Category: Self Defense

Protecting Second Amendment rights from Washington

SOUTH DAKOTA GOVERNOR KRISTI NOEM:

The Constitution is specific when it comes to our right to defend ourselves. The words boldly declare, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The fact that I will defend that right is an important distinction between myself and politicians like President Joe Biden , who said from the White House in April of last year that, with regard to the Second Amendment, “no amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute.” These are the words of a politician with plans to chip away at the Bill of Rights.

The Biden gun-grabbing agenda includes bans on certain firearms, gun buyback programs, lawsuits targeting gun manufacturers, and restrictions on private firearm transfers that fundamentally end gun shows. I am 100% against federal politicians restricting gun rights because I stand with our founders who wrote this country’s founding documents.

The Constitution recognizes an existing natural right of all people to be free from government oppression. It also allows personal protection through the right to keep and bear arms. I have stood strong to protect the rights of my people here in South Dakota. Those on the extreme Left have opposed my thoughtful approach to COVID-19 and condemned my refusal to infringe on the freedoms of our citizens. I kept our state open and did not impose unconstitutional mandates. This battle for our right to bear arms will require the same fortitude and determination.

Our outdoor heritage and hunting culture are popular in my state of South Dakota, yet they’re not so popular with politicians from states such as New York, California, and Delaware. Unlike so many other politicians, I am an actual hunter. My Grandma Dorris taught me how to hunt birds when I was a young girl, and my father was the one who took me big-game hunting. Our family has made so many memories enjoying and exercising our Second Amendment rights. I have never lost that love for the outdoors and hunting, and I have passed it on to my children. Hopefully soon, I will also enjoy this pastime with my brand new granddaughter, Miss Addie. Hunting is an important part of gun rights, yet we must never forget that these rights were protected in our Constitution for another reason, too. Our founders wisely included this language to also guard against tyranny, like we experienced from Great Britain at the founding of this great nation.

Politicians should be judged by their actions. The first bill I signed into law here in South Dakota was constitutional carry. A previous governor had vetoed it, but I wanted the people of South Dakota to know I would protect their Second Amendment rights. Earlier this month, I announced at my State of the State address that I am eliminating all fees associated with permits and federal background checks for gun sales. It won’t cost a penny to exercise your Second Amendment rights in South Dakota.

I recently received the “Courage Under Fire” award from the Safari Club International . I was honored when CEO Laird Hamberlin spoke on my behalf at the event and said, “No governor has fought more to protect our hunting traditions, and we cannot wait to recognize Gov. Noem as we celebrate SCI’s 50 Years of Freedom.” He cited my record for respecting “the rights of her people by trusting them to use personal responsibility to make the best decisions for themselves, their loved ones, and, in turn, their communities.” He thanked me by saying I have been “a leader in promoting hunting, public access, and conservation across her state.” I cite this because it is an award that should be shared with the people of South Dakota who are standing strong against oppressive ideas coming from Washington, D.C.

Conservatives in this country need only look to the states for leaders who have fiercely fought to protect their rights in the past. We will continue to protect Second Amendment rights, even if Democrats have total control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. As governor of South Dakota, I have proven I will stand strong against any attempt by Biden or a woke Congress to take away fundamental rights from South Dakotans. And I am ready to defend our constitutional right to bear arms once again and always.

Kristi Noem is the governor of South Dakota.

Eric is nothing if not determined….. and patient.

Measure derided as the ‘Make Murder Legal Act’ killed in Missouri Senate committee

JEFFERSON CITY — A Missouri Senate panel on Thursday terminated a proposal one county prosecutor called the “Make Murder Legal Act.”

The official name of the measure is Senate Bill 666, which the sponsor, Sen. Eric Burlison, R-Battlefield, said he didn’t choose.

Members of the GOP-controlled Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee failed to advance the bill out of committee on Thursday.

Burlison, however, told the Post-Dispatch that he could bring the measure back as an amendment to other firearms legislation he’s sponsoring.

“There are multiple ways to pass language,” Burlison said.

The legislation would’ve established a presumption that a defendant acted reasonably in self-defense when they use force against another person.

“I refer to it as the ‘Make Murder Legal Act,’” Stoddard County Prosecuting Attorney Russ Oliver, a Republican representing the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said in a Senate committee hearing last week.

“What we are doing with this bill is … basically saying the 6,500 assaults that are committed every single year in Missouri — that every single one of those are automatically presumed to be self-defense,” Oliver said.

Burlison said the claims are overblown.

