Posts Tagged ‘self defense’

Stand Your Ground, Self Defense, Castle Doctrine, and Get Shot in the Back Laws.

August 7, 2013

The recent tragedy involving Trayvon Williams has sparked a new push by the forces of hoplophobia calling for repeal of what has become known as “Stand Your Ground” Laws. First, let us be clear about this. This was not a stand your ground situation, not at all. It was self defense, pure and simple. It also, despite the best efforts of race hustlers about race. It was about stopping having your head bashed into a sidewalk by an up and coming want to be thug. Could this whole thing have been handled differently? Of course, but that is not the issue being discussed in this post.

What have become known as Stand Your Ground Laws are hated by Trial Attorneys. They can’t turn around and sue people because said people didn’t allow themselves or their families to be shot, stabbed, or clubbed over the head from behind. They fought back against an assailant, these laws fight back against tyranny. They are not preemptive in most cases. There has to be a clear threat. If an attack is under way, then self defense law comes into effect.  Overzealous prosecutors with unbridled ambition have abused those laws countless times. Stand Your Ground Laws were passed in part, to thwart those that have some compelling need to one day have “The Honorable” attached to their names.

Closely related are The Castle Doctrine Laws that have been passed in most locals. While overall violent crime has dropped dramatically these past few decades home invasions have risen steadily. The Castle Doctrine allows you to defend your home without recourse by the forces of evil in the court system. Some states extend that right to your vehicle and campsite as well.

The hoplophobes would have you carried by six. I choose to be judged by twelve…


Handgun Stopping Power: Sizing Up Your Options : Concealed Carry: Digging Deep on Pocket Holsters

September 15, 2012
Handgun Stopping Power:
Sizing Up Your Options

Handgun stopping power refers to the ability to incapacitate a target. There are many factors used to determine stopping power, such as caliber, bullet weight and velocity, but studies have shown that every caliber is capable of one-shot stops in the right situation. The author fired 100 handgun loads to measure velocity, penetration and expansion to help shooters choose the best self-defense round for their purposes. Want to know how your favorite caliber fared? Check out the results.

With the availability of ultra-compact handguns in self-defense calibers, pocket carry is becoming increasingly more popular. The advantages of pocket carry include a fairly quick draw, ease of carry and inexpensive holster options. Learn the benefits of pocket carry, including how to draw from the pocket and why the author likes pocket holsters during certain parts of the year.

Piracy and the right to self defense

June 28, 2009

Just yesterday the History Channel had a program about the American flag ship that Somali pirates attacked earlier in the year, and the fine work that the U.S. Navy did in getting the ship and crew rescued. Not to sell the Navy short by any means, but a lot of what happened was as a direct result of the actions taken by the crew. Indeed, if the crew had not taken decisive action, the Navy’s job would have been much tougher.

It seems that those that are so much smarter than common people prefer appeasement. Indeed, what in recent history has appeasement accomplished? World War Two comes to mind, as does the seizing of the American Embassy in Iran.Let’s not forget our second place finish in the Southeast Asian War games when appeasement stopped the bombing. Or the Korean War and what that has led to in the aftermath, as in lunatics with nuclear weapons. Appeasing hostage takers brought us September eleventh, and the World Trade Center attacks that this nation is still reeling from.

So then what is all this about? Well, I do have my problems with the N.R.A. But this time they hit the ball right out of the park, and it went straight over the center field fence. Read on.

Friday, June 26, 2009
Last month we reported on the arming of merchant mariners to allow them to defend their crews and ships from pirate attacks.  We noted that, with the increase in pirate attacks on the high seas, many are now realizing that firearms and armed citizens can be as effective a criminal deterrent at sea, as they are on land.

The International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) wrapped up a meeting earlier this month, where it agreed on “revised guidance on combating piracy and armed robbery against ships.”

Among other things, the report recommends “guidance to shipmasters and crew…who may be kidnapped or held hostage for ransom, based on the current United Nations guidance on ‘surviving as a hostage.’”

As hard as it is to believe, the MSC report concludes that, “flag States should strongly discourage the carrying and use of firearms by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship. Seafarers, it was agreed, are civilians and the use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great. Carriage of arms on board ship may encourage attackers to carry firearms or even more dangerous weapons, thereby escalating an already dangerous situation. Any firearm on board may itself become an attractive target for an attacker. Carriage of firearms may pose an even greater danger if the ship is carrying flammable cargo or similar types of dangerous goods.”

These recommendations defy reason, given that the pirates are already heavily armed and know vessels are easy targets due to the high level of probability that seamen are unarmed.

By contrast, U.S. Representative Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) has introduced H.R. 2984–the “United States Mariner and Vessel Protection Act of 2009.” The purpose of the Act is to assist in the defense of United States-flag vessels against piracy and to ensure the traditional right of self-defense of those vessels against piracy.

Commenting on the measure, Rep. LoBiondo, the ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee, said: “Our merchant marine fleet is increasingly under attack from unlawful individuals and rogue groups that seek to disrupt commerce, seize U.S. and foreign crews, and instill fear on international waters. It is only appropriate that our fleets be legally allowed to defend themselves from these violent encounters. This common-sense legislation is a necessary step in empowering U.S.-flagged vessels to protect their crews and cargo.”


