Category: Safety

On Finland’s new ranges, Puukko knives and Sisu

When Soviet Red Army troops poured across the Finnish frontier three months after the outbreak of World War II, Simo Häyhä, a farmer and member of Finland’s Civil Guard, laid down his pitchfork, picked up his M28-30 Mosin Nagant, jammed his Puukko knife in his belt and calmly went out to kill communists.

Häyhä shot more than 540 Red Army troops in just three months — most using iron sights — becoming the most successful sniper in history. Häyhä survived the Winter War, died at the age of 96 and remains one of Finland’s most celebrated national heroes.

Finnish sniper Simo Häyhä is credited with killing more than 540 Soviet troops during the Winter War of 1939-1940.

Today, Finland maintains a tradition of arms seldom seen outside of the United States. There are approximately 1.5 million registered firearms, but it is estimated there are about the same number of unregistered firearms, which were secretly cached after World War II and the Winter War. The Finns cannot afford to be disarmed, which even their government understands. Their country of 5.6 million people shares an 830-mile border with Russia, which has a population of 143 million, so the Finns can never stop preparing to fight the Russian Bear.

Tensions escalated last year after Finland joined NATO. Russian saw this as a threat and vowed to retaliate. The government in Helsinki took this very seriously. Unlike the Biden-Harris administration, which views law-abiding American gun owners as a threat, Finland incorporates armed civilians into its national defense strategy, so they decided to boost civilian firearm training to help counter the latest Russian threat.

According to the Guardian, the Finnish Defense Forces started by building 300 additional shooting ranges to “encourage more citizens to take up the hobby in the interest of national defense.”

“The present government aims to increase the amount of shooting ranges in Finland from roughly 600-700 up to 1,000. This is because of our defense model, which benefits from people having and developing their shooting skills on their own,” Jukka Kopra, a Minister of Parliament who chairs the country’s defense committee told the British newspaper. A government spokesman added that the new construction will include “rifle” and “tactical” ranges.

Takeaways

Continue reading “”

How is American Freedom Too Sensitive for Public Spaces?

If a freedom-loving NRA member from, say, 1994, had been able to look into a crystal ball and see 30 years forward to today, they’d no doubt be pleased and perhaps a bit jealous, but also a little perplexed.

They’d notice the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in D.C. v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. Chicago (2010) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which together decree that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. It protects each law-abiding citizen’s right to own and carry firearms for self-defense and for other legal purposes. They’d be pleased to see this.

They’d notice the massive expansion of constitutional carry, the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 and the huge growth in gun ownership and of concealed carry in general and, again, they’d be pleased.

They’d see all the new and useful carry options in handguns, holsters and more and would likely be a little jealous.

Indeed, they’d marvel at the renaissance for this freedom.

But they’d also shake their heads and clench their fists at the endless, and often novel, attacks from gun-control proponents on our Second Amendment rights.

And then, finally, they’d have to be perplexed as they wondered what this “sensitive-places” thing is all about.

Continue reading “”

The Age of Lawlessness

Violent crime peaked in 1993 within the United States. Since then, it has trended downward due in great part to the “broken windows” style, proactive police work, video surveillance everywhere, and the increase of concealed carriers. In 2020, the year of the Covid 19 lockdowns, crime spiked again in the wake of the rioting surrounding a particular incident of police action.

What has followed since is an increase in lawlessness. The combination of police being afraid to do their jobs due to progressives seeking to prosecute them even when they do everything right, along with progressive prosecutors who confuse justice reform with simply not prosecuting violent offenders, has led to a complete breakdown of law and order in urban areas.

Police retirement is at an all-time high, and recruitment is at an all-time low. The movement to defund and hamstring police while simultaneously not prosecuting violent offenders is a social suicide pact that is gleefully embraced by large cities, so here we are.

For many years, the leaders in the self-defense community have warned, “You are on your own; nobody is coming to save you.” While it has always been true in the sense that the police simply cannot arrive on time to stop an in-progress assault, now it is quite literally true that police may never come at all. Response times are at a low, and many departments are running on skeleton crews, so depending on where you live, you may get no response, no matter what the situation is.

