Snowflakes in Hell

The Brady Campaign asks why Starbucks allows customers to carry guns, but doesn’t allow employees. That’s a good question. I think they should allow their employees to carry if they are legally entitled to do so! But I have no plan to make that part of this debate. A restaurant can rule its employees have to wear a uniform if they want to, even though it would be absurd to demand the same thing of customers. There’s a difference between customers and employees. But you can blame a lot of this on lawyers.

The primary reason that businesses have weapons policies is CYA. Businesses are far less liable for the actions of their customers than they are for the actions of employees when on the job acting as agents of the corporation. This doesn’t have much specifically to do with guns, it’s just a general fact. Your company has far more liability issues if you get into an accident driving a company car on company business than they would be if you hit someone on the way to work in your own vehicle. That doesn’t necessarily say anything about the danger of driving. It doesn’t have to make sense to get a jury award. Juries are sucker for a sympathetic client and a big, rich corporation. If that wasn’t the case, John Edwards never would have been rich enough to pay off a staffer to take the fall for a baby he sired with his mistress.

It comes down to this. If a pizza delivery guy pops an armed robber, we’d all completely agree that he was acting in self-defense, and that such an act would not be a misuse of firearms. But suppose the family of the armed robber decides to sue the pizza shop? What if the pizza shop allowed their employee to be armed? Doesn’t that make the shop more liable? For a mom and pop shop, they probably value the lives of their employee (often a relative) more than they worry about being sued. They have insurance for that anyway. But for a large chain pizza joint, they have entire HR departments that fret and worry about how the company may get sued. They get blamed for stuff like that, especially if an HR policy, or lack of one, becomes an issue in a lawsuit. Corporate HR departments are risk averse and very eager to avoid blame for anything. Blame in a lawsuit is far worse than dealing with a dead employee, who quite honestly, has more of a case against the armed robber than they do against the employer. Corporate HR would also like to inform your family of the wonderful death benefit they provide for employees.

The fact is that the life of an employee means far less to a big corporation than than the possibility of a giant lawsuit, especially one that results in finger pointing at corporate headquarters. They might make a public face about being concerned about violence in the workplace, but the real concern is liability. Everyone knows that someone intent on violence isn’t going to suddenly remember the corporate policy and change his mind. That’s the elephant in the room. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is having a workplace violence policy that forbids employees from having effective means of self-defense shields the corporation from liability for an employee acting in self-defense. Dead employees are an acceptable sacrifice on that altar. You can blame lawyers.

Tam has a pretty good post on the subject. I have both a 20″ and carbine length AR. I shoot the 20″ more often because that’s what I compete with when I shoot CMP/high-power. I’ve shot a few practical matches with my carbine, but I would consider it my go-to gun in a home defense situation if I kept it at the ready. It’s the keeping it at the ready part I’ve never been able to bother with.

Maybe I’m just not all that committed to home defense, but it’s always been easier or me to rely on a pistol for those purposes. I have to remember to lug a carbine back down to the safe if I’m leaving home for any period of time, then to get it back out again when I return. While, I have home-defense-appropriate fragmenting ammunition for the rifle, unless it’s a seriously messed up situation where I have time to go downstairs and unlock the safe, I’m probably going to be using my Glock.

I’ve always considered a rifle or shotgun to be a pain in the butt to deal with for home defense. What solutions do you guys use that would that would allow it to be used for home-defense, but avoid the scenario where someone breaks into the house and steals it, or worse, uses it against the returning homeowners?

The Brady Campaign thinks they can compete on the grassroots front with us. It’s so naive that I think it’s kinda cute. This morning they put out a call to action on Twitter and Facebook asking their followers (a good number of whom are actually pro-gun) to go vote in a Wall Street Journal poll on whether Starbucks should cave and insert themselves into this issue. (Don’t follow the link @bradybuzz sent, it’s wrong. Use this one to vote freedom first today.)

