Open Carry: Something Different

For those of you who have ever read my blog, you’ll know that I’m a huge advocate of concealed carry. The ability to protect and defend your life is priceless and sometimes the ability to have that insurance hidden pays dividends.

I currently reside in a state where open carry, e.g. on the hip, unconcealed, etc. is legal. I have tried to open carry a time or two but have never really enjoyed the experience. All of that changed for me last night when I attended a local meeting where local “open carriers” met and talked about their experiences, legal rights, etc.

It was a new experience to put on a holster I typically only use to practice at the range with (as it’s a demon to conceal) and walk into a large restaurant with 30-40 other people all wearing their gun in plain sight. To my surprise, not one law enforcement agency was summoned by someone eating there, management had given us permission to come, and it was a lot of fun to exercise a 2nd amendment right out in the open! With all of us in one place, I have to say it was the safest building in the state!

So now for a little background. In conversing with people the conversation usually goes like this:

“Open carry? Like cowboys in the old west?”

“Yes, except now with modern equipment, training, responsibility, etc.”

Modern open carry got its start in the pioneer and old west days of America. Firearms were a part of daily life, a tool like a hammer for building or repairing except better suited for fending off would-be outlaws, wild animals, and Indians. While the crime rate in 19th century America was lower in general, Dr. Roger McGrath of UCLA asserts that the murder, robbery, rape, and other violent crimes of today were kept at bay due to the prevalence of firearms1.

Today, open carry continues to be a hotly debated topic amongst gun owners as some feel that concealed permits only entitle a carrier to do just that-carry concealed. A common phrase found on gun forums is, “concealed is concealed. No one needs to know about it.” People on the other side of the debate contend that open carry is not only a right, its a crime deterrent and not something to be feared.

As for the Loneranger, I’m more apt to carry open in some instances. I haven’t completely gone over to open carry as there are still plenty of institutions that can ask me to leave if they know I have a gun and it can result in a hassle with law enforcement officials who are not familiar with state laws. Open carry is coming around. People are becoming more accustomed to seeing firearms and learning to recognize the good guy from the bad but we still have a long way to go.

1. McGrath, Roger D. (1987). Guns, Highwaymen and Vigilantes: Violence in the Old West. ISBN 0-5200-6026-1.

Texas Castle Doctrine - The law: word for word.

I’ve had multiple requests for the actual text, summary, or analysis of the ‘Texas Castle Doctrine’ [SB 378] that went into effect on 9/1/2007. What results below is a summary of the bill, the analysis of the bill, and the word for word copy of the bill as it passed.

[Summary of the Bill]

Legislative Session: 80(R)

Senate Bill 378	Senate Author: Wentworth et al.
Effective: 9-1-07	House Sponsor: Driver et al.

Senate Bill 378 amends provisions of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person. The bill creates a presumption of reasonableness for the belief of a person who takes such action that the use of force or deadly force to protect the actor was immediately necessary and provides that the presumption would be reasonable if the actor:

1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force or deadly force was used unlawfully and with force entered, or attempted to enter, the actor’s home, vehicle, or place of business or employment; unlawfully and with force removed, or attempted to remove, the actor from the home, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or was committing or attempting to commit certain serious crimes;

2) did not provoke the person against whom the force or deadly force was used; and

3) was not otherwise engaged in certain criminal activity at the time the force or deadly force was used.

The bill provides that an actor who has a right to be present at the location where the force or deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at that time is not required to retreat before using force or deadly force.

Senate Bill 378 also provides immunity from civil liability for a personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force to a defendant who was justified under the law in using such force or deadly force.

[BILL ANALYSIS]

Senate Research Center S.B. 378

By: Wentworth et al.

Jurisprudence

6/25/2007

Enrolled

AUTHOR’S / SPONSOR’S STATEMENT OF INTENT

In 1973, the 63rd Texas Legislature imposed a duty to retreat in the face of a criminal attack, permitting the use of deadly force only if a reasonable person in the situation would not have retreated. This, in effect, placed the burden on the victim to retreat in the face of an impending lethal attack and reversed what had been the longstanding practice of recognizing the right of a person to stand his or her ground in the face of an attack. In 1995, the 74th Texas Legislature created an exception to the duty to retreat before using deadly force in response to an unlawful entry into the habitation of the actor, but the duty still applied in any other location where a lethal attack might occur.

Under Chapter 9 (Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility), Penal Code, a person is justified in using force and, in some instances, deadly force to repel an aggressor. In deadly force situations, the person must reasonably believe that the force is immediately necessary to protect his or her person from the exercise of unlawful deadly force by the aggressor or to prevent the imminent commission of an aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Current law provides an affirmative defense to a civil action brought by an attacker for damages for personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force, but only in cases involving home invasions. As a result, a person who justifiably uses force or deadly force outside of the home and is not guilty of any crime may still be open to a civil action filed by the criminal or the criminal’s family.

In addition, the Texas Penal Code contains no presumption of reasonableness in defending a home, vehicle, place of business, or place of employment against unlawful intruders. Instead, Texas juries must decide after the fact whether a victim’s actions to protect the victim and his or her family were reasonable or necessary under the circumstances.

S.B. 378 explicitly states in law that a person has no duty to retreat if the person is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be present, if he or she has not provoked the attacker, and if the person using force is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used. In addition, the jury is instructed to presume that the victim’s actions were reasonable if the victim brings forth evidence that he or she is entitled to the presumption, unless the state can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, the bill expands the existing affirmative defense to a civil action brought by an injured criminal attacker or his family to apply to any force or deadly force conduct authorized by Subchapter C (Protection of Persons), Chapter 9, Penal Code.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

This bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, institution, or agency.

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1. Amends Section 9.01, Penal Code, by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5), to define “habitation” and “vehicle.”

SECTION 2. Amends Section 9.31, Penal Code, by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f), as follows:

(a) Provides that an actor’s belief that the use of force was immediately necessary is considered reasonable if the actor did not provoke the person against whom the force was used, was not engaged in certain criminal activity, and knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used unlawfully and with force was committing or attempting to commit certain acts, did not provoke the person against whom force was used and was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than certain Class C misdemeanors. Makes nonsubstantive changes.

(e) Provides that a person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used is not required to retreat before using force, provided that the person has not provoked the person against whom the force is used and is not engaged in criminal activity.

(f) Prohibits a finder of fact from considering whether the actor failed to retreat when determining whether an actor reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, for purposes of Subsection (a).

SECTION 3. Amends Section 9.32, Penal Code, as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. Deletes existing text relating to whether a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would have not retreated in determining justified use of deadly force. Makes conforming and nonsubstantive changes.

SECTION 4. Amends Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as follows:

Sec. 83.001. New heading: CIVIL IMMUNITY. Provides that a person who uses force or deadly force justified under Chapter 9 (Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility), Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s use of force or deadly force, as applicable. Deletes existing text relating to an affirmative defense to civil action arising from the use of justifiable deadly force.

SECTION 5. Makes application of this Act prospective.

SECTION 6. Effective date: September 1, 2007.

S.B. No. 378 [Word for word as it passed - Underlines indicate text that was struck or reworded in the bill]

AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

______________________________ ______________________________
President of the Senate Speaker of the House

I hereby certify that S.B. No. 378 passed the Senate on March 13, 2007, by the following vote: Yeas 30, Nays 0.

______________________________
Secretary of the Senate

I hereby certify that S.B. No. 378 passed the House on March 20, 2007, by the following vote: Yeas 133, Nays 13, one present not voting.

______________________________
Chief Clerk of the House

Approved:

______________________________
Date

______________________________
Governor

All of the above text is courtesy of the Texas Legislature Online. The exact articles can be found here.

When lightning strikes: Carrying a concealed weapon 24/7

I recently viewed a training DVD for employees and students entitled, “Shots Fired: When lightning strikes.” The 20 minute video helps trainees learn to recognize an active shooter situation and take action. The DVD explains that while no one wants to think about a shooting where they work or attend school it is an unfortunate possibility. The DVD goes on to explain that the odds of an active shooter scenario occurring in your work place are equivalent to your odds of getting struck by lightning, hence the title.

