But no one ever uses firearms to defend themselves or save lives! It just doesn’t happen, or so says Shannon Watts and Moms Demand Action. Ya OK.

—April 1, Mullan, Idaho. A domestic violence incident ended badly for the male attacker after his female victim defended herself by shooting him in the face. The man survived and is facing charges of domestic battery and attempted strangulation. The woman was hospitalized with her own injuries from the altercation, but escaped with her life.  

—April 3, Duquesne, Pennsylvania. An elderly taxi driver picked up a passenger who, during the ride, proceeded to pull out a gun and demand money from him. The passenger didn’t know that the driver had a concealed carry permit and was armed with his own handgun. The driver shot and killed the passenger in self-defense.

—April 5, Tallahassee. Police responded to calls about a shooting, but arrived to find that the injured man was actually a would-be armed robber who had demanded money from his two victims while threatening to shoot them and their dog. One of the victims, fearing for his life, used his own gun to shoot the man in self-defense. The man was treated for his injuries, then charged with several felonies, including armed robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm.   

—April 7, Largo, Florida. Two good Samaritans stopped to help the victim of an apparent hit-and-run driver, only to have the man pull out a box cutter and threaten them. One of the good Samaritans was a concealed carry permit holder and shot the man in the leg in defense of himself and the other individual with him. Incredibly, the armed good Samaritan then used his belt as a tourniquet to treat the man’s wounds until medical personnel arrived. Local police said the good Samaritan acted in lawful self-defense.

—April 8, Chicago. A 78-year-old homeowner found three men using a crowbar to break into his house. When one of the robbers raised the crowbar to smash the glass door, the homeowner—who has a valid Illinois firearms permits—shot him, sending all three scattering. The homeowner told reporters that shooting another human being was a hard decision: “I didn’t feel good about doing that, but he would have gotten me with the crowbar. If I get hit with something like a baseball bat, or a crowbar, [I] ain’t gonna make it.”

—April 10, Shasta County, California. After his brother brandished a firearm and threatened their mother by firing a round into the air, Jeffrey Snyder confronted him in their garage. When the brother advanced toward Jeffrey and pointed the gun at him, Jeffrey drew his own gun and fired several rounds, striking and wounding his brother. Deputies interviewed several family members and determined that Jeffrey acted in lawful self-defense, indicating that the brother will face criminal charges.

—April 14, Louisville, Kentucky. Tina Burton’s neighbor broke into her home, entered her 12-year-old daughter’s room, and stripped down to his underwear. Burton alerted her boyfriend, who then yelled at the man to leave and began hitting him with a broom. The man was undaunted and reportedly growled at the boyfriend before getting into a physical altercation. At that point, Burton handed her boyfriend a firearm, and he shot the nearly-naked intruder, who fled and was later arrested by police.

—April 16, Hampton, South Carolina. Despite living less than a block awayfrom the local police department, a homeowner was forced to rely on his Second Amendment rights to defend himself against a home invasion after two men broke into his house. The homeowner shot both of his attackers, one of whom died at the scene while the second was captured by police a mile away.

—April 22, White Center, Washington. A homeowner shot and killed a manwho broke into his house in the early morning hours. Police released the 911 recording, in which the terrified homeowner whispers information to the dispatcher while the intruder can be heard smashing items in the background. The dispatcher—later praised for her calm demeanor and precise instructions—talked the homeowner through a harrowing 12-minute call. After shooting one intruder who attacked him, the homeowner hid in the closet for another 7 minutes until police arrived because he heard other intruders and feared he was outnumbered.

—April 26, Chicago. A 41-year-old concealed carry permit holder shot and killed an armed carjacker. The carjacker intentionally rear-ended the permit holder, then threatened him with a gun and demanded his keys when the permit holder got out of his car to check the damage. That’s when the permit holder used his own firearm in self-defense.

—April 28, Ashwaubenon, Wisconsin. After store security systems alerted a small business owner that someone was inside the building after hours, the owner and an employee—a concealed carry permit holder who happened to be armed that night—went to investigate. The armed employee, using his handgun, was able to successfully detain the would-be thief until law enforcement arrived.