Major Victory for American Workers Right to Self-Defense

February 19, 2009

Fairfax, Va. – Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in support of allowing employees to store legally owned firearms in locked, private motor vehicles while parked in employer parking lots. This decision upholds NRA-backed legislation passed in 2004.

“This is a victory for the millions of American workers who have been denied the right to protect themselves while commuting between their homes and their workplace,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “This effort was aimed at skirting the will of the American people, and the intent of legislatures across this country while eviscerating Right-to-Carry laws. This ruling is a slap at the corporate elitists who have no regard for the constitutional rights of law abiding American workers.”

In March 2004, the Oklahoma legislature passed an amendment holding employers criminally liable for prohibiting employees from storing firearms in locked vehicles on company property. A number of corporations subsequently filed suit in opposition to the new laws, alleging they were: unconstitutionally vague; an unconstitutional taking of private property; and preempted by various federal statutes. The lower court ruled in favor of the injunction.

“This issue was contrived by the gun control lobby who goaded corporations into doing their dirty work for them,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “However, this ruling is a vindication for every hardworking and lawful man and woman whose basic right to self-defense was taken away on a whim by corporate lawyers. NRA is prepared to defend this right and to ensure the safety of every American worker.”

In October 2008, Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry and Attorney General Drew Edmondson appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals the lower court decision to strike down the NRA-backed worker protection laws. Today’s proceedings handed down by Circuit Judges Paul J. Kelly, Bobby R. Baldock, and Michael W. McConnell reversed the lower court’s grant of a permanent injunction.


Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

Dems derail Brophy bill to protect homeowners

January 28, 2009

State Senator Greg Brophy has been stabbed in his own home, so to speak. Despite the logic, and indeed inalienable right to properly and effectively defend themselves Democrats stopped this needed legislation.

A Republican effort that would have reinforced Coloradans’ ability to defend their families against home intruders hit a dead end today in a Senate committee.

Assistant Senate GOP leader Greg Brophy, R-Wray, presented Senate Bill 74 before the Senate Committee on State, Veterans, and Military Affairs, calling it a matter of “statewide concern.”

SB 74 would prohibit local governments from passing any law or regulation that requires a person to store their lawfully-owned firearms in a way that renders them inoperable. The Democrat-controlled committee voted to postpone the bill indefinitely, effectively killing it.

Brophy said the bill addresses and recognizes the landmark United States Supreme Court decision made last summer in the District of Columbia v. Heller case.  The Heller decision held that gun ownership is an individual right and that any government in the U.S. cannot put individuals in the position where they would be inadequately prepared to defend themselves against home invasion.

“We need to pass the ban on safe-storage laws in Colorado,” Brophy said in the committee. “I think the Heller case raised this issue to the national spotlight and brought it forward so that everybody is aware of it.”

Research Director of the Independence Institute Dave Kopel, left, tesifies in favor of Sen. Greg Brophy’s Senate Bill 74.

“This would save the citizens of Colorado the trouble of being forced to go the courts and have the courts say, ‘yes indeed the Supreme Court has already ruled on this,'” Brophy said.

Currently, the cities of Denver and Boulder have so-called “safe-storage” laws that require guns be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock while stored in private homes.

In his testimony in favor of the bill, renowned Second Amendment expert and constitutional lawyer Dave Kopel, who is research director at the Golden-based think tank the Independence Institute, offered evidence showing that cities with safe-storage laws actually have higher rates of home intrusion and violence because criminals are all too aware that homeowners are unable to defend themselves.

“Law-abiding gunowners in Denver and the public in general continue to be in danger due to unreasonable laws that prevent families from teaching gun safety in their own homes and make it way too difficult for crime victims in Denver to be able to protect themselves,” Kopel said after the bill was killed.

While ruling Democrats offered few insights to their opposition to the bill, Fort Collins Democrat Bob Bacon rasied concerns about second-guessing local-government policies on the issue of gun ownership.

Brophy countered that such concerns reflect misplaced priorities.

“They’re giving City Hall the right to preempt your own right to defend yourself and your family,” Brophy said. “And I think that’s just wrong.”

Assistant Senate Republican Leader Greg Brophy, of Wray, sits in disappointment after his bill, which would have given homeowners more power to defend themselves, was killed in a Democrat-controlled committee.


Colorado Castle Doctrine to be voted on!

January 18, 2009

COLORADO: Important Castle Doctrine Reform Bill to be Considered on Wednesday, January 20! On Wednesday, January 20, the Colorado Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee will vote on Senate Bill 8, a bill sponsored by State Senator Ted Harvey (R-30). This legislation seeks to expand Colorado’s Castle Doctrine law. SB 8 would amend Colorado’s current version of the Castle Doctrine to ensure that all citizens have a right to use force, including deadly force, against a violent attacker, not only within their own dwellings, but their places of business as well. SB 8 is critically important as it expands Coloradans’ right to self-defense and protects victims from frivolous civil lawsuits by criminals or their family. Please contact the members of the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to vote for SB 8. Contact information can be found by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: