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.

Or, one could take a slightly different view and have a reasonable basis for thinking that it wasn’t a lack of preparation, but a lack of caring about it.

Report: Documents Show Biden Admin was Completely Unprepared for Afghanistan Withdrawal
“Outsiders were frustrated and suspicious the administration was having plenty of meetings but was stuck in bureaucratic inertia and lacked urgency until the last minute.”

The Biden Administration’s evacuation of Afghanistan in August of 2021 was a disaster. Some analysts point to that moment as the beginning of Biden’s imploding poll numbers, as Americans were horrified by the images of people clinging to airplanes and falling to their deaths.

Newly leaked documents show that Biden and his team were completely unprepared for this moment.

Jonathan Swan and Hans Nichols broke the news at Axios:

Scoop: Leaked document reveals Biden’s Afghan failures

Leaked notes from a White House Situation Room meeting the day before Kabul fell shed new light on just how unprepared the Biden administration was to evacuate Afghan nationals who’d helped the United States in its 20-year war against the Taliban.

Why it matters: Hours before the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan’s capital on Aug. 15, 2021, senior Biden administration officials were still discussing and assigning basic actions involved in a mass civilian evacuation.

  • Outsiders were frustrated and suspicious the administration was having plenty of meetings but was stuck in bureaucratic inertia and lacked urgency until the last minute.
  • While the word “immediately” peppers the document, it’s clear officials were still scrambling to finalize their plans — on the afternoon of Aug. 14.
  • For example, they’d just decided they needed to notify local Afghan staff “to begin to register their interest in relocation to the United States,” the document says.
  • And they were still determining which countries could serve as transit points for evacuees.

Shelby Talcott of the Daily Caller has more:

The obtained memo was the meeting’s “summary of conclusions” and details how officials were still scrambling to work out simple details for a mass evacuation in Afghanistan. In one note, the memo reveals officials had only then come to the agreement to contact locally employed staff to gauge interest levels “in relocation to the United States.”

The notes also reveal that officials hadn’t yet sorted out exactly what countries would be transit points for those needing to leave Afghanistan.

“State [Department] and DOD [Department of Defense] will begin planning transit processing for evacuees after departure from Kabul,” the document reads.

“The NSC staff will chair a small group discussion to explore ways to engage Canada and other third countries, such as North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, to host Afghan allies at risk … who have either not been vetted or received limited vetting,” another portion of the memo reads.

It’s stunning to remember that Biden actually left Americans and allies behind. It doesn’t seem real.

Continue reading “”

The number I’ve seen is that it is estimated that the lockdowns prevented on average  0.2%  – that’s “Maybe Two (2) out of a Thousand” – deaths in comparison with just trusting people to do the right thing.
Sorry, that small of a number is statistical noise, which means that there is no evidence the lockdowns did anything but disrupt our entire economy and empower the tyrant authoritarians. Which, to be frank is the silver lining because they’re now exposed to the world for future action.

Johns Hopkins Analysis: ‘Lockdowns Should be Rejected Out of Hand.’

The aura of “expert” has lost its luster during Covid, as our supposedly bigger brains have been proved wrong repeatedly.

Two of these have been Ezekiel Emanuel and Anthony Fauci. Both were enthusiastic proponents of societal lockdowns as a means of preventing deaths and the spread of Covid. We now know from a Johns Hopkins blockbuster meta-analysis that “shutting it down,” in Donald Trump’s awkward phrase, did very little to prevent deaths.

It’s a long, arcane, and detailed analysis, and I can’t present every nuance or statistic here. But I think these are the primary takeaways. From the study:

Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results are in line with the World Health Organization Writing Group (2006), who state, “Reports from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicate that social-distancing measures did not stop or appear to dramatically reduce transmission […]

In Edmonton, Canada, isolation and quarantine were instituted; public meetings were banned; schools, churches, colleges, theaters, and other public gathering places were closed; and business hours were restricted without obvious impact on the epidemic.” Our findings are also in line with Allen’s (2021) conclusion: “The most recent research has shown that lockdowns have had, at best, a marginal effect on the number of Covid 19 deaths.”