Ironically, most who have driven this political agenda of defunding the police are also entirely on board with civilian disarmament. Make no mistake, this faction wants you unarmed and helpless and wants to ensure that there are no police to protect you either, from the criminals that they intentionally set loose on your streets.

Those who support such policies remain willfully foolish until the point that their own door gets smashed in or they get carjacked, personally, even though they think such things only happen on the other side of town, not in their gentrified neighborhood.

Continue reading “”

Concealed Carry Crime Stats 2024: The Impact of Permitless Carry on Crime in the U.S.

Report Highlights

  • There are 26 states with permitless concealed carry freedoms
  • Washington, D.C., has the highest rate of firearm-related homicides even though it has strict carry laws
  • 83% of states with permitless concealed carry have a homicide rate at or below the national average
  • 45% of states with no permitless concealed carry laws have homicide rates above the national average
  • 3 out of 5 of the safest five states in the U.S. have permitless concealed carry
  • 2 out of 5 of the top five most dangerous states in the U.S. have permitless concealed carry, and 3 out of 5 require permits for concealed carry
  • 84% of states have a lower violent crime rate in 2022 than they did before permitless concealed carry

Concealed Carry Crime Stats

In 2024 there are several states with open carry and permitless concealed carry laws.

However, there isn’t a positive correlation between permitless carry and criminality.

The following sections explore crime rates and homicides in states with and without permitless concealed carry laws.

States with Concealed Carry vs. Permit Required

State laws vary widely regarding when and how citizens can carry a concealed firearm.

Twenty-six U.S. states have permitless concealed carry, and Mississippi has some limitations regarding which calibers and how citizens can carry without a permit. However, nineteen states and Washington D.C. require permits for concealed carry of firearms.

Does Concealed Carry Reduce Crime

One of the more pressing questions about crime in the U.S. is whether permitless concealed carry reduces violent crimes and homicides. Unfortunately, we don’t have the data to support a conclusion on the subject.

However, several states with permitless concealed carry have lower crime rates today than they did before the passage of these new laws. Moreover, you’ll find the states with the highest and lowest crime rates have varying concealed carry laws.

By definition, only twenty-six states allow citizens to conceal carry firearms without a permit. Other states implement restrictions on how one can carry a firearm, and others require training and permits for any carry (open or concealed).

Moreover, it’s important to note that permitless concealed carry laws do not make it easier to obtain a firearm. Although state laws vary, Federal laws restrict certain individuals from purchasing and possessing firearms nationwide (even if purchased from private sellers).

States with Concealed Carry vs Permit Required

There isn’t a strong correlation between concealed carry rights and crime.

Concealed Carry Reduces Crime Stats

Continue reading “”

it’s always the same old tired, worn out ‘objections’ that have never happened.

Nebraska Legislators consider bill to alter self-defense laws

LINCOLN, Neb. (WOWT) – On Thursday the Nebraska Legislature’s Judiciary Committee heard testimony on a proposal that would allow the use of force to defend yourself or someone else from serious harm without the “duty to retreat”—that is, the requirement for you to first try to leave the situation and go to safety, if possible.

It would also give you immunity from prosecution for using that justifiable force.

“I’ll address the first point of the bill removing the duty to retreat from our state laws,” said Sen. Brian Hardin, who proposed the bill. “Bills similar to this are often referred to as stand your ground laws.”

Hardin said this would provide an avenue to ensure that an individual who is already a victim of a crime and had to use force as self-defense is not also “victimized by the legal system.”

Supporters said it’s not just related to firearms.

“Whether armed or unarmed, the idea that citizens are required to endanger themselves by turning their backs and running away from a clear-and-present danger is nonsensical, especially when you understand the remainder of our self-defense statutes,” said Patricia Harrold, who is the Nebraska director of Women for Gun Rights.

Opponents said that’s not an accurate portrayal.

Under current state law you are not required to retreat first if you’re in your home or workplace.

“Traditional self-defense laws, like Nebraska’s, do not prohibit a person from using deadly force if they believe it’s necessary to protect against serious harm,” said Alison Shih, legal counsel for the gun violence prevention group Everytown for Gun Safety. “It merely requires a person to take an alternative course of action when they are in a threatening situation outside of their home, if they know that they can safely do so.”

Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine also worries about the repercussions it could have when dealing with criminals.

“We have gang problems in Omaha at times,” Kleine said. “I’m worried about a gang involved with another gang and using this defense saying, ‘Well, I had to use deadly force because I thought this other gang member was going to draw it out on me, and so I shot.’

“So there’s all sorts of consequences for this that I think are unintended.”

Hardin disputed other critics, saying it would not give someone “a license to kill.”

His proposal first has to make it out of the Judiciary Committee before it can be debated on the floor.

Once again, experience is the best teacher, and the best experience is someone else’s.

Once Again, The Israel-Hamas War Shows the Futility of Gun Control

Last year, I wrote an article exploring some practical lessons from the initial attack on Israel from the Gaza strip. The biggest thing was that, as usual, a country had slid into anti-gun complacency. Everyone thought that it was somebody else’s job to protect people, so targets of all kinds were left vulnerable.

But, this time, the tables have turned. An Israeli operation at a hospital in the West Bank managed to drive the point home yet again. Instead of Hamas proving that gun control is worthless, Israel waltzed right into a hospital and proved it again.

I don’t bring this raid up because I want to comment on whether it was wrong or right to do this. Some people are saying they violated international law. Others are saying this was just a police action within their own borders to take out a threat that was using the hospital as a human shield. Everyone is entitled to either of those opinions or any other.

Instead, I want to take a look at the security situation in that hospital and compare it to most any hospital in the United States. Are there metal detectors at the doors? No. Are there armed guards who would stop people from simply walking right in with a rifle? Nope. Are there police there? Also, a big no in most places. The only thing stopping people from simply walking right in and doing whatever they want with a rifle is them choosing not to.

Sure, in many places, hospitals are off-limits to guns by some legal means or other. In this case, there may be some international agreement or something prohibiting soldiers from going in. In the case of U.S. hospitals, it’s often a sign that any private property owner can post prohibiting guns. In some jurisdictions, there’s a law on the books specifically banning guns from all hospitals.

But, do those signs have some magical quality that zaps guns into oblivion as the person carrying them crosses the threshold? Definitely not. The only thing that can stop people from hiding a rifle under a coat or in a violin case is someone who both physically checks everyone for guns and has the means to stop people should they reveal a gun and use it. Clearly this hospital (like almost all others) doesn’t have either of those things.

At the end of the day, a mixture of people’s goodness and people prepared to deal with those devoid of goodness is what keeps people safe. There are very few people who would enter a hospital with a gun and the intent to harm people. The rest of us either don’t carry a gun in or don’t do anything evil with it. For the rare person who isn’t good, there needs to be a good person (or multiple good people) ready to step in and stop bad things from happening.

In this particular hospital, the opposite was true. Instead of having good guys with guns, they were hiding bad people with guns. The Israelis, like this or not, went in there and took care of the problem before these guys could hurt any more innocent people.

Why Self-Defense Is The Only Type Of Violence The Left Won’t Endorse

After years of anti-cop rhetoric, violence is out of control in America’s cities. Smash and grabs, sidewalk attacks and old ladies being mugged in broad daylight — all just factored into the cost of living a metropolitan lifestyle. But these are not simply passive inevitabilities that somehow come to pass. They are active policy choices of a revolutionary left, firmly in control of every major city, that sees violence as a tool toward its political aims. In fact, there is only one type of violence the left will not condone — and the key to understanding it lies in these political aims.

The radical left may talk often of high-minded goals, but their ultimate goal is to eradicate hierarchy — the central push of the “equity” agenda. All must be made equal in order for all to be equally free. For classical liberals, this meant equal treatment under the law, unaffected by circumstances of birth. Yet for the radical outgrowth, this now means leveling all aspects of genuine human diversity. However, they do not truly seek egalitarian reforms, but merely to rejigger any form of traditional hierarchy (much of which had already been dismantled by their liberal forebears) and instead place themselves at the top. So the attack on hierarchy really becomes a spiteful, resentful attack on any form of tradition. This is the true nature of the radical left.

Traditional morality posits that the criminal is the “oppressor” of the “victim,” whom he victimizes with his crime. This has been the basis of virtually every legal system throughout human history. Yet radical left morality flips this notion on its head. The new “victim” becomes the criminal himself, victimized by the injustices of a hierarchical society that drives him to desperation: the thief stealing to feed his family or violence as the “language of the unheard.” The person on the receiving end becomes merely a casualty in the putsch to upend traditional morality, while the priests of the new morality consolidate their right to rule.

Continue reading “”

Living with a gun

I never wanted a gun. There are days when I forget I have it, locked up in a smart safe under a pile of clothes in a dresser. I still take it out to the range about once a month, but I spend more time looking at its disassembled parts on the cleaning table — the harmless viscera of the killing machine — than aiming it at the target. At home, if I pick it up, I just hold its slick black body in my hand, fingers wrapped around the grip. It doesn’t feel as heavy as I thought a gun would be — 20 ounces. The weight of a Bible. Or, perhaps, of two human hearts. I put it back in the safe, cover the safe with jeans. But I can’t hide the unease I feel — or is it shame? — about living with a gun in America.

Continue reading “”

Actually it’s a ‘power’ as people have rights.

Former Arizona AG: States have constitutional right to self-defense

Former Republican Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich again on Tuesday argued the constitutional authority given to states for self-defense.

Brnovich testified at a U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing addressing the issue after being the first and only state attorney general to issue a formal legal opinion that defines an invasion and lays out the constitutional authority of states’ self-defense.

Other testimony was presented by representatives of the Texas Attorney General’s Office, the Immigration Reform Law Institute and the ACLU.

Brnovich’s testimony reiterated arguments from his legal opinion defining an invasion and Arizona’s right to self-defense under Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

Continue reading “”

New Data Shatters Liberal Myths About Gun Violence & Constitutional Carry

Amid constant leftist fearmongering about the supposedly disastrous consequences of allowing Americans to exercise their Second Amendment freedoms, new data shows that expanding rights for responsible gun owners – and actually punishing gun crimes – makes states safer.

According to a report from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost released in January, “six of Ohio’s eight largest cities saw less gun crime after the state’s ‘constitutional carry’ law took effect.” In June 2022, Ohio became the 23rd state in the nation to legalize constitutional carry, or permitless carry, which allows residents to carry a concealed firearm without having to undergo a burdensome and time-consuming permitting process. Since then, four more states have passed constitutional carry, bringing the total to 27.

Notably, Ohio’s law as well as constitutional carry laws in other states still prohibit certain people from buying or possessing a firearm, such as felons, people convicted of domestic violence, and individuals with serious mental health conditions. Legal gun owners in Ohio are also still prohibited from carrying inside schools and government buildings, and are not allowed to consume any alcohol while carrying, also tracking with other states.

As has been the case wherever conservatives advance pro-Second Amendment legislation, Ohio liberals vehemently opposed the institution of constitutional carry, insisting that it would lead to a rise in gun violence. Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther called permitless carry “reckless and dangerous,” while the Ohio Democrat Party predicted the change would “make all Ohioans less safe” and increase gun crime.

But the data cited by Yost’s office shows that the exact opposite occurred. In the capital of Columbus and Ohio’s largest city, the rate per 1,000 residents of crime incidents involving a firearm declined from 10.79 in the period June 2021 to June 2022 (one year before constitutional carry took effect) to 9.55 in the period June 2022 to June 2023 (one year after constitutional carry took effect). Every other major city in the state except Cincinnati and Dayton saw a similar decline.

As Yost emphasized, the report does not “downplay the very real problem of crime in many neighborhoods in our cities – you don’t need a research team to see that gun violence destroys lives, families and opportunity.” However, he continued, “The key takeaway from this study is that we have to keep the pressure on the criminals who shoot people, rather than Ohioans who responsibly exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

Continue reading “”

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. (just sayin™)

 

G O V E R N O R  G R E G  A B B O T T

January 24, 2024

The federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the States. The Executive Branch of the United States has a constitutional duty to enforce federal laws protecting States, including immigration laws on the books right now. President Biden has refused to enforce those laws and has even violated them. The result is that he has smashed records for illegal immigration.

Despite having been put on notice in a series of letters–one of which I delivered to him by hand–President Biden has ignored Texas’s demand that he perform his constitutional duties.

* President Biden has violated his oath to faithfully execute immigration laws enacted by Congress. Instead of prosecuting immigrants for the federal crime of illegal entry, President Biden has sent his lawyers into federal courts to sue Texas for taking action to secure the border.

* President Biden has instructed his agencies to ignore federal statutes that mandate the detention of illegal immigrants. The effect is to illegally allow their en masse parole into the United States.

* By wasting taxpayer dollars to tear open Texas’s border security infrastructure, President Biden has enticed illegal immigrants away from the 28 legal entry points along this State’s southern border– bridges where nobody drowns–and into the dangerous waters of the Rio Grande.

Under President Biden’s lawless border policies, more than 6 million illegal immigrants have crossed our southern border in just 3 years. That is more than the population of 33 different States in this country. This illegal refusal to protect the States has inflicted unprecedented harm on the People all across the United
States.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the other visionaries who wrote the U.S. Constitution foresaw that States should not be left to the mercy of a lawless president who does nothing to stop external threats like cartels smuggling millions of illegal immigrants across the border. That is why the Framers included both Article IV, sec. 4, which promises that the federal government “shall protect each [State] against invasion,” and Article I, sec 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges “the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 419 (2012) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

The failure of the Biden Administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article IV, sec. 4 has triggered Article I, sec. 10, Clause 3, which reserves to this State the right of self-defense. For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under Article I, sec. 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border.

Greg Abbott
Governor of Texas

 

Abbott: Texas Has Constitutional Right To Defend Its Borders From Invasion, Supersedes All Federal Law.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued a defiant statement on Wednesday pushing back against President Joe Biden’s attempts to stop Texas from securing its borders against the millions of illegal aliens pouring into the state thanks to Biden’s reckless border policies.

Abbott’s statement comes after the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration earlier this week, ruling that it could remove or cut through razor wire the state has deployed to stop illegal aliens from crossing the Rio Grande into the state.

“President Biden has violated his oath to faithfully execute immigration laws enacted by Congress,” Abbott said. “Instead of prosecuting immigrants for the federal crime of illegal entry, President Biden has sent his lawyers into federal courts to sue Texas for taking action to secure the border.”

“President Biden has instructed his agencies to ignore federal statutes that mandate the detention of illegal immigrants. The effect is to illegally allow their en masse parole into the United States,” he continued, adding: “By wasting taxpayer dollars to tear open Texas’s border security infrastructure, President Biden has enticed illegal immigrants away from the 28 legal entry points along this State’s southern border—bridges where nobody drowns—and into the dangerous waters of the Rio Grande.”

The governor noted that more than 6 million illegal aliens have entered Texas through its southern border under the Biden administration, a number greater than the population of 30 U.S. states.

Abbott continued:

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the other visionaries who wrote the U.S. Constitution foresaw that States should not be left to the mercy of a lawless president who does nothing to stop external threats like cartels smuggling millions of illegal immigrants across the border.

That is why the Framers included both Article IV, § 4, which promises that the federal government “shall protect each [State] against invasion,[“] and Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges “the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 419 (2012) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Abbott said that Biden’s failures to secure the border “imposed by Article IV, § 4 has triggered Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which reserves to this State the right of self-defense.”

“For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself,” he concluded. “That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border.”

Image

Sordid Lessons from Uvalde School Shooting; Justice Department Cites “Cascading Failures.”

WHEN SECONDS COUNT, THE POLICE ARE MINUTES AWAY JUST NOT COMING

The U.S. Department of Justice released its findings yesterday on the May 2022 school shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, which left nineteen children and two teachers dead and another 17 wounded. The report, “Critical Incident Review Active Shooter at Robb Elementary School,” found what it called “cascading failures of leadership, decision-making, tactics, policy and training” also using terms such as “critical failure,” “breakdown,” demonstrations upon leadership “of no urgency,” policy “training deficiencies” and more on the part of mostly local law enforcement officials. The word “failure” appeared dozens of times throughout the report.

