Snowflakes in Hell

I was in the market for a new belt, so I got myself a Kydex Reinforcd Countour Belt.  First impressions are that it’s a very sturdy belt, that provides a lot of support for the gun.  I’m using it with my Infidel holster, with the 1.5″ belt clip mounting option.  There is one problem with this option.

The belt is pretty thick, so the Infidel clip has a hard time getting a good hold on the belt.  There’s not quite enough space for the belt to come up all the way against the top of the clip.  I almost spilled the gun out of it earlier tonight, because it managed to work its way almost off the belt.  Needless to say, me getting up, and the gun staying on the chair, would be a minor problem in public.

I diagnosed that the clip could probably stand to have a bit more room up where the clip fastens on to the holster, so I added a washer between the holster and clip.  This seems to have mitigated the problem.  Comp-Tac might want to consider adding a spacer option to their product for people with thicker belts.  Especially since their own belt seems to be thick enough to create this problem with the Infidel belt clip option.

Overall, Comp-Tac makes an excellent holster product, and I’ve always been pleased with the speed at which they get their products to their customers.  The Smarties they ship with their products are a nice touch too.  I’m very hard on holsters, and have broken a few of the Pro-Undercovers in my time, but so far the Infidel is a solid product.

UPDATE: It just occured to me what was really exacerbating this problem.  I carry a 4:00, and wear LL Bean jeans.  LL Bean puts their leather patch right at 4:00, which increases the thickness of the jeans greatly.  Presumably removing the patch would also work, but I will still stand by my request for a spacer option to deal with the problem of thicker belts/clothing.

And update to the case we talked about last week.  The man shot by a senior citizen homeowner during a home invasion has died from his wounds.

The homeowner has not been charged, Mohel said.

“The investigation is continuing,” he said.

A homeowner, when under the “reasonable belief” that force is immediately necessary to protect himself or others against the use of unlawful force by an intruder, can shoot, said Ronald F. DeLigney, First Assistant Ocean County Prosecutor.

A sixty six year old man, within twenty one feet of a much younger thirty one year old man who had unlawfully entered his home?  In most states, this is the only evidence that would be necessary for prosecutors to rule it justifiable.  Even in Pennsylvania, where technically there is a duty to retreat inside your home (but not from your home), no prosecutor would take this case forward because you won’t find a jury that’ll convict a homeowner of shooting a home invader.  Yet a week later, the Ocean County Prosecutor isn’t sure, even though it’s pretty obvious the man was in the homeowners dwelling unlawfully, and at a distance where he was an immediate threat.

UPDATE: According to this article, he’s retained Evan Nappen as his attorney.

Steven Hunter has some great advice to Washington DC residents who are now able to, at least in a small way, exercise some of their second amendment rights.

Yesterday we told of an elderly New Jersey man who shot an intruder in his home, and the County Prosecutor had indicated he might have to seek an indictment.  In Pennsylvania, we had a case of a concealed carry permit holder shooting an attacker.  York County District Attorney says:

Police and the district attorney say Fenitman used justifiable force, but it’s still hard to come to terms with, and he’s gone to a psychiatrist to help him deal with the emotions that come with taking a life.

And this was a case on the streets of the concealed carry permit holder intervening on behalf of a woman who was being beaten.  There’s something in the water in New Jersey, I’m telling you.

If you need the police in the United Kingdom, the police will get to you, maybe, in three hours if it’s really important, but three days if it’s not.  But not to fear, they say they won’t automatically prosecute people who defend themselves now.  It kind of makes you wonder if someone in Jolly England breaks into your home and attacks you, if it wouldn’t be better to just shoot the bastard, and bury him in the back yard.  I mean, it seems you’d have plenty of time before the police showed up.

Another law abiding gun owner defends herself.  As a side note, it would seem the weather isn’t the only thing that’s hot in Austin.

Richard Fernandez links to an interesting article in The New York Post, describing Al-Qaeda’s Plan C:

In a notable departure from past al Qaeda strategy, Naji recommends “countless small operations” that render daily life unbearable, rather than a few spectacular attacks such as 9/11: The “infidel,” leaving his home every morning, should be unsure whether he’ll return in the evening. Naji recommends kidnappings, the holding of hostages, the use of women and children as human shields, exhibition killings to terrorize the enemy, suicide bombings and countless gestures that make normal life impossible for the “infidel” and Muslim collaborators.

Try this crap here, and we’ll get the 72 Virgins Dating Service doing a brisk business faster than you can say Allah Akbar.

Apparently the Atlanta Airport has decided it’s above the new law passed by the Georgia Legislature, and signed into law by Governor Perdue.  One of the reps who was behind the whole effort was Tim Bearden:

“I have a permit, and I have family I have to pick up at the airport tomorrow [Tuesday],” Bearden told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Monday. “I’ll have one [a concealed weapon] with me at all times.”

Airport General Manager Ben DeCosta said if Bearden shows up at the world’s busiest airport with a gun, he’ll be busted.

“I can identify him, and I’ll have him arrested,” DeCosta said Monday. “We’re not fooling around. This is a post-terrorism environment.”

