Local Media Getting It Right

Very impressed with Tim Ryan and Fox4 — the details and knowledge of the Concealed Handgun License and applicable laws is well presented.

 

.

Dallas News | myFOXdfw.com
.

This action and the statement on the news station website show why I don’t go to AMC Theaters for the most part.

 

AMC Theatres

For the safety of our guests and associates, we do not permit weapons in our theatres. However, we welcome off-duty officers as guests at AMC and they are exempt from this policy with official identification. Based on the information we’ve received, the guest did not show an official department identification card and our theatre team properly enforced this policy. We have reached out to the guests to discuss the situation directly with them.
AMC Theatres (to use their spelling) are a private enterprise. They are free to prohibit concealed carry on their property; although as a public accommodation, I could make a case otherwise. I won’t. I’ll just abide by their wishes as much as I can and not patronize them.
I do think this is a step forward when the media gets the facts and the law down as well as Tim Ryan did. Good job sir.

2 Trouble Spots – Half Way Around the World Apart

First location is ‘near’ most of us:

Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) — Late night protests in Ferguson, Missouri, over the shooting death of Michael Brown, dispersed after bottles flew at officers, who answered with tear gas, police said Wednesday.

Protesters gathered in the St. Louis suburb for a fourth day and shouted at police officers.

“Don’t shoot!” they said, holding up signs protesting Brown’s killing. “No justice, no peace!”

Blocks away from where the protests took place, there were two shootings. But police do not believe the violence was related to the protests.

4 Days of violence and unrest. Minor by comparison to what is happening half way around the world in Iraq.

(CNN) — In an exodus of almost biblical proportions, thousands trudge across a river to escape killers belonging to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.

Entire families carry nothing but the clothes on their back. Some are barefoot. And not everyone who set out on the arduous journey survived.

Jamal Jamir, a 23-year-old university student from Sinjar, told CNN his family fled into the barren and windswept Sinjar Mountains more than a week ago after ISIS captured their town. They spent days on the mountain, desperately waiting for air drops of food and water.

The family then escaped the mountain on foot, and made a marathon 15-hour journey to Syria. We met them as they crossed a bridge back into Kurdish-controlled Iraq.

What do they have in common? The fact that the ‘state’ either can not or will not protect the individuals. The police in Ferguson Missouri eventually tried to stop the looting Sunday Night; but to do that they pulled nearly every officer in the city and surrounding cities.

This is where the “individual ”  portion of the right to keep and bear arms is most acutely displayed — self defense. Individuals may be caught up as a victim of the rioting, they may be required to defend their homes, business or self against one or more people. The ability, skills and equipment needed to do so have to be protected so that groups can be formed to react to larger problems.

Think of how easy it would be for a mob to form in front of or around an Amory and keep the militia from accessing armament to respond to the problem. This is why Law Enforcement started carrying rifles and shotguns in their cars.

When ISIS approached their town, Jamir and his family fled to the Sinjar Mountain, where they spent days camping and desperately waiting for aid. The family finally escaped on foot.

A senior Kurdish official estimated that as many as 70,000 people remain trapped on Mount Sinjar, and that at least 100 have died so far from dehydration and the heat.

The situation in Iraq on the other hand is an example of the “Militia” side of the argument. 70,000 people remain trapped. Let’s go with just those numbers and not even consider how many people have already fled as refuges that could have been part of the solution.

70,000 people, let’s assume that half are kids. 35,000 people — let’s assume that half are women — and due to cultural reasons unwilling or not allowed to fight. 17,500 men left. Half too old or too young to fight — still leaves 8,500 men of fighting age. That would be nearly a force equal to an army division.

Even if half of them are willing to fight (4,250); that puts the strength at a short brigade strength wise or an over-sized regiment !

Estimates put the fighting strength of Isis in Syria and Iraq at around 7,000 but its numbers in Iraq appear to have been bolstered by other groups, including local Sunni militants and Ba’ath nationalists particularly in Tikrit. Despite claims that they have captured helicopters in Mosul, it seems unlikely they would be able to deploy them. Lightly armed with Toyota pickup technicals, RPGs and small arms, Isis has captured some armoured Humvees, although there are suggestions that some equipment has been sent back to Syria.