The report noted that law enforcement officers were on the scene within 3 minutes of the first 911 call, yet the threat was not eliminated until more than an hour later.

The central issue was found to be a failure by law enforcement to treat the scene as an active shooter situation upon arrival. Specifically, first-on-the-scene responders, including the commanding officer reportedly shifted the response to that of a barricaded shooter…despite 911 dispatchers relaying they had received calls from children inside the classroom four minutes after officers arrived. Leadership also failed to establish a clear command structure, leaving many arriving support officers confused and without clear orders. 

Officials received intense criticism in the aftermath of the attack, with more than 75 minutes passing after the initial police response and before action was taken against the shooter, during which multiple calls by students were made to 911.

Former Uvalde Acting Police Chief Mariano Pargas and Uvalde school district Police Chief Pete Arredondo, neither who are still on their jobs, is where much of the initial blame has been placed as they were both ultimately in charge. Indeed, many families of the victims and within the community of Uvalde want officials who were responsible for the botched response to face criminal charges, according to the Texas Tribune. According to the Associated Press, local officials are still “weighing whether to bring charges.”

What added more pain and disgust to the situation for many Americans at the time of the massacre was the scene of police officers, who we now know went from “active shooter” mode to dealing with what they simply were communicating as a “barricade situation,” keeping understandably panicked parents—some getting text messages and calls from their children inside the school—from entering to save their children.

To review the complete 610-page Justice Dept. report, click here.

The legal right to Self-Defense

In its natural form and going back to the beginning of time, we have felt that we have the right to self-defense. This statement is true but if you are not aware of the specifics to a self-defense claim, you might find yourself in legal trouble. It is expected that a person has the right to self-defense and the defense of another.

You would think that such a natural act as defending yourself or another would be the same no matter where you go in the United States or worldwide, but self-defense laws vary from state to state. Some states have Castle Doctrines and Stand your Ground laws and others do not. It is important to know what actions you might need to take to re-enforce your self-defense claim.

Self-defense is the act of using force to protect yourself or a third party from imminent harm or bodily injury. So, does this mean if someone is throwing a punch at me, which could cause injury, I can draw my firearm and shoot them?

The level of force that you take will be considered during the evaluation of the incident. The level of force needs to be appropriate to the force being inflected on you. This is where the courts will apply the reasonable person rule. Depending on the force directed at you, was your responding force reasonable to defend yourself from such force?

Self-defense laws can be more complicated than they first appear. Another aspect of self-defense is whether the action taken by the assailant is imminent. Are you reacting to something that you fear might happen, or that could possibly happen, or is it immediate and occurring at that moment where if you did not react, you or a third party will be injured.

Let’s look at another aspect of a self-defense claim. Did you provoke the situation? Yes, we all at times lose our cool and say things or provoke others to react to our actions. This doesn’t rid you of a self-defense claim if the incident were to escalate, but there are other actions that you need to take in an attempt to remove yourself from the incident before you can legally claim self-defense. In other words, I can’t pick a fight and when the other party responds, I react with force and then claim self-defense. If I initiate the scenario and it turns ugly, then I need to take appropriate actions showing that I attempted to calm the situation or remove myself from the quarrel.

I’m constantly given scenarios by students of mine and asked how they should respond to such scenarios. That’s a difficult task because each individual has to articulate their reason for the fear of imminent harm. As a 10-year military veteran and 20-year retired police officer who served 7 years on SWAT, it’s a little harder for me to claim fear for my life than it is for a 120-pound female that has never had any tactical training. That “reasonable person” concept is going to look at every aspect of your life and experiences when determining whether your response was reasonable.

There are many variables to consider during a possible life-threatening event. Cooler heads prevail. Consciously tell yourself to stay calm and consider everything that is occurring around you. Panic leads to tunnel vision and the possibility of miss-reading the entire event.

In the state of Arizona, we do not have a duty to retreat, and we do have a stand your ground law. By law you do not have to take appropriate actions to remove yourself from the dangerous environment. I look at these laws as a re-enforcement of my self-defense claim, if necessary, but I don’t use it as a “why I stayed claim.” I would rather do everything I could to not act in self-defense.