Mr. DeCosta is setting himself up for a Section 1983 suit in federal court.  If I were Representative Bearden, I wouldn’t hesitate to sue this arrogant power hungry SOB into next week.  It seems to me that tyranny doesn’t have that much sense these days, which is good for us.

For joining the ranks of law abiding gun toters.

There are many different stories around the blogosphere today highlighting this phenomena:

Law Abiding Gun Owner one

Law Abiding Gun Owner two

Law Abiding Gun Owner three

Law Abiding Gun Owner four and five

Just a few days ago, a friend of mine who lives in Philly, and is licensed to carry, got threatened by three youths with a Taser.  Believing there was no way this was going to end well, he drew his pistol, muzzle pointed toward the sidewalk.  The miscreants decided that Glock beat Taser and beat a hasty retreat.  No one was hurt.  My friend called 911, but the police never showed up to take a report.  Keep in mind this city has had a rash of people getting beaten up in random acts of violence.  Yet the Brady’s want to continually deny that there are real law abiding gun owners who have a legitimate concern about personal protection, and who aren’t dangerous or irresponsible with firearms.

A guy at a seattle folk festival, who probably shouldn’t have had a concealed carry license in the first place, commits aggrevated assault, among other things on a few people.  The response from the Mayor of Seattle?   City employees can no longer carry on city property.  Yes, collective punishment for an individual misdeed; the hallmark of a free society.

Apparently a few tavern owners don’t like the fact that Kansas eased restrictions on carry in taverns, even though it’s unlawful to be above the 0.08 legal limit and carry a firearm.  One has to wonder why they aren’t concerned about people coming into their establishment, drinking, and plowing into a family minivan on the way home.  Drunk driving is a far greater social problem than people with concealed carry licenses carrying while intoxicated.  It seems to me if we allow people to drive at 0.07, it’s unreasonable to suggest they are too intoxicated at that level to successfully handle the much simpler task of using a firearm should they need to defend themselves.

Sometimes the media can be fair to us.  They are very right about this statement:

Most of the time people don’t notice Jensen’s gun. That’s not uncommon, said John Pierce, a law student and computer consultant in Virginia who is a co-founder of OpenCarry.org.

“People are carrying pagers, BlackBerrys, cellphones,” Pierce said. “They see a black lump on your belt and their eyes slide off.”

I’ve often had people ask me why I carry, like it’s some kind of great burden.  In most cases, people just have a gut reaction to the idea.  It’s not that they are afraid, though some are, it’s more that they tend to assume “Well, normal people don’t do that.  Why would anyone want to carry a gun around with them?”

Reality is I find a gun to be far less of a burden to carry than a cell phone or a Blackberry.   For one, the gun doesn’t bug me regularly to pay attention to it.  It’s a passive device.  For two, I can’t count the number of cell phone clips I’ve broken by clipping it in doorways or againts walls.  I’ve had my Glock do the same, and I think the doorway is getting damaged before the Glock.  It’s made to last.  Thirdly, I don’t have to worry about whether my Glock is charged sufficiently to make it through the rest of the day, and I’ve never had to scramble around looking for an outlet because it went dead unexpectedly.  Of course, if the Brady Campaign gets its way, we’ll all be carrying around smart guns that barely work and has all the same burdens as a cell phone.

The electronics we carry around are quite a burden if you think about it.  A gun, comparitively, doesn’t see much day to day use, but if you do need one, you really need one, and I’ve always been one to err on the side of caution.

Hat tip to Eric for this incident in Holland:

At a fashion show to promote tolerance of gay people on April 30, a national holiday in Holland, celebrating the birthday of the late Queen Juliana, a group of ten Muslim youths dragged gay model Mike Du Pree down from the catwalk, beating him up and breaking his nose. A second model who tried to help out was also attacked.

Our gays can shoot back. If I see a bunch of violent thugs of a proportedly peaceful religion beating up on a gay guy in broad daylight on a public street, I can too.

Another good reason for Delaware to adopt right-to-carry.

Well, it’s issued to a retired cop, but I guess it’s a start.

… it’s the size of your sausage.  I can see the confrontation with law enforcement now:

Cop: “Sir, I notice you’re carrying a knife.  Do you have a sausage on you?”

Me: “Why yes, and I can assure you, it’s of sufficient size and variety.”

Cop: “I’ll have to ask you to show me the sausage.”

Me: “What, right here on the street?”

Cop: “If it’s of the size and variety to justify you having that knife, then you have nothing to worry about sir.”

Me: “Oh, it’s big enough alright.  A might bit larger than most people carry, I’d wager.  When it comes to sausages, I only carry around the best.”

Cop: “Well, they say it doesn’t matter how big it is, it’s what you do with it, and what you do with it better be cutting it up, or I’m taking you in for that knife.”

A fallen empire, indeed.  And it’s a pity, I think.

UPDATE: Bonus reaction from cop “Don’t play hide the salami with me sir!  Let’s see it.”

You’d definitely see a picture of these two guys.  I have to agree with Dave.  I’m not counting on anyone’s lack of shooting ability to save me more than enough time to return fire.