Then a writer for Consumerist decides to profile the situation and only quote anti-gun leaders before putting up a poorly-worded poll about the issue. They claim the company has changed their policy to allow guns, but that’s not true. No policy has changed. However, they have still added a poll to gauge support for the issue. Here’s another chance to vote freedom first by choosing either the 2nd or 4th option – supporting the policy or don’t care and will buy anyway.

So if this is the game that Paul wants to play, let’s show him how it’s played. It will be a nice little preview of November.

The Alaska media reaction to the new National Park rule is predictable:

A new law went into effect on Monday that allows visitors to carry guns in national parks in the United States. But it won’t have much of an impact on Alaska because we’ve been able to pack heat in most of our national parks all along.

Actually, there were a few parks, like Denali, that prohibited firearms. But most allowed them. They humorously note, “If you can’t carry a gun into a national park in Alaska, where the heck can you carry a gun?”

They also note that discharge is still unlawful. No mention of whether a self-defense exception exists, but presumably you’d have that defense as a matter of common law.

Wyatt notes how the Philadelphia Police are responding to knife attacks against officers now. With hot lead. This makes me wonder what the policy was before? It’s extremely difficult to tangle with someone wielding a knife without getting yourself cut or stabbed. Wyatt mentions, “Take this as another example of ‘the militarization of the police’ if you will, but most of us want to go home to our families.”

When I think militarization of police, I think of things like this. Shooting people threatening others with knives should be standard procedure.

We notice more pant shitting hysterics from the media from yesterday in the Sacramento Bee, and from the Rock Hill, SC Herald, both of which think it’s trouble waiting to happen. Discovery News says it’ll make enforcement of poaching more difficult, and makes gun owners more likely to taunt a bison. Locally, the Chester County Daily Local News thinks guns in Valley Forge National Park is just an odd concept. Probably because they think hunting is what the Second Amendment is about, “People still aren’t allowed to hunt or fire their guns in the parks — so what is the purpose of allowing loaded guns into a national park?” then go on to describe why the Second Amendment is really just obsolete. The Kitsap Sun has roughly the same reaction. The South Florida Sun Sentinal speaks of how our founding fathers never would have approved of guns they couldn’t have envisioned in National Parks they couldn’t have envisioned, but then switches to saying guns in civilian hands just cause horrible carnage as gun toter after gun toter just kill each other in a confused frenzy.

All this even though none of this has happened anywhere else. It’ll happen in National Parks. Really. Just listen to the media.

Looks like this guy is in a bit of trouble. Apparently a McDonalds manager claims that he said :

According to police reports, the McDonald’s manager said that when she asked Dohmen to leave because of his gun, he tapped the holstered pistol and told her, “Bring it bitch.”

Dohmen denies that.

I think I’d be more inclined to believe his side of the story, because he seems to be more the pamphleteer type than something else. But his wrong was not immediately leaving when asked to. It appears he was overeager to convince this manager of her wrong:

Upon learning Dohmen was not a cop, Aldridge told him to leave because he couldn’t have a gun in the restaurant.

Dohmen says he replied that the law allows it, but that he also respects private property rights. He says he was preparing to get a brochure from his car to “further her understanding” when Aldridge told him she was calling 911. He waited for police in his car.

Once you’re asked to leave and don’t it’s trespassing. That’s not what he’s charged with, but he could be. I’m actually surprised the DA in this case hasn’t offered a plea to that.

In his report, Prosser Officer Antonio Martinez said he approached Dohmen’s car carrying his patrol rifle and ordered Gail Dohmen out of the car. When Officer Nickalas Letourneau arrived, Martinez took Dohmen’s pistol and ordered him out of the Audi. Letourneau then handcuffed Dohmen. Martinez wrote that Dohmen “was extremely verbal and was very upset I was taking the firearm from him.”

“I said, ‘You do not have my permission to do that,’ ” Dohmen said of the officer taking his legally carried, loaded gun.

Gail Dohmen, 63, said she was upset as she watched what was happening to her husband. She said she tried to grab Open Carry brochures from the car to give the officers but was told to move away or face arrest.

I would say making a move for the brochures is a move that could get you shot in a tense situation like that. How do they know you’re going for brochures? If the officer has his service rifle in hand, you’re best bet is compliance. You can sort out the right from wrongs when you get out of the immediate situation.