I took something else away from the comparison: if you have made the decision to obtain a concealed weapon permit then you need to carry the weapon 24/7. Unlike weather forecasters who can track and predict weather patterns with some degree of success, you and I can’t know when we will need to defend ourselves or our loved ones. No one can predict the day lightning will strike them, the day they will get in a car accident, or the day they may actually need their concealed weapon and so we live right, buckle up, and strap up every day.

I hope that none of us ever has to shoot someone, but if someone does something to threaten my life or the life of my loved ones I will meet that threat with all of the force necessary to eliminate it. I saw a video clip of a commercial airline pilot talking about training in the post-9/11 world. He recounted how someone asked him when things in airports and airplanes are going to return to “normal”. His answer? “There’s a new normal.”

You and I can’t pick the date on the calendar when bad things will happen so train hard, stay safe, and pack everyday.

New Ruger SP101 - Courtesy of Uncle Sam

Like many of you, we received our stimulus check and promptly put it back into the economy. My wife and I had been wanting a gun that she could enjoy shooting but something also worth defending the home with while I’m at work.

Enter the Ruger SP101 chambered in .357 magnum: Strong enough for him, balanced just right for her. We looked at many revolvers and had initially settled in the S&W 642 in .38. After doing some homework on the internet, I didn’t want her to have to deal with trying to tame such a light gun. So after several trips to local gun shops we found the Ruger to be just right. Many of you are aware that you can fire .38’s from a .357 which makes it great for her and if I choose, I can throw in some .357 and knock down a bear or two.

Last night we took the gun out to the lake with some friends and set up a series of targets using 9″ styrofoam plates and colored 3″ x 5″ cards. I hadn’t fired a .38 in years but was happy to find it has very mild recoil and is actually a lot of fun to shoot. My wife loved shooting it (which is the most important part) and was a pretty good shot! The best part about this gun is that it just disappeared with an IWB holster under a light button-up shirt!

I changed out the stock grips for a nice set of Hogue grips which dampen the recoil even further and allow the shooter a full hand of control. The gun felt every bit as strudy as I had read about while not being too much. The gun still fits it a pocket but carries enough weight with it’s short barrel to be more accurate than a snubbie might otherwise be. All in all it’s a great gun that knows how to work but also likes to play.

Weapon Retention and Disarming

I recently took a course on weapon retention and disarming. Not only was the class an eye opener, but I spent the better part of four hours taking a beating. I highly recommend that anyone who carries a firearm for work or for personal self defense enroll in one of these classes.

People may ask, why do I need to take a class like this? If you carry a firearm and you are in a confrontation, the suspect will have access to at least one gun, YOURS! Professional criminals and terrorists TRAIN HARD and long to be able to disarm armed personnel like us. You must be able to defeat them.

Many people will say “I would just shoot him!” Since most confrontations occur at arms reach, there will not be time to draw and present your weapon. You will have to be able to defend your weapon, retain control, disengage and shoot as needed.

I have attached some pictures from a recent event in California which illustrates the point. The subject was acting suspiciously on a state highway. A Highway patrolman approached him to ask what he was doing. He immediately ATTACKED the officer. A violent struggle ensued with the trooper, a deputy, and an EMT trying to prevent the officer from being DISARMED. Note the magazine on the ground from the troopers Smith & Wesson 4006. His weapon is now non-functional with the magazine out. The trooper employs classic retention techniques and is able to maintain control of his weapon.

Cops get shot all the time with their own guns. They wear retention type holsters. Most of us who carry concealed do NOT. Our retention skills must be excellent since we are out in public and anyone who can spot our gun, can try and take it.

The class I took was comprehensive and as mentioned before-very physical. I learned how to defend my weapon in the holster from the front, back, sides, and on the ground as well as how to defend my gun when it is grabbed from the front, back, and sides. Probably the funnest part of the course was learning how to disarm someone who has a gun-or worse yet-your gun but is within reach. I came home with bruises that I wore for a week but also lessons I’ll not soon forget.