Wyatt points out a rather good article in Townhall about police shootings.  This stuff applies to anyone who has to use a firearm in self-defense.  Police aren’t the only ones that get subject to 20/20 hindsight by people who don’t know much about these matters, so go have a read.

Actual text of the bill is here.  Basically it allows you to verbally announce you’re armed to an attacker, allows a transition from concealed to open carry when under threat of physical force (not necessarily deadly physical force).  It also would appear to allow you to draw into the ready position under threat of physical force.  Based on a quick review of Arizona’s criminal statutes, it doesn’t appear to be unlawful to draw a gun on someone as long as you’re justified in using deadly force, even if you don’t have to shoot.  Arizona’s self-defense statute would appear to remove self-defense as a justification if you are responsible for escalating the confrontation.  So a question I would have is, if you draw one someone threatening physical force (not deadly physical force), and they don’t back down, then what?  They are threatening physical force, you’re threatening deadly physical force.  If you end up shooting him, do you lose justification?

First I’ve heard of this is from Dustin’s blog.  If he had succeeded in carrying out his mass shooting, any doubt this would have made national headlines?  Also of note that in most states, bars are gun free zones.  In Nevada, they are not.  Yet somehow, someone managed to think clearly and take action, at a place where we’re told that people won’t act responsibly.

And it doesn’t register as a blip on the national news.

According to Dave Hardy, Napolitano has vetoed two gun bills.  The first:

Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed legislation Tuesday which would have allowed individuals to draw their weapons in cases where a reasonable person would believe it is necessary to protect against the use or attempted use of physical force.

I have to say, I agree with the governor on this one.  Unless you’re justified in using deadly force, your gun should stay in its holster.  For situations like the one described here:

“You wait ’til the big 6-foot-5, 280-pound guy knocks you on the ground and incapacitates you before you can tell him, ‘I’ve got a gun,’ ” he said.

“If that big guy threatens you, the next thing is he’s going to hit you,” Pearce explained, at which point “it’s too late to say anything.” He said Napolitano missed the whole point of the bill.

There’s already force disparity defenses to deal with that situation if you have to use deadly force on someone much larger than you, even if the offending party doesn’t have a weapon.  Fists can be considered deadly weapons under some circumstances.  One reason I think carrying OC [self-defense spray] is a good idea is because it’s useful for getting out of a physical altercation where deadly force wouldn’t be justified.  While I agree with eliminating duties to retreat, allowing people to bring deadly force into a situation that has not yet escalating into that grave a situation seems like a bad idea.

The other bill Nepolitano vetoed was this:

Napolitano separately vetoed another measure Tuesday which would have made state-issued permits to carry a concealed weapon valid for the owner’s lifetime.

Little reason to veto this, since most state law enforcement agencies are monitoring criminal records of license holders and will revoke if you do something that makes you unqualified.  The renewal is just a hoop to jump through so everyone can feel better.

UPDATE: It seems I may be misunderstanding Arizona law here.  In Pennsylvania, we have no law against brandishing a firearm.  If you pull a gun on someone, and don’t use it, you’re not liable if the bad guy beats a retreat or backs down, as long as the circumstances that caused you to draw was a deadly force situation.  Folks are suggesting that’s not the case in Arizona.  If Arizona law does punish for drawing, but not shooting, then that would seem to be something that should be fixed.

UPDATE: After looking at Arizona Revised Statutes on Justification, I’m not sure I was misunderstanding it.  I have more information and questions here.

I first became aquainted with the knife rights movement at the annual meeting last year in St. Louis, and took one of their buttons.  I don’t see any reason why knives shouldn’t be considered personal arms, protected by the second amendment, and Pennsylvania’s right to bear arms provision.  Joe Huffman has a pretty good post up about this here.

Pennsylvania’s knife laws are, for the most part, fairly lax, but our state law prohibits switchblades:

Pa. C.S.A. 18.908. Prohibited offensive weapons.

(a) Offense defined.–A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if, except as authorized by law, he makes, repairs, sells, or otherwise deals in, uses, or possesses any offensive weapon.

(b) Exception.– It is a defense under this section for the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he possessed of dealt with the weapon solely as a curio or in a dramatic performance, or that he possessed it briefly in consequence of having found it or taken it from an aggressor, or under circumstances similarly negativing any intent or likelihood that the would be used unlawfully.

(c) Definition.–As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

“Firearm.” — Any weapon which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.
“Offensive weapons.” — Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge, any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or otherwise, or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

There’s an exception for law enforcement, and for people who have complied with the requirements of the National Firearms Act for the firearms provisions.  State law allows for carriage of a knife as big as you want, as long as it’s not a switchblade.  The only problem is, there’s no preemption for knives, so local ordinances can apply.

It’s a silly law.  A knife is no more dangerous because it is actuated by a button or spring mechanism than if I can open it with one hand, but case law in Pennsylvania has ruled that a knife that can be flicked open by wrist action after releasing a lock is not covered by this law.

Except to defend against double murderers.

Ninth Stage commenting on my earlier post about interrupting dinner:

“I’m armed and so are dozens more here.”  Sounds like the opening line in a takeover robbery.   I’d be checking for a clear backstop in preparation for shooting the assclown before I heard another word.

Heh