Continue reading “”

Letters to the Editor: You don’t have to shoot someone to use a gun defensively

To the editor: Dr. Steven J. Sainsbury pushes the absurd claim there are only 2,000 defensive gun uses per year. (“Thinking of buying a gun for self-defense? Don’t do it,” Opinion, Jan. 31)

The claim overwhelmingly relies on counting defensive gun uses reported in news articles, but that is a dramatic undercount because the vast majority of successful self-defense cases don’t make the news. Ninety-five percent of defensive gun uses involve merely brandishing a gun, and less than 1% involve the attacker being killed or wounded.

But most news stories only report on cases where attackers are killed and brandishings are ignored.

Seventeen national surveys find an average of 2 million defensive gun uses per year. The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey puts it at around 100,000. Both show the 2,000 claim to be ridiculous.

Finally, the article labels me as a “gun rights advocate,” not a researcher who has held academic positions at the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Chicago, Stanford and Yale. I have also been a senior advisor for research at the U.S. Department of Justice.

John R. Lott Jr., Missoula, Mt.

Robbery victim shoots 17-year-old in self-defense, 4 teens charged

BOWIE, Md. — A group of four teens has been arrested and charged after allegedly attempting to rob a victim just after 5 p.m. on Tuesday.

Bowie police said they were called to the 14900 block of Health Center Drive for reports of gunshots and a robbery, which is near the Bowie Health Center.

According to police, the victim was approached by four suspects who had handguns. The victim then took out his own handgun, which police believe they did in self-defense. The victim ended up shooting one suspect

Police say the victim did end up shooting one of the suspects.

The group then fled the scene, according to police. Police found the 15-year-old suspect nearby and the 17-year-old suspect was identified after turning himself in for treatment of his gunshot wound.

The other two teens were found after crashing a car that police said was reported stolen in Virginia. Prince George’s police found the car, the teens and two firearms after the incident in Glendale.

In total, police have now arrested and charged a 15 and 16-year-old, of Hyattsville and Upper Marlboro, as well as two 17-year-olds from Hyattsville and Bladensburg. The three oldest teens have been charged as adults.

Bowie Police Chief John Nesky held a news conference Wednesday to confirm the details.

“These individuals are dangerous people. That’s evident by their actions last night,” Nesky said in the conference in response to a question from WUSA9’s Scott Broom. “I believe that this is probably part of a larger trend we are seeing in the area and around the region, especially as it pertains to juvenile crime . . . If you don’t have those supports systems, if you don’t have any other kinds of guardrails or systems, you’re going to get these kinds of actions.”

Shooting death ruled justifiable after juvenile shoots back at intruder

RICHLAND COUNTY, S.C. — A recent homicide at a Columbia apartment complex has been determined to be justified after a man tried to break into an apartment and was shot by a juvenile, according to the Richland County Sheriff’s Department.

On Sunday, February 6, around 5 p.m., deputies responded to Gable Hill Apartments on Ross Road after receiving reports of an unresponsive man.

Upon their arrival, deputies say they found a man inside of an apartment who was deceased. He appeared to have a gunshot wound to the upper body and evidence of a shooting was observed in the apartment, according to investigators.

During the investigation, deputies say they discovered that two juveniles were at home when they saw a man trying to break in. The juveniles hid but when the man entered the apartment, he fired at them. Deputies say one of the juveniles shot back with a weapon that was in the home and struck the intruder.

“We continue to lose young people to gun violence,” Richland County Sheriff Leon said. “This community problem will only continue until we get parents and young people involved in the solution. Let’s pray and work together before we lose another life.”

Concealed carry holder shoots man who is armed with a knife in Rogers Park

A concealed carry holder who was investigating a domestic disturbance at his neighbor’s home shot a 19-year-old man who was armed with a knife on Tuesday evening, police said. After being shot, the injured man, still armed with a knife, encountered responding Chicago police officers who deployed a Tazer to take him into custody, according to a CPD report.

Officers were called to the 1500 block of West Juneway Terrace to handle a domestic incident around 10:43 p.m. One of the calls came from the concealed carry holder, who told police that he heard a loud argument coming from his neighbor’s residence, police said in a media statement.

The CCL holder went to the neighbor’s home where a woman was in a confrontation with her 19-year-old son, who appeared to be in the midst of a mental episode while holding a knife, the CPD report said.

Police said the CCL holder left the area, but the 19-year-old followed him with the knife and “continued to approach” the man. The neighbor drew his gun in an alley and shot the 19-year-old, striking him once in the leg, according to the CPD report.

When patrol officers arrived in the area, they encountered the 19-year-old walking down the street toward them with a knife in his hand, the police report said. The officers used a Tazer to gain control of him and placed him in custody.