So they would have near parity or half the numbers of ISIS fighters in Iraq. Training and organization would be lacking by comparison but the defensive advantages would help compensate, right?

Even if fewer people were armed and fought – even with what American citizens generally own – semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, bolt action rifles and pump shotguns, think of the change in tactics and rate of advance it would make.

This is why the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the armed people to form a militia. Because the state can not or will not always be there to protect people.

Two different examples, two different situations entirely but both support the idea that the people should be

Will You Trust Him To Be Merciful?

DALLAS — Police are looking for an armed robbery suspect who robbed a cell phone store and led police on a chase before crashing a car and fleeing on foot Friday night.

A police spokesman said they received a robbery call at 7:49 p.m. from the AT&T store in the 8200 block of Abrams Road. They said a man wearing a ski mask robbed the store at gunpoint.

Dallas police spotted a vehicle matching the description of the one fleeing the robbery scene traveling southbound on U.S. 75 at Hall Street and began following the car. Officers then attempted to stop the car while it was traveling southbound on Interstate 45 at Lamar Street, but the vehicle took off.

…The vehicle crashed at Hampton Road and Red Bird Lane, and two suspects got out. Jamarion James, 21, was arrested at the scene; the other escaped.

The anti-rights cultists believe that people like you and I shouldn’t resist criminals like this. They say “just give him what he wants” — and depend on his mercy to stay alive.

Does it appear he has much regard for other people’s lives to you? I don’t think so. He used lethal force to steal cell phones, he endangered lives in an attempt (successful) to evade the police.
Isn’t that a pretty thin thread to depend on? That the criminal won’t be in a mood to kill or injure someone?

 

I think I’ll keep another option open by being armed. It’s a slim chance I’ll encounter this criminal or one like him; but the consequences if I do are potentially severe.

 

Please join the discussion.

 

When Is A Person NOT in the Militia?

Over at Catskil Bob’s Blogosphere, we’ve been having a lively discussion regarding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment – part 1 and part 2. Among other things.

One of the normal anti-rights cultists argument is the “Collective” argument; that the right to keep and bear arms is only something that can be exercised as part of a greater group. Another is the “Militia Only”; that the right to keep and bear arms is only related to the militia and not to an individual’s self defense.

I’ve been trying to come up with a way of framing the issue that makes sense to me and might make sense to those advancing those arguments. So I’m going to purpose a series of hypothetical situations and ask you, my 7 loyal readers, to tell me when the rights of that apply to the “collective/militia” do not apply to the individual.

Scenario #1 —

A Militia unit has been called up, put into uniform  and thrown into battle. The enemy has overran its position and killed all but 1 person.

Scenario #2

In the midst of a battle, an uniformed member of the militia is separated from his unit and is surrounded by the enemy. 

Scenario #3

As part of an offensive, an uniformed member of the militia is sent out alone to scout enemy positions on the battle field.

Scenario #4

As a part of an upcoming offensive, a member of the militia is sent out in civilian clothes to scout enemy positions in a city or town.

Scenario #5

On the way to the front, an uniformed member of the militia is traveling alone. The person is attacked by elements of the enemy forces.

Scenario #6

On the way to the rally point, a member of the militia is attacked by the enemy.

Scenario #7

A member of the militia is at home, just completing a conversation that included a call up to action. The enemy breaks down the door and attacks the member.

Scenario #8

The enemy has obtained a list of militia members and ambushes one of them prior that that person finding out the militia has been called up.

Scenario #9

The enemy has started an active campaign and a person decides to fight with the militia. On the way to the recruiting point, that person is attacked by the enemy.

Scenario #10

The enemy has started an active campaign by assaulting and killing people. A person is in their home unaware of the events.

Scenario #11
A person notices troubling trends and decides in order to stop the enemy that a militia has to be formed. After announcing the intention, the person becomes a target of the enemy in order to stop the formation of the militia.

So does a person have to make a formal declaration, don a uniform, etc in order to be considered part of the militia? That seems to be the argument many anti-rights cultists make, isn’t it?

Of course they are forgetting the legal definition according to federal law.

