .40S&W. It is larger, with more recoil, but more effective. It usually rides in a Fobus paddle holster, but I have also been experimenting with some inside the waistband holsters.

So there you have it a few brief thoughts on carrying a handgun. This is just a starter topic and thoughts on what to look for if you decide to carry. I will get into more detail later about practice drills and other thoughts about concealed carry, but that will be for another post.