Front page

It's not every day my pee jokes make an article on the front page of the paper.

A group of Adopt a Highway volunteers were packing more than trash along the shoulder of Minnesota 55 in Mendota Heights on Sunday morning.

With legal guns on their hips, a dozen area residents spent nearly three hours picking up litter — everything from cigarette butts to blown-out tires — along a 2-mile stretch of the highway just east of the Mendota Bridge. It was the inaugural event for the group, which registered with the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Adopt a Highway program under the name Minnesota Carry Permit Holders.

Space Invaders

Well done...

...and sexy.


via PDB.

Reluctant Participant, defined

In Minnesota, case law requires that you must be a reluctant participant in a self defense situation. You can't go out looking for a fight. Unfortunately, this concept is very misunderstood.

From a conversation here.

"Reluctant participant" doesn't mean you have to be dragged into the fight kicking and screaming. Defense of another means that the other can be reluctant for you. Reluctant participant is probably more accurately described as "did not provoke or escalate". The law [in Minnesota] specifically allows lethal force to be used in defense of another.

From Prof. Joe Olson:

Many on this board don't understand that "reluctant participant" is not the legal test, it's writer's shorthand (which even I've been known to use). So you tend to over emphasize that element.

What you can't be is an UNLAWFUL aggressor. Other states with more developed self-defense statutes make this clear [by using terms such as "did not provoke" the fight]. So does the case law.

Asserting your minor daughter's right to free from unwelcome physical contact is perfectly OK. Ordering them to stay away from your family is OK. Those are mere words. But, the father could have physically pushed her assailant away. Lawful use of force is not legal "provocation."

We tend to forget that "non-deadly reasonable force" can be used too. Minn. Stat. 606.06 says this:
Quote:
609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Subdivision 1. When authorized. Except [by a criminal against a cop], reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
***
(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or ... .


The young thugs chose to respond with unlawful force. Then THEY escalated to deadly force (the multiple assailant attack on the man down).

After the multiple-assailant attack began, the father absolutely could have defended himself if he had anything with which to do so (such as a gun). A nearby permit holder, reasonably perceiving that the victim was facing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm (as 7 or 8 young thugs kicked the shit out of him) would have been authorized to use protective force, including deadly force. According to the criminal charges, the victim suffered skull fractures and possible bleeding on the brain which ARE injuries capable of causing death or GBH.

Crime Rates

In response to the comments on this post:

Last year, there were 162 crimes committed from a pool of 56919 permit holders in Minnesota. That's a 0.28461497918094133769040215042429% crime rate. Of those 162 crimes, only 10 involved a gun, that's 0.01756882587536674240148280890388%. Violent crimes made up 40 of the 162, keeping in mind that only 10 of the 162 involved guns, that about a 0.07% crime rate.

Legal gun owners are self-selected to be the most law abiding group in existence. There is no demographic with a smaller crime rate.

That said, most gun control and all gun registration laws in the US have specific exclusions for felons. Requiring a felon to register a gun he can't legally own would be a violation of his right against self-incrimination, so he's not required to do so. That means, for the dense, that gun control is aimed solely at law-abiding gun owners. Criminals are never, ever the target, regardless of the rhetoric.

Gun control is about control, not guns.

Business

More here.

Book Review - Protecting the Gift: Keeping Children and Teenagers Safe (and Parents Sane)

I finished reading Protecting the Gift: Keeping Children and Teenagers Safe (and Parents Sane) by Gavin de Becker last night and feel obligated to review it.

The first half of the book is great. It's not terribly groundbreaking, when considered as a sequel to The Gift of Fear, but it's a good book, especially for a parent worried about his or her children. There is a solid focus on prevention and trusting intuition.

The second half of the book has a different focus. Starting with the chapter on guns, Mr. de Becker abandons the premise of prevention and starts pushing an agenda. Instead of using intuition to avoid problems, he pretends that inanimate objects are the cause of society's ills. At one point, he derides gun owners for trusting their intuition in dealing with potential criminals. Apparently, in the author's mind, the most effective form of self defense in existence has a magic switch in it that kill intuition and critical thinking.

The author spends countless pages parroting bad studies published by the most biased groups available and actually pokes fun at the idea that guns prevent violent crime. The hypocrisy is entertaining, because the author owns a security company that employs armed guards. If guns don't help, why does he require them?