—April 30, Bradenton, Florida. A young homeowner saw two men walk onto his property, and then split to approach his front and back door at the same time. As the two would-be burglars attempted to use screwdrivers to break into the home, the homeowner saw that one of them was armed. He then procured his own firearm and fired several rounds at the men, who immediately took off running.

The previous summaries were taken form The Daily Signal at http://www.dailysignal.com.

When Should a Police Officer Confiscate Your Firearm?


By Chris Wagoner:

The recent shooting of a suspect, who was attacking a Florida Deputy, occurred when a law abiding, lawfully carrying, outstanding citizen shot and killed the attacker, quite possibly saving the deputy’s life. While no one wants to have to shoot someone, that is what happened.

The difference between this shooting and most self-defense shootings is the fact that it was witnessed (to some even directed by) the deputy. There is no question as to the justifiability of this shooting. By Florida law it’s a clear-cut case of self-defense and defense of another. Florida law permits you to not only defend yourself but also others if they are being attacked and you think they may be killed or suffer great bodily harm. (F.S.S. 776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.)

That said, there is no doubt that it was a lawful shooting. It was surprising when I saw another article which stated a local gun shop had to provide the citizen with another firearm to carry because his was taken into custody by the police. This was the point where I started to think as a cop. I am on the scene of a shooting that I know for a fact is not a crime because no criminal act was committed by the citizen. So I am looking at this particular case and wondered to myself, “What justification would I have to take the shooter’s firearm into evidence if I was there at the scene?”

Read the rest here:The rest of the story… http://bit.ly/2opX2c0

Fact or Fiction: The Gun Show Loophole

The following article was originally published on OpsLens.com on Nov 7th, 2016.

By Chris Wagoner:


Well, I was asked on one of the Facebook pages I like to read why I was against “Common Sense Gun Control” and I must confess I was a little shocked. Why did this person think I was against any kind of gun control and what in the heck was this common sense gun control they were talking about all the time?

So I asked one of the people in the group (I will reveal what group in a bit…) “why you are against closing the deadly loopholes in our background check system?”

Again I sat there and was stymied. What loophole were they talking about? Were they talking about the “Gun Show Loophole” that so many people talk about but when asked what it is they can’t tell you for sure? Then, they went on to say that the loophole allows “minors and dangerous people like felons and domestic abusers easy access to guns.”

I almost fell out of my chair! What?! There are loopholes that allow this to happen? Of course I am against those types of people getting firearms illegally, I am against anyone getting a firearm illegally, key word being… illegally! But wait, it’s already illegal for them to buy firearms by law, so what loophole? A loophole is something that allows one to legally skirt the spirit of a law is it not? Not doing something that is already illegal, right? I was confused.

I responded to the now wound up member of this group, “what loophole are you talking about?” Then it came out, they replied “the gun show loophole”.

“What is that?” I asked.

“The gun show loophole allows anyone to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm without a background check, none, no checks at all.” They said, thinking they had me now. I would have to agree with them now, right?

“But it’s already illegal for someone who is not eligible to buy a firearm, like “minors and dangerous people like felons and domestic abusers” as they cited before, I said. “So it is a loophole that something is already illegal?” I went on to explain there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. The laws that apply outside the gun show, apply inside the gun show also. At most gun shows I have been to, most of the sellers in the show are Federal Firearms License holders. There are a few private sellers, but not all that many. All sales by a FFL dealer, regardless of location (in their store, gun show, or in a home) requires they do a background check on the buyer before selling the firearm. No exceptions (loopholes), even cops have to go through the background checks, and rightfully so.

So what they are really talking about is private sales. The transaction of selling a firearm from one private party to another. But if they had bothered to check, it is already a law (and a Federal Law to boot!) that even during a private sale of a firearm, it is illegal for a prohibited person to buy a firearm and for someone to sell them a firearm. Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922[g] [1-9]) prohibits certain individuals from possessing firearms, ammunition, or explosives. The penalty for violating this law is ten years imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine. And guess who is on that list! Felons, Fugitives, drug or alcohol abusers, people adjudicated as mentally defective, dishonorably discharged former military, domestic abusers, even people who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. So there is already a very stiff Federal Law that prohibits these people from buying and selling firearms.