This is one of the big risks with open carry. I think this guy handled himself pretty poorly, given the circumstances. Most open carry people know better than this, but it’s the bozos who are going to end up in the news.

One of the sad facts, as we approach the day that the ban on firearms in National Parks expires, is that we have to listen to the hysterical machinations of the media. I’ve seen some bad ones, but this one from the Philadelphia Inquirer takes the cake:

Whatever the gun rights of law-abiding park visitors, having loaded firearms in the national parks certainly will change the experience for everyone.

Every day could seem like the start of deer hunting season with people strolling the parks armed. That has to be a frightening prospect for families and others who aren’t accustomed to being around guns. And there’s also the risk of accidental shootings.

Like the start of deer season? Because we’re just going to shoot our guns all over eh? Does the Inquirer staff not wonder why this isn’t a problem in state parks, where people can legally carry guns, and have been able to for a few years now? How many times do they have to make dire predictions, only to have them turn out to be gravely wrong? I think this more than anything has destroyed the credibility of the gun control movement in the eyes of the public.

People have always argued that openly armed individuals are a deterrent against crime, this case from Kennesaw Georgia would seem to bear that out. My opinion is that open carry would likely deter most armed robbers, who are more interested in cash than killing. Seriously violent individuals might just shoot first, but I believe those kinds of folks are a minority.

Not usually important for civilians who carry guns, unless you open carry. This article over at LawOfficer.com is an insightful treatment of the topic.

When someone puts their hands on your gun during a contact, [a fight to the death] is exactly what you must be prepared for. I testified to the fact that a suspect who touches your gun during a street contact has already demonstrated his intent. Weapon retention and ground fighting tactics do not include a measure of politeness. You must consider any disarming attempt a life-or-death situation. If you honestly feel your weapon retention and/or ground fighting training adequately prepares you for such an encounter, great. But if you have any doubts about your skills or abilities to maintain control of your duty weapon during an attempted disarming, resolve them before you next hit the street.

Not everything is applicable to civilian carrying, but at the least good holster selection and at least some basic retention training are a must if a civilian chooses to carry openly.

Eugene Volokh reports on an unusual law in Kansas that actually can make the punishment for brandishing a gun higher than if you actually shot someone, under certain circumstances. I agree with Professor Volokh that this is something Kansas groups should get the legislature to fix, pronto.

Looks like Wyoming is getting closer to passage. NRA is reporting that there is one hold up in Arizona, and normally pro-gun legislator that they are asking members to put some pressure on. This type of bill has been tried in Wyoming before and failed. To me Arizona is the bigger prize, since it has a major city.

As I’ve said before, the primary purpose of a concealed carry license is a signaling mechanism. In a world where police officers can immediately run a check on someone to find out whether they are prohibited from owning or carrying a firearm, that becomes increasingly irrelevant. It’ll be a long time before we see carry without a permit in Pennsylvania, but the cause is helped by other states with large cities running the experiment. We were ahead of most of the pack during the initial wave of liberalization in the late 80s, and maybe we will be again too, but it’s my take that Pennsylvania politicians are a bit more timid about this stuff than they are in other states that have a stronger pro-gun culture.

Even if the Crown Prosecutors aren’t willing to recognize legitimate self-defense when they see it, it would appear that juries in England are still willing to acquit when it’s appropriate. The shame of it is the man had to go through the expense and emotional trauma of a jury trial for doing the right thing. Even in a jurisdiction like New York City, I don’t think this would have been prosecuted here.

After all the hubbub about the “Florida Loophole,” Florida has finally release how many Pennsylvania residents have Florida CWLs:

This follows a Daily News article last week about a loophole in Pennsylvania’s gun laws that allows residents who are denied a permit or whose permit is revoked here to obtain one from Florida.

As of Friday, 2,651 Pennsylvania residents carried a Florida permit, said Terry McElroy, spokesman for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the agency that issues gun permits.

“We had to write a program but we did it,” he said.