You can serious injure someone or even take their life and be justified in doing so, but you still have to live with that fact. That statement is by no means advising you to not defend yourself, it is persuading you to do everything you can to not have to.

NEVER STOP TRAINING!

Never Stop Training!
Oz Johnson/Lead Instructor, NRA Certified
Karin Johnson/Operations Manager
JohnsonGroupTAC.com

Bill would require Alaska schools to have trusted adults carry handguns on campuses

n an effort to ensure that Alaska school districts enlist qualified adults to carry concealed guns for the protection of students and educators, State Sen. Shelley Hughes has filed a bill entitled, “The Safe Schools Act.”

Senate Bill 173 aims to deter active shooting tragedies from occurring in Alaska’s K-12 schools.

According to Hughes, she was inspired to file the bill after being approached by a retired teacher who previously worked at Bethel High School when a tragic shooting occurred on Feb. 19, 1997. That day, two people were killed, and two others injured when 16-year-old student Evan Ramsey arrived at the school with a shotgun. Ramsey shot and killed 15-year-old Josh Palacios and Principal Ron Edwards, before surrendering to police.

“If we do nothing, it’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when,” Hughes said upon filing her bill. “This is a critical conversation, and it is time for critical decision-making. If we want to prevent the deaths of school children in Alaska, we need to act. If we wait to address this matter until after precious children have died, what a dreadful shame and inexcusable mistake that will be.”

“Our students deserve every opportunity to participate in our education system without fear of losing their lives,” Hughes added.

According to K-12 Shooting Database, there were 346 shooting incidents in 2023 resulting in 249 victims either wounded or killed. Over the past five years, the number of school shootings has skyrocketed with 1,073 students and staff being wounded or killed nationwide.

“Like you, over the years I’ve watched with horror the news reports of shootings at schools: Columbine, Parkland, Uvalde,” Hughes said. “I’ve wondered too like you, what if there had been intervention to help that person? But I’ve also asked, what if the school had been better prepared? What if that school campus had permitted concealed carry? Maybe the incident would not have occurred at all.”

Hughes emphasized that every second, every minute counts when a person begins to shoot in a school building.

“Due to distance, when law enforcement response in Alaska can take from a few minutes to a few hours, or with inclement weather in remote communities, even longer, our children, our teachers and staff are sitting ducks,” she noted. “Our officers do their best to respond quickly but Alaska is a state of mammoth proportions. We need well-trained individuals on-site who can respond immediately.”

Current Alaska law does not prevent superintendents and school boards from setting policy to allow concealed carry, but none have done so.

Hughes bill would change this by requiring schools to “grant one or more persons who meet the requirements” of the law to “carry a concealed handgun on the person on school grounds for defensive use.” The only exception is when no qualified person can be found.

School districts would also need to develop a written policy establishing the standards and requirements for conceal carry in schools, and document and fund firearm training and education for those who conceal carry in schools.

Hughes said she hopes her bill will give communities a path forward to begin assigning concealed carry duty to “trusted, stable, respected, and well-trained individuals.”

“Our students deserve every opportunity to participate in our education system without fear of losing their lives,” Hughes added.

The bill is set for its first public hearing on Jan. 24 at 1:30 p.m. in the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee. Testimony at this initial meeting will be by invitation only.

Baldwin Facing Involuntary Manslaughter Charges After Grand Jury Indictment

A few months ago it looked like Alec Baldwin was going to avoid having to choose between a trial and a plea bargain for his role in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. Last April prosecutors dropped the original charge against the actor, citing new evidence that the gun in question might have been modified or malfunctioned, though they did say at the time that the “decision does not absolve Mr. Baldwin of criminal culpability and charges may be refiled.”

The investigation continued after the dismissal, and prosecutors received another analysis of the revolver by the Arizona company Forensic Science Services, which concluded that despite Baldwin’s claims that he never pulled the trigger of the gun before it discharged the round that killed Hutchins, “the trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer of the evidence revolver.”

Prosecutors recently brought that analysis before a grand jury, and now its members have indicted Baldwin on the same charge that was dismissed in 2023.