Oh, and that guy who tried to get the California Highway Patrolman’s gun?

Busted.

Scores killed, Hundreds injured as Para-Military Extremists Riot

BOSTON, April 20 - National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimated that 72 were killed and more than 20 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices.

The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons. Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early April between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms. One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned their weapons over voluntarily.”

“Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

During a tense standoff in Lexington’s town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces overmatched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor has also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.

A more detailed and accurate account can be found at Wikipedia, The Battles of Lexington and Concord

The original article appeared here.

Critical thinking: a lost art.

As I was reading through some articles on Survivalblog.com, I came across an interesting post by Mark B. In it, Mark made an interesting point:

“Remember that we started out without clothes and shelter. We started out without the ability to communicate over great distances without traveling them. We can now travel and communicate in space or around the planet all because we use our ability, our brains and by the choices that we make.”

We all come into this world with almost nothing. We lack the ability to really communicate, or even survive. Yet somehow we learn, we learn to learn, and we adapt. Somewhere in the downward spiral of society we’ve forgotten how to think for ourselves. As long as nothing gets between us and the drive thru at McDonalds most people never take their brain off autopilot, sticking to their daily routine like clock work. I don’t believe that society as a whole has lost it, but the ability to think critically-to rationalize, analyze, and weight the validity of the information we’re fed-is waning.

How many people actually participate in elections anymore? How many people know their party’s platform? How many people actually know how their representatives vote on a regular basis and more importantly, how many people actually know what the legislation is that is being voted on? The media feeds us quaint sound bites of legislation here or there and how’s its good or bad for us(depending on how it fits their agenda) and we’re often told that something will be for our good or for the good of the whole.

Noah Webster once said that, “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority,” [but] “the Constitution” he added, “was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” Ben Franklin added that, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.“

Far too often we fail to think; We fail to engage our brains, do a little research and truly think about the implications of what we’re learning. I’m not talking about turning on CNN and buying in to what they say, but actually doing a search or two on a topic and getting down to the facts, formulating your own opinion and going from there. As Americans we’re far more content to hear about “that new book” than to read it for ourselves and learn the heart of the message, digest it for ourselves , and assimilate it with our beliefs and morals.

Hang with me for a moment, I’m getting to my point. Our guns won’t be taken away from us in a day. Those who would have them are much too clever and surreptitious for that and most Americans would never put up with the seizure. But, take away our guns one at a time through restrictions and bans? Absolutely? Demand registration of all your arms? You bet! First its the “assault weapons”, then they’ll limit types and quantities of ammo. Next, your handguns will be too dangerous and before you know it your little old skeet shotgun will be history as well.

Think about who you support and why. Think about the issues that are important to you and why they’re important to you-be it self defense or the environment. The people who represent you affect your daily life-not only today but for years down the road. Stay abreast of the issues and legislation that affects you. Educate yourself, engage your brain, and be involved.

So…who is the LoneRanger going to vote for?

This pre-election season has been a very taxing one for me. I’ve looked over the candidates high and low and have had to watch one right after another fall out until I’m left with 3 choices I don’t like.

When it became apparent that McCain would represent the Republican party I was practically outraged. I don’t like him. I sided with many other conservatives who vowed to vote for Hillary or Obama just to spite McCain and let him know that he didn’t represent me or my values and would not have my support.

But then it dawned on me: I’d rather have someone leading us who I can agree with 50% of the time than someone I agree with 10% of the time. McCain may not be my choice, but at this point he’s the least of the three evils and depending on his choice for VP, may turn out to produce a decent showing come November.

McCain may not have a stellar voting record when it comes to firearms, etc. and his ideas regarding Gitmo, etc. bug me but he’ll be so much easier to mop up after than what Hillary or Obama will hose us with.

Take home message: If I had to vote today, McCain would get my vote. Not because he’s great but because sometimes taking one on the chin is better than getting knocked out.

