Background Checks and Red Flag laws and more laws would not have stopped Texas or Ohio Murderers.

So now that a bit more information on the murderers in those two incidents is coming out it is time to point a few minor things that those who are shouting “we must do something” and “it’s all President Trumps fault” fail to see or want to have pointed out since it will contradict their point of view.

So now that a bit more information on the murderers in those two incidents is coming out it is time to point a few minor things that those who are shouting “we must do something” and “it’s all President Trumps fault” fail to see or want to have pointed out since it will contradict their point of view.

First, there has been a cry for universal background checks for a couple of years. After every mass murder that uses a firearm, there is a cry for “universal background checks”. But what many who are for them don’t want to be said and will try and shout down anyone that dares to bring it up is that many of the mass murderers passed background checks to get the very firearms they used. The most recent two shootings, one in El Paso Texas and the other in Dayton Ohio both passed background checks. So what good would UBC’s do then if mass murderers with obvious questionable backgrounds can still pass them? When put that way kind of sounds stupid doesn’t it?

Then there are the “Red Flag” laws that everyone is touting as part of a possible solution. The only problem is not all of these laws are created equally. Some states, like my own of Florida, have already enacted these types of laws and guess what? They have found they are abused and were not thought out very well. Many states laws do not have any kind of due process written into them. You know that pesky thing called your right to due process under the law. Sound familiar? Anytime that the Government wants to take away a persons property or right (owning and possessing a firearm is both of those) they should have to go before a Judge, and have a chance to defend themselves in a court of law. Our system was founded on that very principle. Circumventing that now for firearms can and will lead to further infringements. Don’t get in an argument with a vindictive ex-spouse or such, all they need do is call the police, tell them you own guns and made threats. No need to substantiate it and prove it, you have to prove you did not. Isn’t that twisted around from what our system is supposed to be like?

And for those crying that we have to do something. Why? The Murder rate is actually down by >40% since 1993. People are waking up all across this great country and realizing that self-defense and defense of your family is your responsibility, not the government. The last three mass murders, Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton all took place in or as people exited a gun-free zone. Read this excerpt from the El Paso murderer’s supposed manifesto and you see that they (the mass murderers) think about this:


Attack low-security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers. Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day.


So what would have stopped him? More security? More police in the area? Why do you think they do not attack police stations or federal buildings or other hardened targets? Because the chances of being shot before they can cause much carnage is greater. People wonder why no one in Texas was carrying (big state for carry rights and laws) but all one need do is look at the Walmart and the demographics of the area and you will see why. The Walmart was a posted “gun-free zone” and in Texas, if posted properly with 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07 signs, it makes legal carry in the establishment illegal. So again law-abiding citizens are disarmed, and the mass murderer could care less and murdered 22 people, AND NOT ONE WAS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES! Does that not sound wrong to you? Obviously, it worked in the murderers’ favor.

And last of course is blaming the current President for these shootings. People say it is his “message” that caused the murderers to go out and kill (even though the murderer in Texas made it clear it was not) like he ordered them to go out and kill people. If this is the case why did he post tweets in support of certain specific Democratic candidates before the murderers? Shouldn’t we blame them then instead? Of course not. You don’t blame the actions of a psychopath or sociopath on others. You blame the person themselves.

So let’s just stick to the facts. We now have a mass murderer who clearly said that they pick “low-security targets” that have little chance of them being confronted or engaged by armed resistance. Maybe we should listen to him and use that against the next one? Self-defense and defense of your family is your responsibility and not the governments. Police (I was one for 38+ years) only come when called. You have to be alive to call them. And why do you call them? Because they bring firearms to the scene to confront the armed attacker. Would it not be better to not have to wait and be at the mercy of these deranged individuals? When most mass murders are over in minutes and it takes law enforcement minutes to get there, what do you do in the meantime? Hide and hope not to die? Sorry, not in my nature.

So I guess what it all boils down to is the cry from those wanting something done, and something is done now, just what do you propose that would have stopped any one of the last 10 or 20 mass murderers over the past couple of years? Please give us a solution or idea. Since Murder is already illegal and carries the stiffest of penalties in some places (death) and that does not seem to stop them, please don’t propose a law that only disarms more law-abiding citizens. Let’s hear some concrete thought out helpful ideas and stop playing the blame game, blaming President Trump, blaming guns, blaming poor mental health screening, but not blaming the real root causes. Those are for another article.

Advertisements

The internet is good for some things, but not for telling you what firearm is best for you!

Recently on a Facebook group I read and follow a well meaning person asked the group in general what type of handgun she should buy. She gave a little bit of info in that she was a shorter in stature female but that was it.