While the proceeding is shrouded in secrecy, two of the witnesses seen at the courthouse included crew members — one who was present when the fatal shot was fired and another who had walked off the set the day before due to safety concerns.

Baldwin, the lead actor and a co-producer on the Western movie “Rust,” was pointing a gun at cinematographer Halyna Hutchins during a rehearsal on a movie set outside Santa Fe in October 2021 when the gun went off, killing her and wounding director Joel Souza.

Baldwin has said he pulled back the hammer, but not the trigger, and the gun fired.

Baldwin’s not the only one facing charges, of course. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who was Rust’s armorer, has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter and evidence tampering in the case. Her trial was supposed to take place last month, but is now scheduled for February 21.David Halls, who was an assistant director as well as film’s safety coordinator, ended up taking a plea deal last March; pleading no contest to a single count of unsafe handling of a firearm in exchange for six months of probation, suspended.

Baldin’s attorneys offered a brief comment to Variety after the indictment was announced, telling reporters only, “We look forward to our day in court.” With the possibility of an 18-month prison sentence hanging over his head, my guess is that Baldwin and his legal team are also looking to see what kind of deal might be on the table before a trial takes place.

This case has been a hot mess from almost Day 1; with multiple prosecutors recusing or resigning from the case, charges filed, dropped, and now refiled, and conflicting reports about the gun in Baldwin’s hand when Hutchins was killed. Despite enough drama to serve as the inspiration for a whole season of Law & Order episodes, the case ultimately boils down to this: can prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted negligently and without due care by violating some of the cardinal rules of gun safety on the set? They’re probably going to need more than a forensic report, so it will be interesting to see if either of the two crew members spotted at the courthouse where the grand jury met is willing to state that they actually saw Baldwin pull the trigger with Hutchins and Souza in front of him.

Speaking of the rules for gun safety, if nothing else, Baldwin’s legal woes are a good opportunity to remind him and everyone else of the four fundamentals:

  • Always keep your gun pointed in a safe direction
  • Keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to shoot
  • Know your target and what’s beyond
  • Treat all guns as if they are loaded at all times

Follow these rules (and I’d throw in the fifth rule of never mixing guns and alcohol/drugs as well) and you’ll be fine. Ignore them and it might not be just your own future you put in peril but your friends, family, range buddies, or even co-workers.

I’m sensing a trend

After Media-Brutalized Gun Freedom Law, Violent Crime Drops In Florida

When Florida became the 26th state to adopt constitutional carry, corporate media and Democrats lost their minds.

None of the requirements for how citizens obtained guns in the Sunshine State changed when Florida House Bill 543 became law July 1, 2023. That didn’t stop the anti-gun press, which were not welcome at the signing, from claiming that permitless concealed carry would exacerbate shootings.

“Following mass shootings, DeSantis signs permitless carry bill,” one NBC News headline complained. In the article, the producer of “The Rachel Maddow Show” sneered at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for trading what he dubbed “modest gun safeguards” for an “extreme” and “controversial” law.

Forbes also amplified rhetoric from gun control groups including Giffords claiming the pro-Second Amendment law is “dangerous” and “will drive gun violence up and further jeopardize the safety of our families and communities.”

Even President Joe Biden’s White House joined the dogpile on DeSantis and Florida Republicans for daring to reinforce their constituents’ constitutional rights.

“It is shameful that so soon after another tragic school shooting, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law a permitless concealed carry bill behind closed doors, which eliminates the need to get a license to carry a concealed weapon,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre wrote. “This is the opposite of commonsense gun safety. The people of Florida — who have paid a steep price for state and Congressional inaction on guns from Parkland to Pulse Nightclub to Pine Hills — deserve better.”

Now, more than six months after the law’s adoption, evidence contradicts Democrats’ fearmongering that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a loaded gun for self-defense would result in more “senseless tragedies.”

Since the legalization of constitutional carry in July 2023, Florida’s biggest cities saw a significant decrease in violent crimes, including shootings. In Jacksonville, murders and homicides dropped 6 percent in 2023 from the previous year.

Continue reading “”