EMS took the 19-year-old to St. Francis Hospital, where emergency workers determined that an injury to his leg, initially believed to be a self-inflicted cut, was a gunshot wound. He was listed in good condition, police said.

EMS also checked out the 19-year-old’s mother for a minor injury to her hand.

Area Three detectives are investigating the incident.

I Was Anti-Gun And A Pregnant Mother When Home Invaders Broke Into My House

(SOFREP invites reader submissions for publication. Today we offer you this harrowing story from one of our members named Marcie who writes about how a home invasion while she was pregnant and home alone with her other child changed her entire worldview when it came to gun ownership.)

Few people would look at me now and think that, but yes, I used to believe that guns were a danger to society.

The media likes to show us gun violence all the time, with the insinuation that it’s the gun, not the person, who did the crime. Rarely do they show you examples of guns being used in self-defense. Most people who promote gun control live in quiet neighborhoods where residents see guns as almost alien.

But if you have ever lived in a dangerous place, then you know the importance of guns. That’s what happened to me when I moved to Tolleson, Arizona, two years ago.

I moved there to live with my husband, who is a firefighter. After moving, my husband needed to leave town for training. So I was left home alone, pregnant with our child. I didn’t mind too much, as I thought it would be a little staycation. I couldn’t go anywhere, anyway, since our clunker of a car was in the shop.

In hindsight, I should have known that no car being at our home for an extended period made the wrong people think that both of us were gone. Sure enough, that happened. When two thieves broke into my home through the kitchen door, it happened so suddenly that I had no plan of action. My heart racing, I ran into the bathroom where I thought it was safe and took out my phone.

I frantically started to call 911. However, my phone could not get through to a responder. The bathroom was a dead zone for phone service where I lived. However, my phone was connected to my WiFi. I contacted my sister on Facebook, and she managed to call 911.

As I waited for the police to come, my heart continued to race. What if the police did not respond in time? There are many cases of the police taking too long to respond to a situation that requires immediate action, as many factors can delay response time.

As I heard the thieves rustling around the house, I wondered what they would do. Steal my TV or jewelry? That was replaceable. However, what if they found me and did something horrifying to my unborn child and me?

All these worries soon subsided, luckily, as the police did arrive in only a few minutes. After seeing the police approach my door, the thieves immediately ran away, their pockets empty. One bystander told me the thieves were armed as I was filing a report. Once again, those thoughts about what the thieves could have done to me immediately raced to my head.

It was at that point I realized I needed to arm myself. Since then, I have never left home without a pistol. I have to protect myself, my husband, and our two-year-old daughter. Chances are, you have someone you want to save. I recommend arming yourself as well with an easy-to-access pistol.

Speaking of pistol, what’s my favorite? As a woman, I wanted something easily concealable that I could fire at a moment’s notice. I wanted something powerful yet easy to use for a more petite frame.

Upon research, I chose the SIG Sauer P365. This 9mm pistol is a little under 6 inches wide and slightly above 4 inches tall, making it perfect for concealing. Despite its small frame, it holds ten rounds and packs quite a wallop. Any woman can use it to even the odds if a thief enters their home. With its small trigger, it doesn’t matter how small you are. You can fight back.

That’s my story. Since having a gun, I’ve felt safer, and I’ve found a new hobby to enjoy. If you’ve been interested in owning a firearm, now is the time to do so. I hope this article helped you learn where I’m coming from when advocating for guns.

BLUF:
The lie is that mandatory training saves lives.
The truth is it costs lives.
Gun-control laws often disarm minorities, women, and the poor.
The lie is that mandatory firearms storage saves lives.
The truth is it costs lives.
The lie is that gun-laws disarm criminals.
The truth is that gun-control laws disarm law-abiding victims.
That tells me that one purpose of gun-control is to impose higher costs on gun owners rather than to save lives.
The lie is that guns cause violence.
The truth is that criminals cause violence and government officials have failed to control violent criminals.

Painful Lies and Boring Facts About Being Armed

I’m in a rut. I read the endless stream of gun-control proposals and I have the same reaction time after time. Gun-control advocates promise us safety in return for further restricting the ability of ordinary citizens to go armed. Those excuses would be laughable if they didn’t cost so many lives. It is easier for us to recognize the false-claims of gun-control if we have a sense of proportion and perspective. Then we can see it is a step backwards when we create a larger problem as we work to solve a smaller one. If we actually want to save lives then we have to see the big picture and do no harm.