Further, the author advocates more government intervention, at any hint of a sign of trouble to an extent that would make any liberty-loving individual twitch. Child abuse is horrible, but the methods must be followed, or we'll soon be allowing all government intrusions.

In short, read the first half of the book, and a couple of the appendices, then put it on a shelf. The second half of the book is pushing for big government, no effective means of self defense and sweeping laws based on statistically minuscule problems and relying on benevolent government intervention.

Daayuuum

The slow-mo instant replay of the two balloon hits is still faster than I can shoot accurately.

Another conversion to the Nation of Rifle(wo)men

It begins like many....

I have been anti-gun all my life. When my sons were little, I wouldn't allow them to ever own a toy gun. But events in the past few years have radically changed my views. It starts with September 11, 2001.

Followed by several years of horrible acts committed by horrible people.

This part about the Beltway sniper got to me:

One day I said to her, “I’m glad you feel safe on the bus and in the school, but what about when you’re walking between the bus and the school?” I will never forget her answer, and neither will you. She replied, “The teachers line up between the bus and the school, and we walk between them.” I just started crying as I typed that. Those defenseless teachers had no way to protect the children other than to put their own bodies between the students and any potential bullets.

Finally:

The tragedy at Virginia Tech was the final straw. I was not going to be a victim anymore. My children were not going to be victims anymore.

I took my first gun safety class, and I got my first concealed carry permit. Some people may be surprized that I have changed. I am surprized that some of them haven't.

Read the rest. It's worth it.

Women on Target

On Saturday, September 13th, I volunteered to help with this:

Women On Target is designed to create more hunting and shooting opportunities for women. There are currently about two million American women who hunt and an additional four million who enjoy target shooting. These numbers are steadily increasing.

If you'd like to ...

• Learn how to safely handle a firearm
• Learn about safe storage options for your home
• Learn about modern or historic firearms
• Learn in the company of other women
• Learn in a safe, friendly environment
• Learn about competitive shooting and hunting basics

... then Women On Target^® is right for you!

And a good time was had by all.

44 women got to try dozens of guns...shotguns, handguns, Evil Black Assault Rifles capable of loading themselves and going on solo rampages...with the help of 10(?) instructors.

Not only is it a blast to teach eager new shooters, but this is grass-roots level activism at its best. These women will most likely never vote for a gun control advocate, now that they've been thoroughly exposed to these "evil" inanimate objects. This is the best way to spread the gun culture.

The women had fun, the instructors had fun.

A big thanks to Rick and Jan for setting it all up, headaches and all.

From Rick:

A few pictures.

Jan took over 60 and of course we cannot post all, so not all of those that helped will be shown, but here are a few anyway.

selurcspi watching closely

Pricewally helping with the basics

Tracy working the AR-15's and spotting on the steel

Matt getting the lady to dust the clays

Don L working the revolvers

The whole gang

It was very worth doing.

I recommend it for all women. For $20 you get get premium, one-on-one instruction, and an opportunity to try dozens of guns.

I recommend it for all instructors. There's nothing better than teaching an eager beginner how to shoot. Except, possibly, teaching an eager female beginner how to shoot. Times 44.

For all of the people claiming the presidential candidate matters due to judicial appointments, I bring you the Supreme Court, their stance on the Heller decision, and their appointing president:

Justice	Heller Stance	Appointed by
Ruth Bader Ginsburg	Dissent	Bill Clinton
Stephen Breyer	Dissent	Bill Clinton
David Souter	Dissent	George Bush, Sr.
John Paul Stevens	Dissent	Gerald Ford
Anthony Kennedy	Affirmed	Ronald Reagan
Clarence Thomas	Affirmed	George Bush, Sr.
John Roberts	Affirmed	George Bush, Jr.
Samuel Alito	Affirmed	George Bush, Jr.
Antonin Scalia	Affirmed	Ronald Reagan

Half of the dissenters were appointed by Republicans. This was a 5-4 vote with 7 Republican appointees on the court. How can we count on McCain to appoint a conservative justice?

DC v Heller Decision Summary

So, to summarize:

In a stunning upset, the Supreme Court has ruled that "The People" does, in fact, mean "The People", and, amazingly, "shall not be infringed" means, more or less, "shall not be infringed".

Shocking.