Why might that be?

Mandates only regulate a fraction of our potential contagious contacts and can hardly regulate nor enforce handwashing, coughing etiquette, distancing in supermarkets, etc. Countries like Denmark, Finland, and Norway that realized success in keeping COVID-19 mortality rates relatively low allowed people to go to work, use public transport, and meet privately at home during the first lockdown. In these countries, there were ample opportunities to legally meet with others.

Worse, the lockdowns caused tremendous harm:

Unintended consequences may play a larger role than recognized. We already pointed to the possible unintended consequence of SIPOs, which may isolate an infected person at home with his/her family where he/she risks infecting family members with a higher viral load, causing more severe illness. But often, lockdowns have limited peoples’ access to safe (outdoor) places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe (indoor) places. Indeed, we do find some evidence that limiting gatherings was counterproductive and increased COVID-19 mortality

What lessons should be learned (my emphasis)?

The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century. However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.

To which I would add another: We can never squelch free discourse and debate on public-health issues again.

People who argued against the “scientific consensus” about the lockdowns were stifled, censored by Big Tech, denigrated by the media, and mocked by establishment scientists. That was essentially “anti-science.” The scientific method needs heterodox voices to speak freely if it is to function properly.

This subsequent look-back shows why. To a large degree, those with the officially disfavored views–such as the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration—were correct on this matter.

Will we learn the lesson? Yes, if our goal is to ably discern and apply the best policy options, which can be a messy process. No, if the point is to allow those in charge of institutional science to exert societal control.

Tiger shooters take state title

The Ozark High School JROTC battalion rifle team earned a clean sweep of the championship trophies at the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) State Championship on Jan. 15.

The Tigers came in first place in both the precision and sporter rifle divisions of the team competition that was held in Washington, Missouri.

“We continue to work hard day in and day out and I’m very proud to see this team rewarded for all of their hard work,” said 1st Sgt. William Crawford, Ozark High School JROTC instructor and rifle team coach. “There were roughly 15 schools with over 25 teams, which made for a highly-competitive field. Consistency is accuracy and accuracy is consistency.”

Ozark’s triumphs also extended to the individual competition, as the Tigers claimed the top three spots in both the precision and sporter divisions.

“As a team, we have worked very diligently and put in many long hours to better ourselves as shooters, competitors and fellow teammates,” said Ozark rifle team captain Elijah Glenn. “Our performance at the state championship was a reflection of our dedication to each other and our commitment to representing Ozark JROTC to the best of our abilities.”

The state meet marked the first competition of the new calendar year for the Ozark rifle team. The shooting Tigers are headed into the home stretch of their 2021-22 season, and will compete next at the CMP Army Service National Championship in Anniston, Alabama, Feb. 2-6.

Continue reading “”

CCRKBA: KING COUNTY, WA GUN MURDERS, SHOOTINGS PROVE ANTI-GUNNERS LIED

BELLEVUE, WA – Monday’s “Shots Fired” report from the King County (WA) Prosecutor’s Office on the number of gun-related homicides and injuries last year is more proof that gun control laws and anti-rights initiatives adopted over the past few years in Washington State have been abject failures, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today in reaction.

“Proponents of these laws, and especially the gun control initiatives passed in recent years, sold the public a bill of goods, and now everybody knows it,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Voters were told in 2014 that Initiative 594 would reduce gun-related violence, and today’s data proves they were misled. Four years later, the Seattle-based gun prohibition lobby promised Initiative 1639 would prevent gun-related homicides, and they lied again. In Olympia, anti-gun politicians are pushing more gun restrictions right now, with the same promises.

“The billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobby and their allies in Olympia claim that so-called ‘gun violence’ is an epidemic,” he said. “Frankly, the intellectual dishonesty of the gun control crowd is the real public health crisis.”

King County authorities reported Monday that 88 people were murdered and another 372 were wounded in shootings last year. Law enforcement agencies in the county reported a startling 1,405 shooting incidents, surpassing the 1,025 posted in 2020.