A change of course

I’ve decided that I started this blog with the intent of communicating my thoughts on 2A, RKBA, CCW, etc. While my frequents posts of new paper articles, etc. share- what I believe to be- information that most people wouldn’t otherwise hear much about-it’s time to get my voice out. And so I’m going to try something new:

30 Posts for 30 days. For the next 30 days I will start my post with a self-defense-related quote and share my opinion from there.
Today’s quote: “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.” John F. Kennedy

I’m reading entitled, 1776 by David McCullough. It’s a look at the Revolutionary War and the people on both sides. I’m enthralled by the portrayal of the heroes who, against insurmountable odds stood up for liberty. In stark contrast to the stalwart giants I am reading about are the common fodder I am encircled by. I read article after article in newspapers across the country and I continue to be dumbfounded by Americans. Where did the America I love go?

When did we trade the American dream? When did we start short changing ourselves? When did morals and values cease to mean something? When did the black and white of right and wrong turn to shades of gray? When did we give up accountability and personal responsibility?

While there exist some inalienable rights, I do not believe that the preservation of my life by someone else is one of those rights. George Orwell said, “that rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” Americans should be ready to defend themselves at all times. In saying that, I don’t mean that we should all run around, ready for trouble around every corner-thats lunacy. But I do think that every home ought to have a firearm to protect it’s occupants. (Author’s side note: Lock your guns up to keep to kids, etc. safe and teach them to absolutely never ever touch a firearm when you’re not around.) I also think that far more people should have a concealed carry permit. Permit holders will vary in their daily carry. Some people carry everywhere its legal everyday, some would just like to keep a gun in their car. Either way, we all need to take back responsibility.

During World War 2, Admiral Yamamoto advised, “You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” I firmly believe that this was a key part of our survival and eventual victory in that war. Sadly I don’t think that that could be said of us today. We need to take back our freedom and push fear back to the corners of life.

Obama should apologize!

Obama Should Apologize For Insulting Millions Of Armed Citizens

——————————————————————————–

NEWS RELEASE
OBAMA SHOULD APOLOGIZE FOR INSULTING MILLIONS OF ARMED CITIZENS, SAYS CCRKBA

BELLEVUE, WA - Democrat Barack Obama on Tuesday insulted millions of legally-armed American citizens when he told a Pennsylvania newspaper that concealed carry poses a threat to innocent people, and he should immediately apologize for that remark, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Senator Obama, quoted by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, admitted, “I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

“American citizens have been responsibly carrying concealed handguns for years in 48 states,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, co-author of America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age, published by Merril Press. “These citizens go through background checks, and in some states complete required training courses. Statistically, these armed citizens are far less likely to ever be involved in a crime than average citizens. They have stopped crimes. They have sometimes aided police officers.

“Senator Obama,” he continued, “should not confuse legally-armed, law-abiding Americans with inner-city thugs, gang-bangers and other criminals who carry guns illegally. Thanks to a revealing 1996 questionnaire bearing Mr. Obama’s handwriting from his days as a candidate for the Illinois Senate, it’s clear he has the good guys confused with the bad guys.”

That controversial questionnaire, which Obama originally claimed he never saw, contained answers to questions that indicates he opposes capital punishment and criminal prosecution of juveniles as adults, is against mandatory sentencing and supports “alternative sentencing.” He supported a ban on handguns and semiautomatic sport-utility rifles, and mandatory waiting periods before Americans could exercise their constitutional right to own a firearm.

“Barack Obama ignorantly believes that legally-armed Americans are as reckless and irresponsible as the criminals with whom his political sympathies evidently lay,” Gottlieb said. “He has been insisting for months that he supports the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, but here he is now campaigning in Pennsylvania, stating essentially that he would prefer Americans not exercise that right.

“Legally-armed citizens are also voters, Mr. Obama,” Gottlieb stated, “and you have outrageously insulted every one of them. You owe these good citizens an apology.”

-END-

The original article appeared here.