SCOTUSBlog, Part IV

My comments from around the world:

First:

I just got done reading the majority opinion. IANAL, but here is my take:

It is an individual right, but not an unlimited right.
Absolute bans are out.
Trigger lock or disassembly requirements are out.
Guns are allowed to be kept in usable condition.
Licensing is ok(not addressed in this decision), but as long as the applicant is not a prohibited person, the registry has to be open. DC can NOT refuse to register a handgun if the applicant can legally own it.

Another thing to remember, this was planned to be a narrowly defined decision from the moment it first hit the court system. The respondents were carefully chosen, and they conceded some controversial issues, just to avoid losing on those grounds. Licensing was conceded during orals, to avoid a ruling on those grounds. The sole point of this entire case was to get SCOTUS precedent stating the 2A is an individual right.

And:

This is a foundational court case. There is now unambiguous SCOTUS precedent stating, very clearly, that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

The fight moves on. Expect dozens of court cases over the next few years to further define the right.

We won a battle, the war is hardly over. It was, however, an important battle.

And:

DeanC wrote:Awww crap

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

This isn't bad. Because Heller conceded, this issue was not addressed. There is NO SCOTUS opinion on the constitutionality of registration. It's open for another case.

Highlights from Heller

But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

SCOTUSBlog, Part III

The opinion is available here.

Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Thursday, June 26th, 2008 10:14 am | Lyle Denniston | Comments Off |

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.

SCOTUSBlog, Part II

Davis v. FEC: reversed and remanded.

Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County: affirmed and remanded

Tom Goldstein - The Morgan Stanley opinion holds that FERC was required to apply the Mobile Sierra presumption. There, everyone knows what they came here to find out.

Funny guy.

The Heller Decision:

Tom Goldstein - Heller affirmed.

10:13
Ben Winograd -

The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.



Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.
10:13
Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.

Full opinion with nuanced results will be forthcoming. In the meantime hell yeah!

SCOTUSBlog

I'm watching the SCOTUSBlog Liveblog of the Supreme Court decisions being released today. There is a poll with some interesting results:

Are you a lawyer(18%), a law student(14%), or neither(69%)?

How many guns do you own? 0(27%) 1(6%) 2 or more(63%)

Why are you here? Heller(96%) Other(4%)

The vast majority of the people watching are non-lawyer gun owners there for the Heller decision.

Take that, Brady.

New shooter

Eight days ago, my wife gave me our third child. Our oldest(8) has been a wonder, helping with our middle child, changing diapers and helping Mom with anything she needs. He has also been interacting properly with waitresses at restaurants and holding doors open for strange women, unprompted.

So, with all of this evidence of maturity and responsibility, I decided it was time to take him to the range. He needed some personal attention. I needed time with my son. It was time for a milestone.

We brought a Keystone Crickett and a Browning Buckmark. I bought the Crickett two years ago, in anticipation of this day, and the Buckmark came home a few days ago, in recognition of it.

We went to a popular indoor range, but I timed it right. The only other customers were another father and son a few lanes down. I ran him through the operation of the Crickett and let him at it. He was able to keep them all in the black at 10 and 20 feet. The Buckmark was, naturally, a bit less accurate for him, but he did keep every shot on the paper. There was a definite moment of pride watching him observing the safety rules, while hitting his target.

After the first magazine through the Buckmark, he asked if he could shoot the rifle again. After 100 or so rounds through the Crickett, I told him we could leave if he was tired, and he said "No way". He couldn't wait to tell his grandparents about his trip to the range when they came to see the baby. He is looking forward to visiting Grandpa, in a few weeks, so he can shoot pop cans, instead of paper.

Mother and new daughter are doing wonderful.

Food Donation Challenge

I find myself a team leader in a food donation challenge for a local gun board. I'm really not sure how that happened, but so be it.

There are two teams, self-selected. Each team will donate food or cash(to be converted to food), and the team with the most donation, by weight, at the end of June, wins bragging rights, and the right to choose the food shelf to receive the donation.

Scary gun guys, feeding the hungry.

Details here, if you're interested.

Reason #47852 to Own a Gun

MADISON, Wis. — A college student apparently called 911 from her cell phone shortly before she was killed but a dispatcher hung up, failed to call back and never sent police to investigate, authorities said Thursday.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353938,00.html