Wow, no doubt those 2651 individuals in Pennsylvania (one of which is me) who have Florida licenses, are a horrible menace to the state, representing a whopping 0.02% of the population. I have no doubt the vast majority of these folks also have Pennsylvania LTCs, and, like me, hold a Florida license because it has reciprocity with many other states, including Delaware.

The Philadelphia Police and Prosecutors ran into one scumbag, and then hit the media like the sky was falling, and they bought it hook, line and sinker. This is a total non-issue.

SayUncle says that this isn’t helpful. I have to agree with Tam on this one, “Ten out of ten for enthusiasm, but minus several thousand for Thinking Things All The Fucking Way Through.” What I don’t understand is why folks in the comments, who say they generally support open carry, don’t support this. I have to applaud Packetman for at least being consistent. If there’s no problem with people open carrying a pistol, there’s no problem with people open carrying an AR-15. It’s just a matter of degree. Won’t it get people used to the idea of seeing guns in public? If you say no, then you admit that there’s time, place, and other contextual considerations at play here, in which case it’s fair to say that maybe those who think open carry ought to be legal, but perhaps isn’t effective or appropriate anywhere, anytime might have a point.

While the rest of the country is busy giving homeowners more leeway, it would seem the Buffalo, New York media is trying to stir a debate about whether home defense with deadly force should be allowed at all:

Cherry, a soft-spoken and polite Army veteran, said he was protecting himself from a home burglary at about 11:20 a.m. Jan. 21, when he fired 15 shots from a military-style assault rifle at the vehicle of a fleeing intruder.

OK, that’s a legitimate prosecutable offense, and the fact that it was his step-daughter probably isn’t going to play well in front of a jury. But this shouldn’t be a debate, and I see no reason to drag other, legitimate home defense cases in with this one:

• Willie J. Carson, 52, shot Parrish C. Spencer Jr., 22, in the chest Jan. 20, after the younger man broke into Carson’s 25th Street home and went upstairs, Niagara Falls police said.

No charges have been filed against Carson, but police have said the case has been turned over to the Niagara County district attorney’s office for further investigation.

• An 82-year-old Niagara Falls man, apparently scared and confused after a group of teens attempted to break into his home Jan. 15, fired one shotgun blast at police after they entered the home and found him hiding behind a closed door.

No one was hit, and the elderly man was not charged.

• Charles E. Gidney Sr., an off-duty Buffalo police officer, shot and killed one intruder, Reno D. Sayles, 36, and seriously wounded another inside his Buffalo home last April 22.

In his statement to police, Gidney said he grabbed his handgun, pointed it at the two men, one wearing a ski mask, and ordered them to “freeze.” Instead, they rushed at him, and he fired several shots, he said.

With the exception of the old man mistakenly shooting at police, all of these look pretty legitimate, even for New York. Fortunately, the Buffalo News goes on to describe the legal distinctions when it comes to using deadly force to defend the home. I think it’s OK for papers to cover this, but it’s not really a “debate” per se. I would find it hard to believe juries even in New York will convict people for shooting home invaders. Shooting at someone fleeing is a different matter.

Via MikeB, I hadn’t heard about this one. Apparently a guy took a shot at a dog who was charging him. Interestingly enough that he was following good advice:

Bennett said after he crossed the bridge over Markley Street on the way to the Norristown Transportation Center, he spotted a dog running free that was growling in a threatening manner and headed in his direction. Fearing he would be attacked, he fired at the animal with a Glock brand handgun.

Shooting at a dog or other animals threatening to attack a domestic pet or person is legal in Pennsylvania; however, as a precaution, Brooke took the man’s gun and pepper spray he was carrying.

The guy had his gun and spray returned to him. Pepper spray can be useful in these kinds of situations, but charging, angry dog probably isn’t one of them, if your goal is not to get bitten. Given where he was on the trail, I would be concerned the dog was either feral or dangerous myself. I think he made the right call, and obviously the police didn’t have a problem with it. If he had been bitten, you’d want a corpse they can test for rabies. Absent a corpse you go through a series of costly injections as a prophylactic measure. The only problem is that it’s very hard to hit a charging dog, as this guy found out, and unlike humans, an angry dog doesn’t know he’s supposed to stop when he gets shot. I’ve heard of stories of dogs taking multiple hits and still attacking.