10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

Emphasis mine, because it really makes the point that every adult male 17 to 45….and given the federal laws against gender bias, age bias, etc — how long before that definition gets changed again, eh.

The point I’m trying to make is in order to be an active participant in the militia, a person has to survive long enough to get there. That is one of the reasons why the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Because otherwise the opposition could pick off individuals with immunity and stop the militia from forming.

Or they could claim that an individual not found in a group is not part of the militia and therefore has no protection as afforded by the 2nd Amendment.

So –is a person protected in all scenarios or just down to a particular one. Please join the discussion.

Intimidation v. Fear

The Inigo Montoya line keeps running through my mind every time someone talks about how Open Carry — and for some anti-rights cultists Concealed Carry — talk about how it is “intimidating”

 

Inigo Montoya - You keep using that word "Intimidate" I don't think it means what you think it means

 

 

Let’s look at the definitions and see if it makes sense or I’m completely off base. Please and I mean this, let’s talk about this.

in·tim·i·date

[in-tim-i-deyt]

verb (used with object), in·tim·i·dat·ed, in·tim·i·dat·ing.

1.to make timid; fill with fear.
2.to overawe or cow, as through the force of personality or by superior display of wealth, talent, etc.
3.to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear: to intimidate a voter into staying away from the polls.

Look carefully at those definitions and see that for the most part action is required on the part of the person — “to make”, “to force”. Intimidation requires action, deliberate action on the part of the person doing it.
On the other hand, the definition of fear better covers what happens; a person decides or experiences a feeling based on their own mental state.

fear

[feer]

noun

1.a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid. Synonyms: foreboding, apprehension, consternation, dismay, dread, terror, fright, panic, horror, trepidation, qualm. Antonyms: courage, security, calm, intrepidity.
2.a specific instance of or propensity for such a feeling: an abnormal fear of heights. Synonyms: phobia, aversion; bête noire, bogy, bogey, bugbear. Antonyms: liking, fondness, penchant, predilection.
3.concern or anxiety; solicitude: a fear for someone’s safety.
4.reverential awe, especially toward God: the fear of God. Synonyms: awe, respect, reverence, veneration.
5.something that causes feelings of dread or apprehension; something a person is afraid of: Cancer is a common fear.

No deliberate action is required on the part of the other party, e.g. the Open Carry advocate.For some people this will be a distinction without meaning; intimidation or fear results in the same thing they’ll say; that people do not want to see firearms in public.

 

And this is one of the biggest issues I have with pro-rights advocates decrying Open Carry. In pushing against Open Carry of long guns they are making the exact same argument as the antis!

Think about it carefully and you’ll see what I mean. How many times has an anti argued they shouldn’t have to be any place where people have guns. That the mere presence of firearms makes them uncomfortable.

How many times have we’ve seen some pro-2nd Amendment advocate say “If I see someone walk in with a rifle, I’m going to get ready draw” or worse “I’ll assume the Open Carrier is about to shoot up the place and confront him”. Just for the mere presence of a firearm??? Really folks.

 

 

Oh, I understand the thought process that goes behind it — A pistol is what you use to fight to your rifle, right? But isn’t that a mindset that we gun owners have created. Or stolen from the military?

Does the general public really see any difference between a rifle carried in public and a pistol openly carried in public?

Frankly, I’ve seen a lot of people on “our side” talking about how Long Gun Open Carry “scares” the public but I’ve failed to see the direct media reports from people there at the events saying they were afraid. Time and time again the reports of “people being afraid” come long after the fact by people who weren’t there (Looking at you Moms Demanding Attention) or were completely fabricated (Fort Worth Police Department, can you explain ala Jack In The Box).

 

 

I want to make sure I’m very clear here. I support Open Carry and the activism going on in Texas. I don’t support the continued carrying in restaurants, not because I think it is wrong, but because that activity was so easily turned against us.

 

But I also think we need to very strongly and solidly support people Openly Carrying Long guns because failing to do so will provide leverage for the antis. Just because something makes a person uncomfortable or fearful is no reason to curtail the exercise of a right. From Nudity to Open Carry– folks grow up and deal with it. There are things we should make socially unacceptable because they are harmful to society but the vast majority of things are simply “I don’t want to see because it makes me feel icky” — as in this example.