Gottlieb opposed both initiatives, and he has been an outspoken critic of other gun laws pushed through the Legislature. CCRKBA’s national headquarters are in Bellevue, just east of Seattle. A check of the FBI annual Uniform Crime Reports shows the number of murders in Washington, and especially Seattle, have gone steadily upwards since the current gun control crusade started eight years ago.

“We warned the public these gun control schemes were wishful thinking at best,” Gottlieb said. “The data provides all the evidence necessary to say anti-gun-rights initiatives and legislation have amounted to snake oil, giving the public a false sense of security while their rights are being steadily eroded.

“Instead of pushing more restrictions like they’re doing right now,” he said, “it is time for gun control zealots to admit they’ve been wrong all along. Extremist gun control has failed miserably for Evergreen State citizens, and the rising body counts prove it.”

West Virginia: House Passes Keep, Bear, and Drive with Arms Act

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, the House of Delegates passed House Bill 4048, the WV Keep, Bear, and Drive with Arms Act. It now goes to the Senate for further consideration.

House Bill 2048 affirms that it is lawful to possess loaded and/or uncased rifles and shotguns in vehicles “unless rebutted by the totality of circumstances” that unlawful hunting is occurring. This ensures that law-abiding citizens may carry the firearms of their choice, in the manner of their choice, with them in vehicles.

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.

Quip O’ The Day
On the Canadian trucker’s strike/protest………….

Reporter: How long do you plan to protest?
Trucker: Just two weeks to flatten the curve.

Whether or not you agree with a COS, and whether or not you agree that with a large enough plurality of states with strong constitutional and law guarantees protecting rights, especially RKBA, the chances of a convention running amok over civil rights is small;  the one thing to remember is that the original states called a convention to only fix the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, and wound up completely replacing it. If we do have another convention, it will take strong leadership and strongly led delegations to offset those who will undoubtedly attend with evil intent against our freedom and liberties.

An Article V Convention Becomes More Likely as Convention of States Action Hits the Halfway Mark

On Jan. 31, Convention of States Action (COSA) announced that Nebraska and Wisconsin passed resolutions officially calling for an Article V Convention. They join 15 other states bringing the total to 17. These resolutions mark the halfway point for the 34 required to convene a Convention.

South Dakota’s resolution also passed in the house and will head to the Senate shortly. COSA President Mark Meckler is looking forward to a year full of continued success with Iowa, South Carolina, North Carolina, West Virginia, and New Mexico. Like South Dakota, these states need passage in one more chamber………….

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.

When religious freedom and gun laws tangle

Last week, there was an interesting case. An Amish man was arrested for being an illegal firearm dealer. The Amish aren’t generally known for such things, which is what made it interesting.

The reason he sold guns to people was that the Amish don’t believe in having their photographs taken. As a result, they don’t have picture IDs, which makes it difficult for them to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

However, some in Lancaster County are unsympathetic:

As Nephin reported, “Federal laws require photo identification when purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The Amish contend their religious beliefs prevent them from being photographed, so they cannot buy a firearm from a licensed dealer. However, private sellers don’t have to require the buyer to present photo identification.”

We mean no disrespect to the Amish faith and its beliefs and practices regarding photography. But we’ve long maintained that all firearms sales — including sales of long guns — ought to be handled by licensed dealers and be subject to background checks. (Pennsylvania law requires background checks on handgun sales, but not on private sales of long guns by unlicensed sellers.)

Now, the editorial goes on to advocate for universal background checks and all that, but I want to note something else.

In particular, how little the editorial board of this publication values religious freedom.

Oh, they make some platitudes about respecting the Amish’s beliefs, but then immediately take a big, steaming dump on them by essentially saying they believe the Amish shouldn’t get to exercise both their religious freedom and their right to keep and bear arms.

Now, understand that it wasn’t that long ago when everyone was up in arms about a woman who the state of Florida wouldn’t let get a driver’s license with a veil. Others have lashed out over laws preventing women from wearing a hijab in their license photos.

In those cases, religious freedom was paramount, even though the courts have routinely classified driving as a privilege, not a right.