And of course the responses were many and varied as greatly as the types of firearms recommended. And some of the responses are just plain bad advice.

And while some of those are great suggestions, Firearms are not a one size fits a certain sized person. Also some handguns are not made for concealed carry or for personal defense although almost all will do that if you have it in your hand at the time.

If you are looking at getting a handgun first what are you getting it for? Learning to shoot a handgun? Self defense at home or to concealed carry? There are many factors that go into what you look for in a handgun and to be honest, the internet and complete strangers is not the place to look for help.

If you are looking for a handgun or wanting to learn to shoot a handgun, go to a reputable gun range or gun store. Or find a reputable firearms instructor that you check the references or reviews on and get them to show you different firearms. DO NOT buy a firearm you have not shot the same model on a range! Handguns can look and feel very different. But until you actually shoot it on the range, you can not know how it feels in your hand and how you like or dislike the way it functions. Not all handguns are created equal.

So if you are new to firearms or handguns, do not take advice from the internet. Find a real person who is a professional and knows what they are doing when it comes to handguns or training.

Once you do decide on a handgun, make sure to get training in how to use it properly and how to shoot it. Remember why you were getting it in the first place. Isn’t your life (or the life of your loved ones) worth the time, effort and money to do it right?

FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE ALERT! OUR RIGHTS NEED YOUR VOICE!

HB 6007  – Licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons or Firearms. Removes provision prohibiting concealed carry licensees from openly carrying a handgun or carrying concealed weapon or firearm into college or university facility.

HB 6007 – Sometimes called “Campus Carry”, has been assigned to committees for hearing and review. Yesterday afternoon (01/16/2017) HB 6007 – Referred to Criminal Justice Subcommittee; Higher Education and Career Readiness Subcommittee, and Judiciary Committee. While it has not been scheduled for any hearings yet, if you are a firearms rights and Constitutional supporter you should support this Bill. It is time to make your voices heard. This Bill needs to be scheduled for hearings and a committee vote.

The Chairs of each committee decide what Bills get heard, and they can stop a Bill dead in its tracks by simply ignoring it. If they do not take it up for hearing, it dies a quiet death. We want this Bill to be heard and we need to make sure they know it has support from the law-abiding firearms owners of Florida.

Please take a few minutes in the next couple of days to email or call the Chair of the Criminal Justice Subcommittee, Rep. James “J.W.” Grant and Vice Chair Rep. Stan McClain and tell them to put the Bill up for hearing and a vote and that you, a law-abiding citizen of Florida support it! They have a meeting scheduled Jan 23rd, 2019 but the Bill is not on the agenda yet. Let’s see if we can get that changed!

Emails: James “J.W.” Grant – james.grant@myfloridahouse.gov   Twitter: @JamesGrantFl

                                Phone: (850) 717-5064

                Stan McClain – stan.mcclain@myfloridahouse.gov  Twitter: @RepMcClain

                                Phone: (850) 717-5023

While many of us feel very strongly about the Gun Free Zone/ Unarmed Victim Zone issues this Bill would fix, please be respectful and concise when emailing to them. We want them to be on our side, not against it.

In the Subject line, please include “Support HB 6007” as part of your subject.

If you happen to be on Twitter I also use it at @CmdrCW, but I may not be as tolerant of the anti-rights people there as I am here. 😉  

Why do we “need” AR-15 rifles or any other firearm?

Recently during a very one-sided debate, I was shouted at and asked why I “needed” an AR-15 or other rifles like that. I was also told that only the police and government should have those types of firearms.

Those comments made me shiver. The fact that people who are discussing basic Constitutional rights do not know what the basis of a right is, and why we should not allow them to be restricted or removed anymore than they are.

The first question as to why I “need” an AR-15 or other firearm is one of the core reasons for the 2nd Amendment. I do not ‘need” anything. I have the “right” to peacefully and lawfully possess an AR-15 or other firearm because it’s my choice. A “right” is just that, I can exercise it if I want to or not. Just like I can exercise my right to free speech or not. I can choose to be silent if I do not want to use that right, but if I do, as I am here, then there is nothing that should stop me if I am not harming anyone. Just as my right to own firearms is just that, my right, and should not be restricted if I am not harming anyone unlawfully. That’s why it’s a right and not a “need”.