 

 

We need to let people know their fear of an inanimate object or people exercising their rights is not a sufficient reason to stop that person from doing so. Maybe this hits home especially for me due to personal experience.

 

I was in college at the local junior college when on two separate occasions (years apart) I was told by two different female students that my mere physical size (6’2″ and 190# at the time) “intimidated” them. Both agreed that I had not acted untoward (I try to be a gentleman), that I had not crowded them or intruded into their personal space, acted hostile or anything else. Just that my physical size intimidated them.

Now this was two class mates out of hundreds so I took it with a grain of salt but it stuck with me and continues to be something I’m aware of. It is also appropriate to the discussion — should I have not gone to school because someone was fearful, should I have changed my schedule based on the 1 in a 100 reaction? Absolutely not, it was their issue to deal with. I’m not trying to be cold blooded here but they simply needed to deal with it.

 

 

And this is exactly how some people see Open Carry, it is exactly how some people see Concealed Carry — ‘Oh…the presence of a gun ‘intimidates’ me; you have to stop what you are doing’.

 

Because the next time they make that statement it might be “Anyone except for the police owning a firearm intimidates me; we need to ban all guns”

Please join the discussion.

Yeah, About that Claim of Terrorizing People….

….I’m gonna need you to, um…perhaps retract that outrageous claim. The Fort Worth Police department made the claim in an email

An email from Sgt. Ray Bush, with the Fort Worth Police Department, said Jack in the Box employees at the South Freeway location on Sycamore School Road, were scared about the armed men protesting outside of the restaurant.

“They locked themselves inside a freezer for protection out of fear the rifle-carrying men would rob them,” the email stated. “The demonstration had no signage that would have alerted anyone to their real purpose, and to our knowledge they did not attempt to contact anyone in the Fort Worth Police Department to advise us prior to the demonstration.”

The Media ran with it, seemingly without trying to vet, for days. Even when the story started falling part (from O.C.T.’s FB page)

Open carry activists at a Fort Worth Jack in the Box drew the attention of police following a 911 call. (Photo credit: Facebook)

From the Open Carry Tarrant County FB Page

The anti-rights advocates still haven’t seen fit to address the issue by printing a retraction — despite the company in question saying the story is false

An earlier version of this post included information from Sgt. Ray Bush of the Forth Worth Police Department, who wrote in an email last week that the employees at the Jack in the Box where Open Carry Texas staged a demonstration “locked themselves inside a freezer for protection out of fear the rifle-carrying men would rob them.” However, Brian Luscomb, vice president of corporate communications for Jack in the Box, told the New York Times this evening, “Our employees told us that they did not hide in the freezer.” We have amended the post to reflect this new information.

And don’t you love how the NYT puts the retraction at the very bottom of the page? Now, we are starting to get information regarding the — yes, I said THE – 911 call that was made. So far it is the only one that has been released in regards to this demonstration.
.

 

It looks like that is the only call made. So let’s see; friendly smiling faces (the guy posing with the OCT group is the manager), non -terrified appearing employees in the background, no 911 calls released from the employees. Even the 911 caller didn’t sound terrified or excited. You know what I think happened – NOTHING, at least until the police over reacted.

 

Come on seriously Fort Worth Police department; how many times have their been reports of Armed people strolling about in a parking lot and problems arise from it.  Not to often. Add to that no other reports of shots fired, no other 911 calls.

We can debate the merits of Open Carry and the methods used by this advocacy group all day long; in the end that misses any important point. The point that even in a state were Open Carry isn’t that common; it just doesn’t generate the level of hysteria or concern from ordinary people. Let’s keep going and make sure everyone realizes this; let’s point out the lies of the media and the Mom’s Demanding Attention And Bloomberg’s Money.

 

Please join the discussion.

Concealed Carry In Action

Not bad publicity for those who carry firearms.

 

.

 

No shots fired, no injuries resulted from the use of the firearm but two criminals stopped in the middle of a crime and taken off the street. Well done Mr. Anonymous CHL Holder !

 
.