Yet keeping and bearing arms is a right, one explicitly protected by the United States Constitution. How can demanding a photo ID from people who don’t believe in having their pictures taken not run afoul?

Of course, we must remember that to people like this, the Second Amendment is a second-class right. Apparently, religious freedom is as well.

Continue reading “”

‘Proprietary magazines’ *cough* stupid *cough*
Now, I understand the business model concept, but if I were going to introduce something this close to the AR pattern 9mm ‘pistol’, it would either take the modified Uzi mags that Colt developed for their 9mm AR, or it would take Glock magazines. It’s like all the different versions of 1911s or HiPowers.
One magazine to rule them all

Patriot Ordnance Factory (POF-USA) was at SHOT Show 2022 showing off their brand-new 9x19mm pistol called the Phoenix.

pof-usa phoenix 9mm subgun pistol shot show 2022

The gun has been in development for a while. At SHOT Show 2015, we got our first glimpse of it. Frank DeSomma, who tragically lost his life in an automobile accident in 2020, showed it to Guns.com. Back then, it was called the PSG, which stood for Patriot Sub Gun.

Despite DeSomma’s passing, POF-USA has continued to produce high-quality and innovative firearms. The Phoenix is no exception. It was officially released at this year’s SHOT Show. POF-USA engineer John Capps was there to show it to us.

DIRECT WEIGHTED BLOWBACK
It features a direct-weighted blowback system making it very easy to control according to Capps. “It is a monolithic upper. Billet lower. Has all AR-15 fire controls and ambidextrous buttons like our AR does. Bolt release, mag release button is ambi like our other rifles are. It’s going to ship with a MIL-SPEC trigger. It’s 4.6 pounds, so it’s fairly light and small for its size. It has a very small handguard compared to its competitors,” said Capps.

SMALL, LIGHT PACKAGE
It is 17.5 inches long and is compatible with a brace or stock that has a 1913 Picatinny rail on the back. It has a forward non-reciprocating charging handle that can be moved to the left or right side. It also hosts a new 9mm 1/2×28-threaded dual-port compensator.

PROPRIETARY MAGAZINES
The Phoenix will ship with a single proprietary 35-round magazine. The reason POF decided to do this was for reliability and to make the gun as much like an AR platform as possible. Twenty and 10-round mags will also be available. The price point for additional mags will be around $30 according to Capps.

Where You Used to go Armed in New York

There is a bill in the New York Assembly that makes most destinations into “gun-free” zones. I call it the “Prohibited Places” bill and you need to know the back story for this to make any sense at all.. even for the politicians.

It never made sense for honest citizens.

First, there is an important case before the US Supreme Court called NYSRPA v Bruen. That case asserts that New York State required ordinary people to get a permit to carry a firearm in public, and then denied those permits to ordinary citizens. It sounds like New York Democrats are conceding that they infringed on the right of self-defense and will lose the Bruen case. Maybe a liberal justice on the Supreme Court already gave them the text of that decision.

That brings us to Bill A8684 before the New York Assembly which “Prohibits firearms in certain locations, including but not limited to all forms of public transportation, large gatherings, and food and drink establishments.”

Since New York Democrats will soon have to issue carry permits, they want to make everywhere a gun free zone for everyone.

Continue reading “”

How to wash a cat:

  1. Thoroughly clean toilet and add desired amount of shampoo, leaving both lids open

  2. Find, catch, and soothe the cat while you carry him to the bathroom

  3. In one fluid motion, put the cat in the toilet and close both lids (you may need to stand on them to prevent escape. Make sure you don’t get any part of your body close to the edge because your cat may try to grab on to anything in reach)

  4. The cat will self-agitate which will create ample suds. Do not worry about the sounds the cat is making- he is actually enjoying this

  5. When you think your cat is clean, flush the toilet four or five times to provide a power rinse

  6. Have someone open the front door and make sure no humans or animals are in the way

  7. Stand back and quickly open the toilet lids. Your now clean cat will rocket out of the toilet and out the front door, drying itself in the process

Sincerely, The Dog

A woman from a communist country explains liberty to a Canadian reporter