And when they asked why I thought I should have them and not just the police and government, I almost fell out of my chair. Did they not know basic history? Our forefathers went to war to divest themselves of a government that was trying to do just that, remove arms from the citizens to make ruling over them easier. Of the numerous countries where the removal of the ability of the citizens to defend themselves, especially against a government that became tyrannical, dictatorial or worse, resulted in millions dying at the hands of that very government should have been enough. Then there is the minor issue of the police only having the guns. Having been one for 35 years, I am here to tell you police cannot protect you all the time. You are not able to rely on the few police officers out there that might just be lucky enough to be around the corner and arrive in the nick of time to save you. And the minor issue that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled it is not the duty of the police to protect you as an individual. So, if not theirs than who’s is it? It’s yours!

So when you ask why does someone need an Ar-15, we don’t need them. We have the right to have them. We don’t need them, unless of course we do to defend our family or country, from the government itself. Then it may be to late since some want them all removed because of the actions of a few murderers. And please don’t use that old worn out, you can never defeat the US Military with AR-15’s. I don’t expect a lot of military folks would go along with orders to attack or harm US Citizens. But that just is coming form a U.S. Army veteran. Had I been ordered to do so I would have simply refused.

So good luck with your arguments we don’t need these firearms. No we have the right to have them and until such a time as that right is repealed (that’s another topic) you have no right to tell me, a law abiding U.S. Citizen, that I don’t. As a side note, of the Bill of Rights, which ones have the words “shall not be infringed” in them? And why? Maybe because our forefathers had seen just that, a government trying to infringe on the citizens it was supposed to serve not rule?

It Takes a Good Guy With a Gun to Stop a Bad Guy With a Gun

“Law enforcement is reactionary by its very nature — remember, they come when you call, but you have to be able to call them.”

As news unfolded last week in this country, many things got splashed across our television screens and repeated over and over again. If the story is one of death or terror, it usually gets plenty of airtime and lots of print. A perfect example is the very newsworthy shooting at the Republican softball practice. A lunatic, left wing fringe ‘wanna-be killer’ tried to target unarmed and defenseless Congress members. It got the press time it deserved.

The attempted murder of our Congress members was stopped by two armed plain clothes police officers assigned as dignitary protection to one of the present members. Even after being wounded, they continued to engage the gunman. They were both transported to the hospital, and the gunman later died from his injuries. The other present members of Congress were fortunate the police officers had been assigned as protection.

Read the rest here.

Florida Officers are NOT Taught Firearms Law in the Police Academy.

I can only speak for my state, Florida, but I have found something that is very eye opening and needs to be addressed by the State of Florida.

I found that in the Basic Law Enforcement Officers Training Curriculum there is no mention anywhere of the laws and procedures relating to firearms and Concealed Carry License holders and laws, and it is vital that it be addressed immediately as it could result in the serious consequences for both my fellow law enforcement officers, and the law abiding citizens of Florida!

I have been teaching and training law enforcement and corrections officers in Florida for more than 34 years. I currently am the Law Enforcement/ Corrections Training Coordinator at Santa Fe College, Institute of Public Safety in Gainesville, and have been there for going on 20 years now. I have been very active in the past in writing and developing the FDLE/CJSTC Curriculum that we use to teach in our basic courses, acting as an SME (Subject Matter Expert) for FDLE on several subjects.

As part of my duties as coordinator, it is important that I review the current curriculums and make sure that we are teaching all of the needed information to make our officers/ deputies the very best informed and trained LEO’s we can. In addition, the more knowledgeable our LEO’s are the better they are equipped to handle situations that arise during their careers, and also helps to keep them from being liable for any misdeeds due to the lack of knowledge or training. It was while reviewing last years and this year’s Basic LEO curriculum that I found a serious omission in the text and materials.

I am sure that if I asked you how much time we spend on the firearms laws in the State of Florida in the Basic Academy you would probably say at least several hours, right? I mean with over 1.7 million concealed weapons license holders, you would think that we would address these laws and the proper way of dealing with this group of law abiding citizens correct? Well, we do not. There is actually 0 (zero) time or lessons dedicated to the instruction of the Firearms laws in the state of Florida. Even though Officers are expected to know and deal with these laws almost on a daily basis. In fact, we do not cover the laws concerning the CWL holders of Florida and what is legal and what is not as it pertains to citizens possessing firearms.

There are even only a few very brief, very short mentions of the Florida Chapter 790 in the entire training text. One of which simply mentions that it is one of the warrantless arrest exceptions for “Carrying a Firearm in Violation of an Injunction (s. 790.233, F.S.)” and “Carrying a Concealed Weapon (s. 790.02, F.S.)”[1] in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 mentions it as one of the crimes in Chapter 2, Unit 3, Lesson 2, Elements of crimes where it covers “carrying a Concealed Weapon (without a license), s. 790.01, Misdemeanor/ Felony”[2]. That is it! That is the entire law enforcement curriculum on dealing with firearms laws.