Ordinary citizens defend themselves with a gun several thousand times a day. Our armed defense stops tens of thousands of robberies, assaults, and rapes. It saves thousands of lives a year. Many thousands. Despite that immense virtue, nothing is perfect. We are human so there are problems with armed defense.

Gun-control runs into problems precisely because armed defense saves so many lives. To change our laws and save a few more lives tomorrow, we can’t reduce the many lives we save each day. It is hard to pass a gun-control law that will do no harm. Let me give you an example to make that clear.

Each week I analyze how ordinary people defended themselves with a firearm. I advocate for instruction, training, and practice. I encourage people to plan for lethal and non-lethal defense. We talk about avoidance and de-escalation all the time. Sure, I want gun owners to be trained, but I have perspective.

Week after week we see criminals break into a home. Grandma grabs her gun and says she is armed. The robber runs away because grandma wasn’t the victim he expected. The great news is that eight-times-out-of-ten the bad guys runs away before we have to fire a shot. I don’t see where mandatory safety training could make this self-defense situation significantly safer or more effective. 8-out-of-10 times it is already good enough.

Proportions are crucial. Firearms accidents are rare but criminal attacks are common. Yes, I ask gun owners to take training, but I know that costs money, takes time, and demands energy. Disarming ordinary citizens until they take training means that more good people will be disarmed. Maybe mandatory training saved a few people from firearms accidents but we condemned more of them to be the unarmed victims of violent crime. The unarmed victims will have to surrender or go against a criminal attacker with their bare hands. Criminals plan their attacks to beat an unarmed victim. I don’t want that, and few of us do.

Continue reading “”

Homeowner shoots, kills man inside home

CHOCTAW COUNTY, Okla. (KFOR) – Agents with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation are looking into the death of a Hugo man.

Just before midnight, dispatchers received a 911 call about a shooting near Sawyer, Oklahoma.

Choctaw County deputies and Choctaw Tribal police responded to the scene and found 29-year-old Lonnie Cole dead outside of the home.

Choctaw County asked the OSBI for assistance.

Based on the initial investigation, authorities say the homeowner arrived at the house and found Cole in his home.

Investigators say there was an altercation between the two men before the homeowner shot Cole.

So far, no arrests have been made.

The report will be sent to the Choctaw County District Attorney’s Office, who will then determine if charges will be filed or not.

Gun Buying Advice For Women, From a Woman

I used to be vehemently opposed to firearms because of the way my mom’s negative view of them influenced me as I grew up. It wasn’t until around 19 years old that my boyfriend at the time gave me my first introduction to firearms. He was very patient and taught me the basics of how to shoot. I loved it. I no longer felt negatively towards firearms, but I never really got into them, either. I honestly didn’t see a reason to. I didn’t feel I needed one for protection and didn’t have a desire to go shooting for fun or to hunt. It just wasn’t who I was at the time. It wasn’t until I met my now-husband that I got heavily into firearms. It was as if I had discovered a part of my true calling.

Continue reading “”

Armed Defense is always a Matter of Time

I know that you’re way smarter than this, but I keep hearing new gun owners get bad advice. We hear it everywhere, from the news to the lunch counter. I’m not criticizing either party because I suspect they are simply repeating something they’ve heard. This is important because we can invent all sorts of complicated schemes as we plan our defense. It is easy to forget that time controls almost everything as we defend ourselves. Eventually, we remember that the bad guys arrive with a plan. We get to defend ourselves, our family, and our friends with what’s physically within reach and mentally within reach. Let’s look at some common suggestions and see how they measure against the clock.

Continue reading “”

1,The new law imposes unnecessary burdens on lawful gun owners and are unlikely to save taxpayers a single dollar, much less save a single life.

2,The law’s burdens on San Jose gun owners aren’t justified by the rare times when insurance might cover an incident of gun violence.

3,If San Jose officials are serious about reducing gun violence and lowering associated financial costs, there are plenty of better solutions.

8 Problems With San Jose’s Gun Insurance Mandate and Gun Ownership Tax

Lawful gun ownership in San Jose, California, is about to become more expensive and onerous after the City Council passed a measure imposing two unprecedented burdens on the possession of firearms inside city limits.

Beginning later this year, San Jose’s lawful gun owners will be required to maintain “a homeowner’s, renter’s, or gun liability insurance policy … specifically covering losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use” of their firearms.

Gun owners also must pay an annual “Gun Harm Reduction Fee”—an as-yet undetermined amount that officials suggest will be roughly $25 a year.