It’s not surprising that people carry on the trail. I carried on the trail myself when I used to bike there. The Norristown through Conshohocken leg isn’t the best of neighborhoods, and attacks have happened. I notice also that they didn’t cite this guy for violating the county rule against weapons on the trail. Maybe they got the message that’s not enforceable.

Do innocent victims need to use professional public relations help? Apparently:

Edward “Eddie” DiDonato Jr., 23, is still in critical condition at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, where he’s expected to undergo his fourth surgery today, said Gina Furia Rubel, a close friend of the DiDonato family who is acting as their spokeswoman.

“The fact that Eddie is alive is a true miracle,” she said at a news conference held outside the Criminal Justice Center in Center City yesterday.

Rubel, who is also president and chief executive officer of Furia Rubel Communications, a local public-relations and marketing firm, said that DiDonato’s feeding tube has been removed but he still has “a long road ahead.”

Don’t get me wrong, I hope the guy recovers. But Gerald Ung deserves to be tried in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.

The possible self-defense shooting that happened outside of the Fox29 studios I reported a few days ago has a new interesting twist to it. Apparently the shooting victim is related to the Meehan family, which is a prominent Philadelphia family, one of whom is considering a run for Congress in the 7th District in Pennsylvania. That’s not going to help this guy any, that’s for sure.

Some of you might remember the case of a guy who was assaulted by some kids on the Schuylkyll River Trail while on bicycle, and took a few shots at them after they began fleeing with the legally licensed pocket 380 he was carrying with him on the trail. I covered this case here, here and here.

It looks like a month or so ago, he was exceedingly lucky to plea down to two counts of reckless endangerment, which is a class two misdemeanor in Pennsylvania, meaning it does not rise to the level of a disabling offense for firearms purposes. That said, I find it very unlikely any Pennsylvania Sheriff is going to issue this guy another License to Carry Firearms, using the “character or reputation” escape clause found in our permitting law. As I said, the circumstances, as they were conveyed in my final post, justified him drawing the firearm, but as soon as the kids started fleeing, the danger was over, and he wasn’t justified in shooting at them as they fled. He was lucky, in this case.

Two states now are in the mix with this issue, the first is Virginia, where the push began after the Roanoke Times published a list of all the permit holders in the state. Now that the legislature and Governor’s office are more friendly, we can finally get this done. Indiana has been in the mix for the past two months, and also is now floating a bill that would close public access to carry permits. This has to be one of the lamest defenses I’ve seen of the databases.

And what about the employer who recently fired a disgruntled employee? Shouldn’t that employer be able to discover the former worker now has a permit to carry a gun?

Public access supporters point out that gun rights advocates might be working against their own interests by shutting down access to these records.

How, for example, will they be able to prove that law-abiding citizens are wrongly being denied these permits if they cut off access to the information?

Because we know the law? Look, this isn’t a discretionary process. If you meet the qualifications, you get the permit. It’s abundantly clear if people are being denied permits unjustly. Plus, if they are denied, they aren’t going to appear in the database now are they? And why does an employer need to know whether someone has a permit to carry? Do people routinely get permits before coming in and shooting up the workplace? I mean, we can’t be carrying illegally on the way to murder people, can we?

Looks like the state is looking to make some improvements in the License to Carry application process, so make it more standardized and quicker. This looks overall positive to me.  We need more standardization. As it stands, our Sheriffs often like to use processes for application that are out of line with general practice in the state. For instance, Montgomery County gives you a “police card” to take to your local PD and get them to sign off on the application. They will do same day issue, but the process isn’t nearly well defined enough under state law, and more standardization I think can only be a positive thing.

I may be skeptical of open carry’s effectiveness as a public relations strategy, but I do support it being legal. But I find this bill in Utah to be rather odd, because it was my understanding that you could legally carry openly under Utah law with a Utah permit. This doesn’t seem to outright legalize open carry, as you would still appear to need a permit by language. Here’s what it does:

(1) An individual who is not prohibited from doing so by federal or Utah state law

(a) openly carry a firearm; and

(b) communicate to another person the fact that the individual has a firearm.