It is understood that we cannot cover every law and every situation in the Basic Law Enforcement Academies. I know this better than most people. But I also know that with the increase in Concealed Weapons License’s in the State of Florida (now over 1.7 million!) officers are encountering the law abiding citizen that is legally armed more and more. And with several current cases and lawsuits against officers and departments for unlawful arrests[3], or otherwise unknowingly violating a law-abiding, licensed citizens’ rights and getting complaints filed against them, we need to do something to better protect our officers, departments and the law abiding citizens of Florida.

I first discovered this lack of information when working on an in-service training curriculum with the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office Training Unit. They were getting complaints about officers disarming CWL holders during routine traffic stops and were investigating the legality of this issue and trying to better educate their Deputies. I assisted with the curriculum due to my involvement in this subject matter for a number of years.  We developed and used a very good curriculum and taught their deputies during in-service about the current state laws concerning the carrying of firearms by citizens. Both lawful and unlawful, and the training was well received.

The major issue at hand is the practice of officers “disarming” lawfully carrying citizens on the side of the street without any further reason than they are armed. Any handling of a firearm (which the LEO may not be familiar with) on the side of the road or elsewhere is potentially dangerous. It has been discussed and there is case law to support the view that officers, while being able to use Stop and Frisk (F.S.S. 901.151) when someone is under investigation for a criminal act, and when finding that the person may be armed AND is a danger to the officer, the officer may frisk for weapons, it does not cover frisking or disarming a law abiding citizen, who is not breaking any laws other than a possible civil infraction of traffic law. Officers can and do ask motorist and passengers if they are armed, and rightly can do so. But by Florida law it is not covered that they can then, upon learning they are a licensed, lawfully carrying citizen, disarm that person and deprive them of their property. In fact, the courts have held otherwise. In fact case law states that it is not permitted.[4] In fact, Florida law does not require a citizen to notify an officer they are lawfully armed unless the officer directly asks the person if they are armed (790.06).

In order to prevent citizen complaints and lawsuits for violation of citizens’ rights, do away with the unnecessary handling of firearms on the side of the street, and to increase the trust of the citizens with our police officers statewide (which is vital right now considering current events) I respectfully request that the CJSTC consider adding a lesson on Chapter 790, Firearms Laws and include as part of that, “Law Enforcement interactions with Concealed Weapons License Holders”.

This training is vital to our current situation and may help prevent unnecessary litigation and even possible injury or worse happening to one of our LEO’s or a law abiding citizen. And it is important to remind everyone involved that there are multiple cases now of lawfully armed citizens saving the lives of Police Officers across the nation! Lawful gun owners are not the problem or the enemy!

 

Refs:

1 Florida Basic Recruit Training Program, Text Book 1, Version 2016.07, Page 52 & 53.

2 Florida Basic Recruit Training Program, Text Book 1, Version 2016.07, Page 74.

3 Freeman & Florida Carry v. City of Tampa, et al./ Norman vs. State of Florida (currently under review by the Florida Supreme Court) / Florida Carry v. City of Daytona Beach

4 741 So.2d 1268 (1999), Bruce WELCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 98-2615. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

[1] Florida Basic Recruit Training Program, Text Book 1, Version 2016.07, Page 52 & 53.

[2] Florida Basic Recruit Training Program, Text Book 1, Version 2016.07, Page 74.

[3] Freeman & Florida Carry v. City of Tampa, et al./ Norman vs. State of Florida (currently under review by the Florida Supreme Court) / Florida Carry v. City of Daytona Beach

[4] 741 So.2d 1268 (1999), Bruce WELCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 98-2615. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

 

Mandating Self-Defense Insurance for those that Carry Firearms – good or bad idea?

“The cost of using your firearm in self-defense can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars if you have to hire a lawyer, get yourself bailed out of jail, and fight for yourself in court.”

There has been some back and forth in various media and groups on the internet about possible gun control laws that would require a person who carries a firearm for self-defense to have insurance in case the firearm is used in any incident. And some legislators thought about making it mandatory to get a concealed carry permit. I don’t think I need to tell you this is a bad idea on many levels, but just in case, let me try.

First, you should NEVER have to pay to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. But even that is still not a reason good enough for some. Second, by requiring insurance to be allowed to carry a concealed or open carry firearm, you are limiting the exercise of a right to only those who can afford to purchase the insurance. That is basically “disenfranchising” to those with a lower socio-economic status. Third, the market is very limited in the choices of insurance carriers, and there is no “standard” that one can look for in a company.

Read the rest of the story here…