City officials claim these are necessary steps that will save lives by incentivizing responsible gun ownership practices while making gun owners foot the bill for the financial costs of gun violence.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

In reality, the new law imposes unnecessary burdens on lawful gun owners and are unlikely to save taxpayers a single dollar, much less save a single life.

Here are eight major problems with San Jose’s latest gun control push:

1. Enforcement Nearly Impossible

The new ordinance doesn’t require gun owners to certify that they’ve obtained coverage or paid the annual fee.

Unless the city plans on conducting door-to-door compliance checks, it will face a nearly impossible task of ensuring widespread compliance with what is essentially an honor system.

2. Insurance Policies Don’t Exist

Currently, the only independent liability insurance for gun owners is self-defense insurance, which covers the costs for any criminal or civil proceedings resulting from a gun owner’s intentional defensive use of a firearm.

These plans don’t cover civil liability for cases of negligence or accidental shootings, as required by the San Jose ordinance.

This means gun owners will have to rely exclusively on personal liability provisions in their homeowner’s or renter’s insurance plans, or pay hundreds of dollars for a personal liability umbrella plan. Even then, such plans rarely include specific provisions covering liability for gun-related injuries.

3. Insignificant Coverage

Even in a best-case scenario where gun liability insurance is widely available and the requirement is widely enforced, these insurance plans will cover only a miniscule fraction of gun deaths and injuries occurring inside San Jose.

Most acts of gun violence involve criminal or intentionally wrongful acts, which California law prohibits insurance companies from covering. Importantly, this would exclude coverage not just for homicide and assault, but also for gun suicides, which comprise 60% of all gun deaths.

Additionally, while the new law purports to make gun owners responsible for any harm inflicted by lost or stolen firearms unless the guns were first reported as lost or stolen, homeowner’s and renter’s insurance policies cover acts committed only by the insured person while on the insured property.

So regardless of who San Jose deems responsible, if the gun owner has a typical homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy, that policy simply wouldn’t cover, for example, harm inflicted by a thief who stole the gun or by the gun owner during an off-property hunting accident.

Nor do these policies cover harm inflicted on an insured party, as when a gunowner accidentally shoots himself or a household member while cleaning his gun.

This leaves coverage limited to the narrow circumstances in which an insured gun owner, while on his or her own property, accidentally or negligently harms a third party with a firearm.

This type of gun violence is relatively rare.

According to a report that the city itself relied on to support the mandate, San Jose averages only two “unintentional/undetermined” gun deaths a year, amounting to only 3.4% of all annual gun deaths.

At the same time, the city with a population over 1 million averages 25 annual nonfatal hospital inpatient admissions and 59 annual emergency room visits without hospitalization due to “unintentional/undetermined” gun injuries.

Even if most of these deaths and injuries are truly “unintentional,” as opposed to merely “undetermined,” it’s impossible to know how many were committed with lawfully possessed guns in circumstances that would be covered with traditional homeowner’s or renter’s liability policies.

And, of course, no insurance policy would cover situations involving unlawfully possessed guns.

The law’s burdens on San Jose gun owners aren’t justified by the rare times when insurance might cover an incident of gun violence.

4.  Payouts Don’t Reduce Taxpayer Burden

San Jose officials repeatedly defended their gun insurance mandate by lamenting the financial cost of gun violence on the city’s emergency response services and insisting that gun owners should pick up the tab for gun violence.

And yet, mandating gun liability insurance does nothing to alleviate the cost to taxpayers. In the rare instances where insurance policies might cover gun injuries, the payouts wouldn’t go to the city or to its emergency responders.

Instead, the payments would be directed toward the victim’s medical bills (a cost only sometimes and indirectly borne by taxpayers if the victim is uninsured or on state-subsidized insurance) and any potential civil damages for lost wages or pain and suffering (a cost never borne by taxpayers).

5.  Mandate Won’t Save Lives

Just as the insurance mandate is unlikely to save taxpayer money, it’s equally unlikely to save lives by deterring future acts of gun violence.

California has the most stringent gun laws in the nation. If gun owners aren’t deterred from negligent, reckless, or unsafe conduct by the state’s existing criminal sanctions or impositions of civil liability, why would they be deterred by the risk of increased insurance premiums?

Perhaps worse, gun liability insurance for negligence may create perverse disincentives for gun owners, who no longer risk financial ruin for careless conduct that harms others.

6. Unconstitutional Tax

San Jose refers to the new fee imposed on gun owners as a “Gun Harm Reduction Fee,” but it’s nothing less than an unconstitutional tax on the exercise of an enumerated right.

The Supreme Court has struck down similar laws, reasoning that “a state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution.”