So in reality, there is no such thing as the “gun show loophole”. That is simply not true and does not exist.

Then, I wondered why so many people have taken up that mantra of “common sense gun control” and what do they know about current gun control laws? Well, if the above incident (which is fictitious but based on several conversations I have had with gun control advocates, the quoted text above is actually from the Mission statement of the group called “Mom’s Demand Action”. Their mission statement is already reality and illegal and they don’t even know it!

So in reality, how many of these prohibited people actually buy firearms from gun shows? How big of a problem is it? And what about other places? Well it just so happens that information is available from none other than the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. In their “Special Report, Firearm Violence, 1993-2011” published May of 2013, Report number NCJ 241730, they have some very interesting numbers they talk about. And remember this is the US Department of Justice, not some gun nut support group.

Here are just a couple of interesting quotes from this report:

In 2010, the rate of firearm homicide was 10.7 per 100,000 for persons ages 18 to 24, compared to 8.1 for persons ages 25 to 34 and 0.3 for persons age 11 or younger.” &From 1993 to 2010, the rate of homicides for persons ages 18 to 24 declined 51%, compared to a 35% decline for persons ages 25 to 34 and 50% for persons age 11 or younger.”

Really? Homicides are down that much? Then what is the problem? What about those darn Gun Shows that sell guns to just anyone (remember that’s false!) Well I went on to read this:

In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of offense, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 10% purchased it from a retail store or pawnshop, 37% obtained it from family or friends, and another 40% obtained it from an illegal source (table 14). This was similar to the percentage distribution in 1997.”

And what Table 14 shows is that of the criminals interviewed (that’s how they got all this information) LESS THAN 0.8% bought their firearms at a gun show. What? You mean that all this noise about the “gun show loophole” aside from the fact it is not even real, the statistics show gun shows are not even a large problem? Did you catch the fact that most criminals get their guns illegally? 40% got their firearms illegally, either theft or burglary, drug deals, or black market. So why are these groups not focusing on the real problems? The ones that are really causing the issues? Because they do not want to listen to the facts, figures and logic.

So why not actually concentrate on the real problems that result in these guns getting into the wrong hands? Why not have universal background checks? Because you are only going to get law abiding citizens to do them, criminals are called criminals because they do not follow the law and will not follow UBC’s. Remember they do not get their guns from legitimate sources, they get them from other illegal sources.

And what about how simple it is to buy a firearm on the internet? You know, like a lot of the politicians have said, you can go online and buy a firearm and have it sent to your home. Well again I have to inform our good intended, but poorly informed politicians, no you can’t as a rule. Again where do they get these false ideas, and doesn’t anyone research anything anymore? If you buy a firearm from a Licensed Firearms dealer the firearm must be sent to another licensed firearms dealer near you where you go and pay a transfer fee and wait for it while a background check is performed! After that, you may take your firearm home. But what about buying one from a private person? Well those same Federal Laws I mentioned before still apply, regardless of how you buy a firearm or where you buy it from. If you are a prohibited person, it doesn’t matter where or how you try to get the firearm, you are breaking the Federal Law! Those darn pesky facts again, always getting in the way of things.

You know the old saying, if you repeat something often enough it will be believed as fact? Guess who constantly repeats these false statements about buying firearms? The anti-gun groups like “Everytown USA” & “Mom’s Demand Action” among a few. The mainstream media is also at fault for spreading false information on these issues.

So, the next time you discuss with someone the topic of “Common Sense Gun Control” or that pesky “Gun Show Loophole” your BS meter should be pegged at high! There are already stiff laws on the books to prevent prohibited people from buying or even someone selling to these people. So what other laws do they want to put in place that are already not on the books? Ask them that and see where the conversation goes.

Oh and as a side note, you know what happens when you tell someone that their mission statement for their group is flawed and based on a non-existent problem? They ban you from talking to them on social media. Truly a mature way to discuss issues, but hey, I have been banned from better groups than these. Obviously, perpetuating the truth in this case is harder than perpetuating the lie.