(2) If an individual who is carrying a firearm reasonably believes that the individual or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the individual may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force against the aggressor, including drawing or exhibiting the firearm.

It could be that the law is clarifying open carry is legal because of some practices by law enforcement in Utah. That’s entirely possible, in which case subsection 1(a) of this bill is worthy of support. I’m a little troubled by subsection two, however. I’m assuming here that Utah law is similar to other states, in that you have to be in reasonable fear of grave bodily injury or death in order to resort to deadly force. Utah, being a Western state, probably has no duty to retreat, but the standard for deadly force would still be that. Now the legislature wishes to create a situation where you can threaten, but not use deadly force. To me you’re either justified bringing deadly force into the encounter or you aren’t. What if you threaten, and then the guy charges you, like we saw here? Maybe your defense attorney can argue that once the guy charged you, the standard changed, and you were in fear of grave bodily injury or harm. But the law is often that if you create the circumstances by which you had to use deadly force, you can’t claim self-defense. It seems to me that if you’re going to introduce deadly force into a situation as a threat you should also be justified in using deadly force. I think if this passes, it’s going to get good people in trouble. Maybe I’m misunderstanding how self-defense works in Utah, but it seems to be they should sever the brandishing aspect of this bill and just push the clarification on open carry.

Looking at the video Fox provided, and based on the circumstances, it looks like it was multiple attackers. Lawful self-defense tends to be a very circumstantial thing, but based on what we see and have described here, this looks like self-defense to me. This guy needs to get a good lawyer, pronto.

I would also point out this is another reason to carry pepper spray. You want to have something between running and deadly force, and a defensive spray will put down your average drunk assholes who aren’t seriously committed to hurting you. Multiple attackers complicate things, and that’s the kind of situation it can be smart just to go straight to deadly force. But if you shoot someone who is unarmed, you’re going to end up having to answer in court, and that’s life-ruining expensive, as this guy is going to find out.

But based on the video, if I were on that jury, I’d acquit, unless there’s some other piece of evidence that demonstrates this wasn’t self-defense. Hopefully justice will prevail here.

UPDATE: On his docket sheet, looks like he’s being charged with carrying without a license, and carrying firearms on the streets of Philadelphia, even though he has a Virginia license which is valid in Pennsylvania. This is par for the course with Philadelphia. They will tend to pretend you don’t have a license until you prove it. His lawyer will get that charge thrown out, in all likelihood. Their hope will be that he pleads to one of the lesser charges, so he may learn his lesson that no one is permitted to defend themselves in the City of Philadelphia.

I was reminded of a topic I wanted to bring up by an e-mail from Jennifer, who’s husband is a custom holster maker. Most of us have gun holsters, and while I’ve gone through a few in my nearly decade of carrying, one thing I’ve noticed is that a good holster lasts a long time. I’ve banged it against door frames, crushed it sitting on it weird, and generally put them through a lot of stress and abuse, and they stand up to it.

My iPhone belt clips, on the other hand, all generally tend to be garbage. I go through one maybe every couple of months before something on it breaks. They are made of  cheap plastic, and are otherwise generally flimsy. Holster makers are good at making things that stand up to abuse. Why not make a really quality set of holsters for smart phones? There are a few challenges that I see. A gun is easy because you have a convenient handle to draw it from and can apply reasonable force to break retention. A phone still need to be retained, but you need some way to be able to remove it easily. It might take a more ingenious retention mechanism than a firearm. Second the phone screen needs protection. Gun finishes get worn from repeated holstering and reholstering. A screen on an smart phone can’t take that kind of abuse, so you’d have to at least felt line the side the screen is facing.

Still, I think there’s business opportunity for holster makers to get into the smart phone market with a product that can really take abuse, which is none of the crap I’ve seen on the market currently. Maybe the reason is people won’t pay a premium for a quality smart phone holster, but I would if it would last, and it was functional in its role.