This is precisely what San Jose’s fee does—require gun owners to pay an annual sum of money to exercise their Second Amendment rights inside the city.

7. Misplaced Blame

Lawful gun owners aren’t the driving force behind gun violence, and yet San Jose has singled them out to pay for gun violence.

Law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be saddled with the blame (or the bill) for criminal actions they didn’t commit, encourage, or facilitate.

8.  Legitimate Solutions Ignored

If San Jose officials are serious about reducing gun violence and lowering associated financial costs, there are plenty of better solutions.

The city could focus its energy on enforcing existing gun laws—perhaps, for example, by disarming its share of the 23,000 Californians who state authorities know possess guns despite being prohibited persons.

It could make these unlawful gun owners and others who commit gun crimes pay by imposing fees and restitution to the state as part of criminal sentencing.

The city also could increase the size of its police force to deal with chronic understaffing and workload problems that inhibit officers’ ability to enforce the law.

Instead of opting for these rational and straightforward steps, however, the city apparently has defaulted to what’s become an all-too-common tactic in gun control politics—passing unserious laws that burden lawful gun ownership without addressing any of the real problems.

 

Constitutional Carry and Letting Our Neighbors Go Armed

It is more dangerous when honest men and women face criminals barehanded, and safer when the good guys are armed. That isn’t hard to understand. It is easy to calculate the additional lives we’d save each year if a state allows honest people to carry guns in public. I can explain it in a minute. I will, but the real mystery is why we’re still talking about fantasy problems while violent criminals are killing our neighbors. We’re acting as if our bad dreams were more real than the bodies with chalk marks around them. Part of that problem is political. Politicians appeal to our fantasies and we’re suckers for that. Politicians also suck up to anti-gun billionaires to get campaign contributions. Ultimately, voters like us are the problem when we hide behind sound-bite solutions.

Back in the real world, disarming our neighbors costs lives.

When you take even the shallowest look at violence then you notice that an armed attacker usually overpowers an unarmed victim. Criminals may break the laws but they are not stupid. They choose the tools that work. To quote one thug, ‘Guns and knives make people so generous.’

Robbers sometimes threaten to shoot us even when they don’t have a gun. Criminals only use guns in one-seventh of violent crimes. Unfortunately, violent criminals wait until they have an advantage in strength, in number, or in surprise. Rather than struggle with the insoluble problem of knowing if the robber’s threat is real, the real solution is for good men and women to go armed.

We don’t need clever calculations to know how many lives are saved when the victims are armed. We know that about 1.7 million legal gun owners use a firearm in self-defense each year. We know how many people live in each state and already have their carry permits. We know the rate of violent crime in each state, and we learned that about 30 percent of adults will carry concealed if the carry permit is optional. We even know how often people with their carry permits actually go armed in public. We know what happens because we asked and because 21 states already have a form of permit-optional concealed carry.

In most states, we’re talking about saving thousands of lives a year. We can argue about the clearest way to explain the answer, but the calculations only take junior-high-school math.

Continue reading “”

Upstate resident shoots and kills intruder during burglary

CHEROKEE COUNTY, S.C. (WSPA) – The Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office is investigating an overnight burglary that left one person dead.

According to the Sheriff’s Office, deputies were called to a home on Deana Lane in Blacksburg shortly after 2:20 a.m. Wednesday. There, they say that 29-year-old Roger Robertson forced his way into the home and assaulted one of the residents.

“I received a call about 2:30 this morning from my mom. She was very erratic, barely speaking,” said Lee Tallent, relative of the resident.

He told 7News that it was a moment of disbelief when he was awoken out of his sleep by a call informing him that his brother had been involved in a shooting.

“Once I got it out of her, I realized there had been a shooting at my mom’s residence. After talking to her a little bit we had figured out that my little brother had fired a shot,” said Tallent. “Somebody had broke into the house, busted through the front door and started attacking my little brother with an object.”

The Cherokee County Sheriff’s office said the resident, feared for their safety, then fired a single round, striking Robertson in the chest.

“My little brother was just able, thank God, able to access his handgun and fire a point shot,” said Tallent. “It makes me feel like I wish I had been here. Me and my brother are real close. We are like night and day, but we are real close. I’ve always had his back and he’s always had my back. And so, I hate that I wasn’t here to help him.”

Robert fled the scene in a waiting vehicle that was taken to Cherokee Medical Center where he was pronounced dead at 3:28 a.m., according to the Coroner’s office.

The resident was also taken to the hospital and treated for his injuries sustained during the burglary.

Now the family is left piecing together the overnight encounter, counting their blessings.

“I’ve been here with my mom for a couple of hours and she’s been pretty upset. She’s tore up about it and I know my little brother is tore up about it too,” said Tallent. “The last thing he would ever want is to take somebody’s life.”

Investigators have determined that Robertson was known by the victim prior to the burglary.

Well, pistol whipping, often called ‘buffaloing‘, does have a lot of history behind it. Another instance of a literal ‘slug for a thug’

Charges filed in weekend self-defense shooting

A Joplin man is facing three felony counts in connection with a shooting incident early Saturday morning in the 700 block of West 21st Street.

Robert M. Nevels, 33, was arrested at the scene of the shooting and taken to the hospital for treatment before being transported to jail.

Joplin police Capt. William Davis said homeowner Brian L. Sooter, 47, told police that Nevels pulled a gun on him at his residence and that he defended himself by pulling out his own gun and firing a shot at him.

Davis said Nevels was not hit by the round, but Sooter then struck him with his gun and Nevels sustained facial injuries requiring treatment at Mercy Hospital Joplin.

About 18 grams of methamphetamine purportedly were found in Nevels’ possession when he was arrested. He has been charged with unlawful use of a weapon, unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon and delivery of a controlled substance.

She gave as good as she got. Brave lady there.

Store worker shoots suspect during robbery in Wissinoming

PHILADELPHIA – A Philadelphia store worker who police say was shot during an armed robbery was able to return fire, wounding one of the suspects.

The store clerk, a 32-year-old woman, is now hospitalized in critical condition after she was shot as many as three times.

The incident occurred just before 4 a.m. Tuesday morning inside of a store on the 5500 block of Torresdale Avenue in Philadelphia’s Wissinoming neighborhood.

Police say the victim was behind the counter with the manager when two suspects entered the store through a rear door and went behind the counter. A struggled ensued and the victim was shot 2-3 times in the thigh.

Police say she was also armed and fired at the suspects.

Investigators say they believed one of the suspects was shot, and alerted local hospitals in case he showed up for treatment.

Later Tuesday morning, police say a man matching the description of the suspect on the store’s surveillance video was dropped off at Temple University Hospital with multiple gunshot wounds.

At least two guns were recovered at the scene.

Well, I’ve found that a lot of prosecutors, even purportedly Republican prosecutors, don’t like it that self defense is legal.

Prosecutor labels Missouri self-defense bill “Make Murder Legal Act”

One of the most basic tenets of our criminal justice system is that you are considered innocent until your guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In a criminal case, it’s not up to the defendant to prove they didn’t commit a crime. It’s up to prosecutors to prove to the jury that they did.

Yet in Missouri, individuals charged with a crime of violence who acted in self-defense don’t start with the presumption of innocence. Instead, self-defense is considered an affirmative defense, which puts the burden on the defendant to prove they’re not guilty of the charges levied against them. Some Republicans in Missouri are hoping to change that, but prosecutors, sheriffs, and police chiefs are attacking the bill and calling it a license to murder.

I refer to it as the ‘Make Murder Legal Act,’” said Stoddard County Prosecuting Attorney Russ Oliver, a Republican representing the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

“What we are doing with this bill is … basically saying the 6,500 assaults that are committed every single year in Missouri — that every single one of those are automatically presumed to be self defense,” Oliver said.

Well, why wouldn’t you start with the presumption that someone was acting in self-defense, and then see where the evidence takes you?

“Right now, you have a right to defend yourself,” Oliver said. “There’s no one saying you can’t defend yourself. But you do have the burden of injecting the issue.”

The bill “shifts that burden into a presumption that you are automatically engaged in self defense,” he said. “So long as the person is dead … you automatically have immunity because there’s not someone else to even say what had happened.

This argument doesn’t make any sense to me. The bill shifts the burden of proof onto prosecutors, which is exactly where it’s supposed to lie. As for Oliver’s claim that, so long as the person who was assaulted dies, there’s automatic immunity, that’s just ridiculous. Would police lose access to any potential forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, or other factors that could help lead to a conviction if the bill being debated becomes law? No they would not.

The only thing that would change under SB 666 is that it would be up to the prosecutor to prove that the defendant committed a criminal offense, instead of the defendant having to show they acted in self-defense. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. Frankly, I think that’s what the law should have been from the get-go.

While the bill’s critics were out in force, there were some supporters testifying in favor as well, including Mark McCloskey, the candidate for U.S. Senate who became nationally known after he and his wife displayed firearms on the lawn of their home as a crowd of rowdy protesters marched through their gated community on their way to demonstrate outside of the home of St. Louis’ mayor in the summer of 2020.

“The bill before the Senate now turns the Castle Doctrine into a bar to prosecution,” McCloskey said. “We were shocked to find out when we were charged that the Castle Doctrine can only be raised as an affirmative defense. “You have to have the jury decide the issue of whether or not you committed a crime, and then whether or not the Castle Doctrine provides you with a defense,” McCloskey said. “That’s backwards.”

Completely backwards, but I hope that the Missouri legislature can turn things around this session and place the burden of proof back where it belongs; on the prosecution, and not on the defense.

While testimony on the bill was heard in the state Senate’s Transportation, Infrastructure, and Public Safety Committee on Monday, the legislation didn’t come up for a vote and it’s unclear when the bill may move to the Senate floor. The lobbying by prosecutors and law enforcement may sway some Republicans to keep the status quo in place, but frankly, the laws aren’t supposed to it easier for the state to obtain a conviction in criminal cases… at least not at the expense of the rights of the defendant. I understand why prosecutors like Oliver want to keep the status quo in place, but that doesn’t mean I agree with them.

Armed intruder shot by homeowner in exchange of gunfire
The homeowner shot the suspect in an exchange of gunfire in Rainier, Ore. The suspect is expected to survive and no one else was hurt.

RAINIER, Ore. — A homeowner shot an armed suspect who broke into their home in Rainier, Ore., early Sunday morning, police said.

The Rainier Police Department said officers responded to a call about a burglary at a home in the 600 block of West C Street in the early hours of the day.

When they arrived, they learned a burglar had attempted to rob the homeowner and they exchanged gunfire. The suspect was shot but is expected to survive. The homeowner was not hurt.

Police took they detained the suspect and transported him to a local hospital for treatment. His name was not immediately released.

The Columbia County Major Crimes Team is investigating.

Off-duty correction officer shoots armed Bronx robbers after he’s lured by woman with promise of date

An off-duty correction officer shot a pair of armed robbers in the Bronx after he was lured into meeting up by a woman promising him a date, police sources said.

The correction officer thought he was meeting 21-year-old Diamond Sanchez for a date about 6 p.m. Saturday — but she had other plans for him, the sources said.

Police did not release the name of the correction officer, who’s in his 20s. A law enforcement said the victim works for the New York State Corrections Department.

An off-duty correction officer lured into a robbery by a woman turned the tables on his robbers, shooting them when they pulled a gun on him in the Bronx Saturday night, cop sources said.
© Jeff Bachner/New York Daily News/TNS
An off-duty correction officer lured into a robbery by a woman turned the tables on his robbers, shooting them when they pulled a gun on him in the Bronx Saturday night, cop sources said.
The victim and Sanchez were sitting in a car at E. 183rd St. and Tiebout St. in Fordham Heights, when two men, Christopher Santana, 22, and Leonel Cuevas, 26, walked up to them, the sources said.

An off-duty correction officer lured into a robbery by a woman turned the tables on his robbers, shooting them when they pulled a gun on him in the Bronx Saturday night, cop sources said.
© Jeff Bachner/New York Daily News/TNS
An off-duty correction officer lured into a robbery by a woman turned the tables on his robbers, shooting them when they pulled a gun on him in the Bronx Saturday night, cop sources said.
One of the duo pulled out a gun and demanded the correction officer’s belongings, but the victim was armed as well, opening fire from inside the vehicle, the sources said.

The correction officer shot Cuevas multiple times in the chest and blasted Santana in the stomach, back and hip.

Medics took both men to St. Barnabas Hospital, where Cuevas is in critical condition. Santana is in stable condition, police said.

One of the duo dropped their gun, and Sanchez tried to hide it, police sources said.

All three are charged with robbery and criminal possession of a weapon while Sanchez is also charged with tampering with evidence.

The correction officer is not expected to face any charges, police sources said.

Bill aims to erase “duty to retreat” in New York law

ALBANY — When threatened by an aggressor outside their homes, people in New York, under current law, have a duty to retreat — if possible — before resorting to force.

Now, an upstate lawmaker, state Sen. George Borrello, R-Chautauqua County, has introduced a measure that would scrap the duty to retreat requirement, framing his proposal as a public safety measure that will extend the right of self-defense and provide potential legal immunity in civil lawsuits against people who shoot those threatening to do harm.

New York law, as written now, imposes no duty to retreat on people when they are in their dwellings. Borrello said there should be no inconsistency in the law. His bill would remove the self-defense restrictions in instances when people face a violent aggressor outside the home setting, as long as the person facing the threat is at a location where she or he can legally be.

Continue reading “”